Bye Bye Paper ??

Now that e-readers and e-paper are finally beginning to trickle into the market-place, what are the key issues surrounding these developments and where could this all lead?

It's now been 2 years since the second generation of E-Reader devices hit the market. The past year has seen several additions to the line-up including; Amazon's Kindle and an updated Sony E-Reader. These devices may herald the transformation of the publishing industry, as e-books can be downloaded and updated with these devices, consumer's and scholar's can effectively have their book collection or more significantly the world's libraries on the palm of their hand's.

What's so 'special' and significant about these devices is the incorporation of 'E-Ink' displays. E-Ink, unlike LCD or LED displays, are not back-lit. A kind of 'electronic ink' gets rearranged to form words and pictures as the user switches pages. The technology allows improved readability and reduced eye-strain, in addition to much improved battery life as compared to LCD. The technology promises to marry many of the benefits of a traditional book with the advantages of computers and the Web.

Now that the technology has gone to industrial scale production and sales are 'slowly' creeping up, the market is forming to allow further innovation, proliferation and price reduction. In essence, the cogs in the E-ink machine are slowly beginning to turn. Just recently, a German factory in Dresden (Plastic Logic), went into operation turning out a 'newspaper' version of the technology alongside the 'EBook Reader' devices already in 'circulation'. These devices’s, (the technology still in its infancy), will eventually supplement, and may one-day even replace traditional newspapers. Developing technology and industry growth in this sector means we may inhabit a predominantly 'paperless' world in the not too distant future. A world in some ways reminiscent of that portrayed in Spielberg's film, 'Minority Report'. The devices 'currently' are only available in black and white, other short-comings currently exist such as memory, processing power, battery life and connectivity. However, down the road, it is envisaged that such devices will form part of the 'ubiquitous' web, with multi-coloured screens, multi-media capability and live updating of content. Furthermore, the amount of content and functionality of these E-Reader devices will drastically improve. The latest generation already allow for underlining and note taking of text, in the not too distant future, continual updating of e-books, user's contributing through discussion of passages, as well as enhanced functionality such as automatic summarisation and correlation of note-taking etc, will undoubtedly be forthcoming.

There are a few significant issues which ought to be explored in light of this. Firstly, how environmentally sustainable will such an industry be, as opposed to the paper industry? What will the total environmental footprint be in manufacturing and disposing of these devices? We have already seen from existing computer and electronic manufacturing, that this footprint can be significant. Hundreds of parts, manufactured using harmful chemicals, flown in from around the world to an assembly site before being shipped back around the world; represents industry norms at present. This is before we factor in direct and indirect energy, water and waste by-products. We must also question the short life-cycle of these devices (in a capitalist society) as well as their disposal and replacement. In sum, there is the need to scrutinise and improve the environmental credentials of the electronics industry from cradle to grave. The European WEEE (waste electrical and electronic equipment) directive goes some way to steering the industry in a positive direction.

Certainly the traditional paper industry has environmental shortfalls with much room for improvement. Even with the growth of E-Paper replacing paper, it must be recognised that packaging presently consumes half of all paper produced. Up to 40 of total municipal waste in the US is paper based. Paper production has been cited as accounting from anything between 20% to 40% of global logging and is one of the most water intensive industries requiring c.20 thousand gallons of water per ton of paper. Concern also exists about the degree of wood logging from non-'farmed' forests, particularly in developing countries. This is in light of global paper consumption increasing at over 3% annually into the foreseeable future. On a positive note, recycled paper accounts for about c.40% of total paper used globally, though in some western countries; recycling rates have hit 60%. Thus, there is enormous scope for overall improvements in paper recycling, and in reduction of packaging. With the advent of e-paper, significant environmental benefits may be added by reducing paper use, if an environmentally sustainable electronics industry emerges to supplement it. One that in aggregate outweighs the benefits of recycled paper. In any event, the push and pull factors of e-paper and e-readers looks set to increase!!

There are also other issues that must be considered alongside environmental concerns. Advertising currently subsidises the newspaper industry, can a model be developed that ensures the devices themselves are subsidised so that the gap in information inequality is not increased? Technology has the potential to increase equality by improving access to more information by all sectors in society, but without foresight, technology can also act as a barrier in terms of cost, awareness, understanding and 'computer literacy'.

We must also ask whether more information is better information or even needed information. Are we becoming a society of superficial information junkies? Research has shown we increasingly 'flicker' through content rapidly on the internet, prepared to trawl through a number of articles in order to grab snippets of interesting or relevant information without spending the time trying to get a more in-depth understanding of particular topics. The emergence of E-paper devices may continue and expand this trend for better or worse. With such an abundance of easily retrieval information available, it may seem increasingly difficult for individuals to 'filter' and 'process' the abundance of information. Thus, how will all this impact us psychologically in terms of attention span, memory and behavioural traits? There is belief that it will lead to increased selectivity and 'differentiation', meaning readers can increasingly become selective about what content they wish to know about, perhaps at the expense of democracy and the 'public good'. It is a well known phenomenon that individuals have a tendency to selectivity, choosing information that's agreeable with their prior knowledge, sometimes adopting theories about things which favour preconceived biases or conclusions. Existing Paper formats cover a wide range of content from politics, social issues to economic and lifestyle issues. Individuals 'paying' for a newspaper may be more inclined to read from a wider range of stories and view-points, in-turn having a more rounded knowledge of current-affairs and everyday reality as a result. With E-Paper, users will eventually be able to choose what content (and by whom) they wish to receive by page or even by column. Thus, research which ascertains the information behaviour of e-paper users seems timely.

Ending on a positive note, the maturation of e-reader devices may have enormous benefits for scholars and consumers alike. It certainly means increased access and availability of high quality content. With access through a library portal, students will no-longer need to visit the library for text books; there will be no such thing as limited availability. There will be enormous easing of 'friction' in terms of time and space, as books become almost instantaneously retrievable, illiminating the time and journey involved in accessing content. Furthermore, unlike books on a shelf, e-books don't degrade and can't be defaced. Students and consumers may have automatic updates; newer editions may be factored into the 'purchase' or 'rental' price of content. With online accounts, e-readers that get lost or stolen will not mean the need for repurchasing of content. From this we can gage that the role of the traditional library may change in light of this new model. The issue of 'trust' may become more crucial as 'library portals' and 'publishers' (being gatekeepers of information) may be viewed increasingly like brands, some 'brands' trusted more in terms of providing filtered reliable high quality content.

Finally, where does this leave the traditional book, newspaper and magazines? Notwithstanding the likely negatives in terms of cost and environmental credentials of the paper industry, it seems likely that paper will continue to play a role in our lives long into the future. The vast proportion of information may become solely electronic but; key texts, magazines and fictional works will likely remain in print as well as electronic format. Changes in the academic journal sector in the past 20 years indicate such a possible scenario. Individuals will likely still place emotional value on physical copy. Filled book-shelves may be an expression of personality, an indication of status, or provide a feeling of tangible ownership. The feel and smell of the book, the linear arrangement of text, the ability to personalise, flick through pages; all these unique features are known to aid memory. Books can also provide spatial reference and association of information, provide emotional comfort and value, as well as convey a sense of permanence. Thus, the future it seems may be principally electronic, but reports of the traditional newspaper or book’s death, are greatly exaggerated!!


Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.

Real Palin interview versus Saturday Night Live

Like many who caught the latest Palin sketch on Youtube, I was both highly entertained and shocked by the uncannyness of the impressions and the content of the sketches. But, whats even more shocking is how similar the sketch is to the real interview in both content and form;

Check out the sketch first at;
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/couric-palin-open/704042/

Now have a look at clips from the real interview;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txfqWzGMgmY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg&feature=related

I think the clips speak for themselves....

Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.

Youtube funnies to check out!

Here are three youtube videos that have come my way recently...

The first is an uncanny and hilarious impersonation of Sarah Palin on 'Saturday Night Live';

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXvbwiXqQm8


The next came to me from a friend after my Kraftwerk gig on saturday night;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXNZ4BntQN4&feature=related

and finally, thanks to my favourite secretary, check out this bizarre 'Ninja Cat' video;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muLIPWjks_M

Enjoy!!

Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.

A musical tribute to RTE Newscasters....

Check out this bizarre musical tribute site to RTE newscasters:

http://www.myspace.com/songsaboutrtenewscasters

Worth a listen, but quickly becomes old and irritating....

Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.

Electric Picnic 2008; the verdict

To give my quick rundown of 'Electric Picnic', detailing my high's and low's, read on...

After hauling myself and dragging my stuff to and from this year's 'premier' festival, here's my take on Ireland's largest annual 'picnic':

Firstly, a big 'Yes' to 'Ginderman', 'Josh Ritter' and 'Santogold'. Yes to 'Cut Copy's' live gig despite their recent albums' scrappy and disjunctured mixing. Yes to 'The Herbaliser', to 'Franz Ferdinand' and to 'Elbow'. Yes to 'Sigur Ros' but 'No' to their lack of uptempo tunes on the set-list. On a 'more' subjective note; CSS really 'sucks', the poor sound quality killed 'The kills', we yawned and promptly escaped from 'The breeders' and woe there funkastic 'Chromeo'; too slow!!

On to food and drink: Yes to 'Taco-man', to marshmallow dunked 99's in M&M's Cafe, to 'Fine burger' (half pounders) and to 'Moon' fries. 'Here here' to the 'Farmers Market 'and to a general abundance of quality cake. Yes to 'Motion Lotion' (Buckfast mixed with Cider), to lashings of Brandy and to 'Pear Kopperberg'. A thankful yes to sunny weather, to colourful clothes and people. Yes to free 'Lyons' Tea and cadbury flake, to 'Chai Tea' with flapjacks and to 'Mad-hatter's Tea Party'

Sorry but 'No' to knacks with getto blasters banging out 'Scooter' in the campsite. Of similar note, 'No' to some 'illfitting' Oxygen blow-ins. No to lengthy complaining and 'detailing' of toilet experiences. No to lack of bins, lack of showers and at times a lack of sanitation. No to tea shirts entitled; 'IPOOD'. No to penis graffiti art on tents and EP property. No to careless urinating anywhere and everywhere. Yes to some good sober fun; to 'Lucent Dossier', 'Fausset's Circus', to spinning swings, to the outdoor arcade and its fire dancing performers. Yes to choice theatre, art and crafts, to cinema, comedy and 'talk' tents. Yes to the 'turf cottage' and to other santuary chill-out haunts in 'Body and Soul.'

Yes to the 'Temple of Truth' and its symbolic burning, but a big 'No' to “Burn the f*&King thing already” chants from indifferent as said Oxygen blow-ins. Yes to 'Live Food demo's' in 'Body and Soul' with accompanying free sunday roast dinners, barbecue and desserts. Yes to random erupting 'dance offs', to spontaneous 'Tower of London' quicksteps and to strangers random acts of kindness.

No no to incessantly 'loud' and boisterous lager louts at 6am onwards in the campsites. Nay to careless parents with their lost wondering kids. No to wasps descending on Stadbally from across the country. 'No' to long traffic holdups on the friday approach and mud stranded cars on the monday exitous.

Yes Yes to metal clad campsite pavements, Yes to gazebo's equals 'taken' ground. Yes to quality fairtrade, organic and locally produced food, but 'No' (as usual) to excessive food prices and other acts of 'gombeenism'. Yes to underbearing Gardai presence and lack of trouble at the events. Yes to variety, variety, variety, with plenty on offer all weekend. Yes to 'Bodytonic', trance music and 'silent disco'. Yes and 'Oh No' to friction free spending opportunities galore. A resounding 'Yes' to the people, the staff, the performers and the overall spectacle of the 'Electric Picnic'. And finally a big grateful 'Yes' to 'Electric Picnic'; once again worth every dime...


Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.

The things Clinton did not say

A measured response to Hilary Clinton's speech from Michael Tomaskey at 'The Guardian': http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2008/aug/27/hillaryclinton.democrats2008

Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.

Chinese Games: Overall opinion and analysis

You've got to give it to the Chinese, they know how to put on a show!! A spectacular opening ceremony and equally dazzling and epic closing ceremony wowed China and the World. Overseen by renowned director 'Zhang Yimou'; an 'artful','grand' and 'unparalleled' display captivated its audience, China's spectacle clearly signified the ambitions of a nation.

The ceremonies and the buildings showcased the heights of human capacity as well as the level of sophistication with which technology has reached in the 21st century. But in all of this dazzle, we must ask the question; can we separate art and the aesthetic from the moral? Many commentators on the 21st Century have noted how we live in an increasingly schizophrenic world, is this such an example? Can we appreciate the 'esthetic' knowing the circumstances from which it arrose? or should be shun this spectacle, and cynically denigrate this episode of human history? Thus, how should we think about the games?

The Chinese Olympics passed flawlessly thanks to; human rights abuses, the brute willpower and (what seemed like) unlimited financial means of an authoritarian state. Protests around the world ensued prior to and during the games commencement; the argument being that the Olympic Games and its audience had served to legitimise for China the means through which these games came to fruition, as well as the climate from which these games took place. This being a sad case of the end justifying the means. How could we celebrate these games and its grand ceremonies, when to do so; we vindicate, commend and at best only admonish the Chinese State; in turn fueling the internal propaganda accompanying the spectacle and strengthening it's 'Raison d'être'? Was there a better alternative? Perhaps to Shun the games in protest?

Here are some points for consideration:

In the past I've worked with a number of Chinese people and was always struck by the enthusiasm and conviction they displayed for their country, all seemingly assured that China would gain planetary hegemony in the years to come. Though we might argue in the west that such minds have fallen prey to repetitive propaganda and restrained freedoms relative to the west; we cannot ignore that a significant proportion of Chinese felt proud of their country and it's hosting of the games. As millions of Chinese lay glued to their TV, thousands upon thousands contributed to the organisation, performances and hosting in varying capacities. Though a top down approach, success resulted from the hard work of the Chinese people. Overall, it seems we have to acknowledge their allegiance and more significantly; we must acknowledge and commend the fruits of their labour (however misguided we feel they are).

We must also recognise there have been positive as well as the negative consequences for china. For example, Road, air transport and other infrastructures improved greatly for many parts of Beijing and beyond. World class sporting venues were erected of benefit to chinese athletics. The west learned more of China as China learned more of the West. Internet restrictions were laxed during the games in view of visiting journalists, though we must question whether this will last? The world drew focus on despicable human rights abuses in China, as well as ethnic divides among Han, Tibetan and Uyghur factions, will political good come of this? Up to 1.5 million Beijing citizens were evicted from their homes to facilitate construction, authorities initiated hidden and untold human rights abuses in Beijing to ensure the games were a success. Thousands of performers heavily drilled daily for up to 2 years in advance of the games, the mammoth cost of preparation being something they shall not easily forget. It is in times like these that the character of an authoritarian state is revealed to its citizens and to the rest of the world, we may feel saddened and helpless when it occurs but we can only but hope that change can result as a consequence. What seems clear is that we simply cannot predict or direct the unintended positive and negative outcomes which result from the Beijing games, whether the positive will outweigh the negative or vice-versa is a matter of time. To take an extreme and narrow view on this episode of history at this stage would be foolish and unwise.

Overall, what the West can do is to 'lead by example'. 'Acceptance' is key here. Let us acknowledge and commend the Beijing Games. That does 'not' mean we shouldn't cast a critical eye over precedings or that we should be affraid to issue deep concern and advice to the Chinese people; we simply need to work with the system as well as to challenge it. To do otherwise would fuel bitterness and anamosity towards the West from those who 'know no better'. We need to build bridges to affect change not direct distain and blanket criticism.

In all of this, an argument can be made that the games were a real triumph for sport itself. The world celebrating sport and prepared to dedicate so much time, energy and resources serves to emphasis that humanity can trump sport above economic considerations. China's economy wound down for the Olympic games as other values gained prominence. Though we must recognise the increasing economic ties and economic justification with hosting such games, the games and its athletes won the hearts and minds of countless million spectators. They provided 'in themselves' great joy for Chinese people and the world.

Given that I've explicated points for consideration in how we ought to think about the China games, lets return to and reiterate the central guiding question here; how can we appreciate art and the asthetic dimensions of life given the moral and cognitive dimensions to which they are bound? Paradoxically it seems, to dismiss the aesthetic dimension in such a case, 'is' to act schizophrenically. That is to say; to deny or paint our very senses, our innate appreciation for beauty; is to truly become internally turmoiled. It is in recognising our paradoxes that we reconcile our paradoxes. Our appreciation of art does not take away from our moral fibre or our reasoning. Let us feel one thing but to think and speak another, that is what it can be to be human afterall...

See article: 'China's Totalitarian Games' ; http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/08/24/chinas_totalitarian_games/

See article; 'The price of the Chinese Olympic Games'; http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-olympics26-2008aug26,0,4466878.story


See article; 'Beijing Olympics London 2012 handover blow to British pride.'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/london2012/2614357/Beijing-Olympics-London-2012-handover-blow-to-British-pride.htmlCopyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.

Free audio lectures download.

I came across this site several months ago and thought I'd share it! It's a site aggregator for recorded public affairs lectures. There are a few I've listened to thus far which are particularly appealing and which I'd recommend:
1. The Natural State.
2. The Stuff of Thought: Language as a window into human nature (Very funny too!!!)
3. Darwin Days 2008: Are We Changing Evolution?
4. We-Think: the power of mass creativity
5. The Logic of Life
6. The New Politics of Identity
7. Culture in a time of Waste

The site link follows : http://uc.princeton.edu/main/

Enjoy!!


Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.

Suggested reads: The Agile Gene

The Agile Gene: by Matt Rigley

I suggest anyone with particularly determist views about genes and DNA should carefully read this book. It serves as a compelling counterclaim to the ludicris notion that genes 'determine' your physical and in some ways mental makeup. Essentially the argument put forward in the book, 'The Agile Gene' is that your life, your environment; influence gene expression. Environment triggers active genotypes. Thus, your genes express and are an expression of your mind and environment. Whats interesting is that Rigley's thinking seems consistent with 'the santiago theory of cognition' proposed by Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela and the 'conceptual framework' for understanding life proposed by Fritjof Capra in the 'Web of Life'.

Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.

Smoking increases Stroke risk in women, analysis of news coverage!

Today, a flurry of news articles pick up on new research released which purports to 'show' smoking doubles stroke risk in young women, with heavy smokers nine times more at risk of stroke. This is just the latest in what seems like a bombardment of news reports on new research findings claiming to 'find this' or 'that'!

Certainly, as research studies on certain phenomena accumulate with peer 'overviews' undertaken; a better indication and understanding of 'causations' can come about. What's objectionable however, is the rush by news agencies to inadequately report on single research findings without providing accompanying limitations and critical analysis of such findings. Rarely do I see an adequate summary of the method used. The vast majority of readers are not trained in epistemology and the philosophy of science. Is it a case of news agencies (locked in an audience battle) wishing to overlook such realities in order to grab audience figures? Or it it just a case of scrappy and absent minded reporting? Take this latest research on smoking and stroke risk, out of several news articles published today (Reuters, efluxmedia, irishhealth etc), little to no proper analysis of the findings accompanied such research. Thus, here is my take on it:

It does seem compelling that smoking increases 'risk', we can point to the physiological changes such as those noted by Dr. David A. Meyerson from Johns Hopkins University Bayview Medical Center; "Smoking disrupts the cells lining the blood vessels. It increases blood fibrogen levels, which makes blood more likely to clot. It increases the stickiness of platelets, the cells that form blood clots, and it also decreases the body's natural clot-dissolving mechanism." (Meyerson, 2008)

But it is important to note, the research does not indicate whether smoking participants have similar diet and fitness levels to those who do not smoke. Thus, is the overall profile of smokers different to non-smokers? I suspect it could be! The research focuses on age and ethnicity but no other genetic/psycho/socio/environmental factors are mentioned in the reports which would play a role in risk assessment. Overall, the research may certainly indicate smoking increases 'risk', but figures such as 'double' or 'nine' times an increased risk of stroke; are ostensible at best.


For a research paper critically evaluating scientific claims, see http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124&ct=1



Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.

How to rake a fortune, comment!

Clive Aslet concludes an interesting article in the Sunday Times Magazine with the words, ' Someone who can devise a crop yielding not only protein (to eat) but ethanol ( to drive the car) and fibre (to make your clothes) while requiring less nitrogen, phosphate and water to grow, will make a fortune. Oh, and save the world too' (Aslet, 2008)

What Aslet failed to consider is that such a crop already exists; Hemp!!

Stupid me!! I'm now realising Aslet was finishing the article with a rhetorical question!

Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.

Analysis of discussion on reintroducing third level fees!

Are we unduly focusing on Government funded education without positioning it amongst wider budgetary constraints?

The discussion on reintroducing third level fees has certainly begun. But has the debate gone wide enough? Are we unduly focusing in on third level education funding without orientating the debate amongst wider budgetary issues?


The discussion on reintroducing third level fees has certainly begun. Over the weekend, Noel Whelan of the Irish Times writes;

'It was also argued then and can be argued even more justifiably now that free third-level education is socially regressive because it requires all taxpayers to subsidise a level of educational attainment which by its very nature will always be enjoyed disproportionately by the wealthier classes'

Colm argued that third level education is disproportionately enjoyed by wealthier classes but we must acknowledge too they disproportionately fund education. Similarly Mark Coleman from the Independent laments that the present system unfairly favours the middle and wealthier classes.

'But the main indictment of abolishing fees was that it never achieved what it was supposed to -- getting young people from low- income backgrounds into college. Ten years after abolition, the profile of third-level students remains strongly middle class.' (Coleman, 2008)

Essentially, back in 1993, restructuring of third level funding away from individual college goers and their families towards the general taxation system took place. Thus now, education is funded through the myriad of taxation mechanisms aimed at individuals and businesses. The 1993 move by the labour party was welcomed as 'visionary' by some, both in terms of lessening the financial burden and additionally in terms of removing the associated psychological barriers which particularly affect lower income categories. It has been deemed a success abeit arguably at the cost of underfunded universities and colleges. Though underfunding can arguably prompt lean, more efficient operations (particularly in terms of bureaucracy), it has been argued that research departments and the standards of undergraduate education have suffered in Irish colleges. There remains, it seems, much room for streamlining and efficiency of Irish educational institutions.

Given recent focus on third level fees, the overriding question remains; how do we ensure optimal equality and access to high quality third level education at the least possible cost? At present, college/university funding largely entails a mixture of 'registration fees', 'local authority grants', government funding on fees, 'inflated' foreign student fees, as well as university fund-raising and philanthropy. From a pragmatic stance we must ask; whether the present system is the most efficent and equitable means of funding third level education? or should we seriously consider a move to individualisation (individualisation being a somewhat hidden political agenda of the FF/PD partnership over the past 10 years, 'indirect taxes' or 'stealth taxes' etc.)? It has been suggested that such a move could draw more money from those on the upper-middle to high income bracket, thus improving university funding and the funding of those from lower income categories. Such a move may entail directly seeking fees from families at a certain income threshold, or implementing a student loan system. Two examples of which include the UK and the Australian systems.

Reflecting on the situation in the UK, it seems to me that there is the real danger (given a move to individualisation) of manifesting new invisible inequalities on certain members classed as middle income households. For example, those classed as upper-middle income, but who possess little discretionary income, may become unfairly burdened by the move. We must also reflect on how the 'idea' or 'notion' of 'free third level education' affects teenagers envisioning further education? In otherwards, there is the suspicion that abolition of fees has eased associated psychological barriers, primarily entailing the pressure to commit to a career path and the financial burden attached. Thus, there is for some, a psychological barrier to entering third-level education attached to the individualisation of university funding. Little to no research exists which attempts to quantify and understand how abolition of fees affects entry levels, such insights should be welcomed prior to a move to fees.

We must also question the real benefit and added costs involved in implementing 'reform'. Colm Harmon, UCD professor of economics and director of the UCD Geary Research Institute, calculates at best raising 100 million from high earners paying fees. A real danger too is that, being a political move; the annual 2bn euro education budget may seriously diminish as a result, with perhaps no transparency in its reallocation. The government currently pays third level fees to the tune of 250 million. Thus, what guarantees do we have with regard to how savings made from the abolition of government funded fees are reallocated? Should we expect increased funding for primary/secondary level? In otherwards, emphasising the long term, will this money remain ring-fensed in education? The reality is that government coffers are being heavily squeezed with ongoing pressure for cuts and savings in all government departments as a result of the well acknowledged economic downturn. O'Keefe (who in some ways instigated a rather brilliant but hard-ball political move) may be rightly focusing national attention on education funding, but we must acknowledge that many government departments currently face funding pressures and shortfalls.

In sum, the debate concerning education needs to be orientated around government finances overall. Thus, if we wish to draw money from wealthier individuals and households in view of financial pressures coming from various government departments (not just education), should we not debate increasing the higher 41% tax band? increasing corporation taxes? Or considering 'individualisation' measures in the form of 'stealth taxes'? Should focus and emphasis not lie instead on stimulating the economy and developing strategies to ensure sound long term fundamentals and a desirable revenue stream? (thus, lowering instead of increasing taxes might be the appropriate policy) Would such measures better benefit education funding and other government funding requirements in the long run? Overall, it seems pertinent to question what are the alternatives to reintroducing fees, which can serve to avoid the political unpleasantaries for all involved?

Importantly, by instigating this debate, discussion on related issues has followed; such that granting better third level access to lower income and disadvantaged groups requires increased emphasis and funding for primary and secondary level education. Scrutiny of the efficency and operations of third level institutions has also resulted from ongoing dialogue.

Finally, the issue is not just one of pragmatics (which some would wish you to believe ) in terms of quantifiable access levels to education and reducing inequality. It is also one of 'percieved' and 'real'; flexibility, choice and freedom in ones education. It is also about theunquantifiable benefits to Irish society as a whole. O'Keefe rightly instigated a debate. Lets just hope such a debate is thourough, insightful and fruitful!


Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.

Food supply, energy and policy

Peter Baker over at the BBC's 'green'room, makes the argument that the sheer 'complexity' of global supply chains conflated with political policies, means we lose sight of the real value of food, it's calorific 'energy' content, as opposed its total energy cost of production, transporting, warehousing, storage and retailing etc. This point (he emphasises), is particularly relevant to 'how informed', trade policies are towards developing nations.

Examples he cites are that it takes 4 times the energy to produce a tomato in the US compared to its energy value. Or that the US dollar paid per amount of Nicaraguan coffee; does not compensate the energy cost of production and processing. Thus nicaraguans are 'subsidising the coffee' for export.

He concluded by emphasising the merits of locally produced and consumed foods, while lamenting the lack of data and metrics which make apparent the situation at present:

''We are intervening, politically and normatively, in very complex systems that we only partially understand. ' (Baker, 2008)

From my own research, I certainly agree with most of Peter's article, but his utilising of 'the second law of thermodynamics' unnecessarily confuses rather than crystallises his main points. The price consumers pay for food certainly reflects the added cost of production, storage, packaging, advertising, retailing etc (many of these entailing white collar 'informational' jobs). We can talk about the added energy all this brings, but is this fruitful? These are all jobs after all, eliminating the middle men has its consequences. Principly, let's not get overly distracted from the core issues; that of producers being given a 'fair' price for their goods, ensuring policies don't favour and subsidise mono-culture (and the associated 'chemical' and 'fertilising' industries), and ensuring bio-diversification by supporting small-scale farming industries and organic practices. Bakers emphasis on the true 'energy' costs of agriculture may well throw a negative light on monoculture, whilst raising awareness about the purity and nutritional value of food may favour organic. These are of course useful in informing policy though they may delay action. My point is that focusing on key policy principles may remedy many of the associated problems of 'energy' costs to which Baker refers. Getting bound up in the energy costs of food-supply can then be avoided.

The reality is that the value of food doesn't lie in its calories alone; it lies in the proportion of nutrients, minerals and compounds, its emotional value, its scarcity value, its shelf-life, its versatility, flexibility and utility in transport, storage, preparation and processing. Thus, the situation is unfathomably complex and it is doubtful that data or metrics could ever satisfactorily illuminate all that is involved (as Baker seems to suggest). Having more information about foods may not be better information. Instead, past experience, sound theory, principle and practice can aid in developing sound normative strategies for influencing the industry. Below I try to elucidate some of the contingencies absent from Bakers article:

The fact remains that current globalised agri-industry's (fertilisation and its synthesis, production, processing, warehousing, transport, retail etc) are inexobably bound up with fossil fuels. Understanding and decoupling this relationship is of key concern. Today, the cost per barrel currently hovers around $115. Projections on future price all point upwards(because of increased demand, peak oil etc.). Fossil fuels embody energy condensed over thousands of years and the price nowhere near reflects this embodied energy. Our way of life, our food supply, is being subsidised by 'ghost acreage' (past energy accumulations) which constantly diminish and become more cost prohibitive to extract (albeit rising prices have thus far opened up the viability of further extractions and alternative energy industries). We must acknowledge steps and adaptations to increasing energy prices: Options available for coping include; innovations and efficency gains in industry and associated relocalising and diversifying of food markets etc, switching to renewables as well as steps such as switching to organic farming practices. Realisically though, steps taken thus far fail to account for an ever rising global population and a concurrant appetite for western standards of living. Fossil fuels have allowed humanity to overshoot the planets carrying capacity and it remains unknown to what degree humanity can adapt.

With such pressures on global food supply, it is my view that we must throw caution and a critical eye to the prevalence and advocation of mono-culture (powered by a fossil fuel economy) and the push for genetically modified crops as a solution. Monoculture; the large scale 'rationalisation of food supply'; means farmers and consumers increasingly rely on key food stuffs and are thus sensitive (particularly in developing countries) to price fluctuations and shortages as a result of weather systems, commodity/future markets and energy prices etc. Monoculture quells biodiversity with associated ramifications. Monculture overly relies on artificial chemicals and fertilisation with uncalculatable hidden and externalised costs to the sanctity of the land, to biodiversity and to humans. Large scale food-production leaves populations susceptible to large scale contamination and disruption of food supply. Globalised food markets, commodity and future trading leave consumers and producers contingent to ever fluctuating global prices.

Similarly, genetically modified foods require extreme caution and temporal-restraint in their trial and implementation. We simply do not know the short-term and long-term effect on the bio-sphere and the impact on the 'web of life'. For example, GM crops 'designed' to grow 'bigger, 'faster' and more plentiful may do so at the expense of the integrity of the soil, plants don't grow in a vacuum!! In addition, we have already seen how corporations attempt to eliminate seeding of plants to leave farmers reliant on companies. There are additional concerns of the cross-contamination of GM crops into non-GM farms with inevitable patent issues and the farm->corporation reliance that ensues. Bio-diversification not monoculture brings resilience and sustainability of food supply. We simply must not be pushed by vested interests or those with incomplete knowledge, into believing Monoculture and GM crops are a large part of the solution to ensuring food supply. Policies which unnessicarily favour mono-culture and GM crops should be deeply questioned.

We must throw (what seems) positive light on the agri industry in terms of the manifold efficiency increases from reformed agricultural practices and new cultivated seed varieties. Innovation in agri-technology and practices as well as efficiencies in logistics, transport, warehousing and distribution of foodstuffs; have culminated in driving down prices and offsetting burdening oil prices. Related to this, is the move to renewable solar, wind and wave technology ( as well as nuclear); meaning we can make srides in replacing our dependance for fossil fuels which additionally helps curbs further increases in energy prices. At issue however, is that the present 'fossil fuelled' economy effectively subsidises the cost of researching and producing these renewables. Research illuminating the connection between fossil fuels and renewables is needed!

Paramount to all of this is 'truth' and 'price' in the market. To what degree does 'price' (undistorted by politics) in the market drive innovation and change in over food supply, farming practices and consumption? Does spiraling food prices drive diversity in food supply? Will increasing food prices drive change in lifestyles, behaviours and outlooks? For example; a rekindling of farm alotments in towns and cities, a curbing of excess food consumption, refocusing attention on the quality and sourcing of food etc. In otherwards, are we already moving to a situation where the 'truer' price of food (unsubsidised by cheap oil and regulated trade) is better reflected? The entanglement with food 'production' and energy prices has always existed in terms of fertilisation, machinery fuel costs etc. The entanglement though, look set to further increase with the advent of bio-fuels and energy price rises. Not only has farming land giving way to bio-fuel crops such as rape seed, palm oil etc. but crops such as wheat, corn and suger cane can now either be harvested for food or fuel. We must also emphasise how rising energy costs affects farming which relies on regular pesticide use, fertilisation and harvesting. This leads to the difficult question; how will increasing energy prices affect food production and food prices? Overall, to what degree will 'price' result in a restructuring of the market towards organic farming practices, bio-diversifiation and relocalisation of food supply? These are all questions which lack clear knowledge to date! I suppose though that rising prices favour a trend.

As already mentioned, 'efficiencies' and reform in the argi-sectors have made substantial differences to the 'cost' of food and the structure of the market. It is my belief that further efficiency gains and changes in practices will further restructure the industry. Information communication technologies (ICT's) have the potential to support and enhance small scale farming practices (including organic) in out-competing large scale mono-culture leading to sustainability of food supply and environment. A win-win, if you will!! Farmers with access to knowledge and assisted in connecting and communicating with other local farmers, producers and consumers; can enhanse bio-diversification and relocalisation of food supply. Small farmers who have easy access to up-to-date relevant information on market prices, long-range weather and product demand, as well as having access to knowledge repositories on relevant farming techniques, suitable crop varieties and the latest research; can flourish. ICT's importantly have the potential for farmers to better co-ordinate and communicate with local suppliers, retailers and consumers. 'Carrot' and 'Stick' policies which support small-scale food producers and artisans are needed in this regard.

As Baker argues, it may no longer make sense to simultaneously import and export high energy embodied food. I contend; policies which support biodiversification and small-scale farming are warranted, efficencies and reform in the agri-sector are ongoing and finally 'consumers', 'the market' and 'price'; invariably may help address disparities in 'energy' flows as they arrise.

For the full BBC article see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7553958.stm

Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.

Heat and humidity can 'clear the mind'?

A recent BBC article entitled; "Bejing heat 'could clear minds'", suggests that research shows higher humidity can result in athletes 'drawing' on mental 'reserves' allowing improved mental performance. In response, a more accurate conclusion may be that 'humidity' forces individuals to adapt by focusing and increasing concentration.

Take for example a recent small study into those who smoke 'weed' before driving. Here, it was found that performance did not diminish but improved primarily because the participating driver remarked that he concentrated and focused more to counteract the effect of the weed. So the weed forced a 'conscious' response as heat or humidity may force such a similar response. Alternatively, it could be argued that heat dampens one's full spectrum of consciousness leaving an individual with a more skewed or focused consciousness, which may be conducive to completing 'single' tasks or 'focused decision making' more successfully.

It must also be noted that if the 'two' hockey players were asked to complete tasks on a treadmill under normal conditions first, it could certainly have skewed results, as players would have been 'primed' to additional decision making when humidity was increased. In anycase, two players seems an extremely small number for testing and there would have to be shown a relatively high 'significant difference' in mental performance to validate results.

Thus, again we find research with knowledge 'claims' which require a degree of skeptisim, research that under testing appears to show two phenomena correlating, but whose explanation for such an 'observed' correlation requires reservation and further testing.

Full article at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7547937.stm

Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.

A response to Michael Caseys Article on Wealth and Values in the Irish Times.

Killing the myth that Ireland's wealth has poisoned its values - a response.

Michael Casey, a former chief economist today wrote an article in 'The Irish Times' entitled "Killing the myth that Ireland's wealth has poisoned its values" in which he attempting to dispel the 'myth' that wealth has poisoned Irish peoples values. In response, he is most certainly correct in believing that wealth cannot 'determine' a societies derision of values, but neglects to paint a clearer understanding of how wealth and values converge. In response, it could be argued that wealth opens the door to new 'negative' value thinking as it can close the door to others. Furthermore, as I will show, some of his own comments in the article require further careful consideration.

Firstly, in defence of Casey's belief that wealth and affluence does not deteriorate values, there is the argument of the rise of post-materialist values (the silent revolution) which has been popularised by Inglehart. It professes a transcendence of material values to that of more ethical and asesthetical values when material needs have been met or are not at issue. This would certainly throw positive light on the values of a wealthy, affluent Irish society. If material well-being is not an issue, other positive values can flourish. Unfortunately, one could argue that material values can be difficult to shake off or avoid, particularly for those who have made the 'transition' to wealthier circumstances. They can remain as a point of reference, a familiar habit, which doesn't necessarily diminish quickly. In addition, it can again be argued that material values are not in themselves illegitimate values, the issue again is the threat of their all pervasiveness. In anycase; material values exist regardless of social class to some degree.

Casey's deriding as (largely) nonsense those puritanical ideas, such that wealth creates commodification (leading to us valuing ourselves and others by what we have); requires further analyses. Casey, through the article, seems to rightly object to determinist thinking (and by use of the term 'puritanical', he also objects to 'blanketed' or 'extreme' outlooks). However, to present money as 'neutral' seems to miss the point that 'money' forces 'action' on the individual. Choices are never unlimited, some people can choose inaction as their response, for others, that choice may not have been 'learned' or may not be an 'option'. People are to some degree constrained by their past, in terms of their knowledge, their experiences, their 'worldview' or 'meta-narrative'. Thus, for some, 'wealth' becomes a causal link to a pervasive commodification of life and the tendency has been for class climbers to fall in this myopic trap. In sum, Casey rightly ojects to negative 'puritanical' outlooks on wealth and values but fails to stress that such concerns are legitimate, albeit overestimated to the extreme.

Of particular interest was his view that money 'doesn't change anybody: it allows people to express their individuality more fully.' Again, this requires further careful elaboration as Casey wrongly seems to imply that 'individuality' is a static entity. People have a tendency to adapt to their circumstance, their environment. Money, manifests a new set of circumstances for the individual and their prior 'self' influences (but does not determine) how they respond. In other words, 'money' may change the individual or it may not. Thus, suggesting as Casey does, that it is unlikely that money will change ones preferences and priorities; 'is' determinist thinking' and out of sync with his general argument.

His belief that a 'keeping up with the Jones' mentality, 'living beyond means', 'inconspicuous consumption', 'expenditure on appearance' and on designer goods; is but due to the speed with which one becomes affluent, seems to me to be an ill fit. Many of these trait are endemic at all societal classes and are a general feature of social life as a result of unshakeable stratification in various facets of life coupled with ones 'worldview'.

It seems to me that a more balanced analysis overall is that wealth can open the door to negative values as it closes the door to others. For example, it can open the door to new forms of hypocrisy and self-righteousness; for example those who can afford to live cleaner and greener lives make veritable but (overall) superficial changes to their lifestyle; such as buying organic and fair-trade though continuing to splurge on every other aspect of their life such as energy in heating and lighting of homes etc. At the same time, they may frown on those without the knowledge or capital to have the same choices. Indifference to the situation of individuals from poorer backgrounds is another poignant example. The standpoint epistemology (or outlook) of individuals from wealthy backgrounds ,means they may not possibly grasp, empathaise or understand the life path and situation of those from unprivileged backgrounds. The same is true at the opposite end of the spectrum.

In addition, Wealth may open the possibility for a pathological emphasis on vanity, status, material wealth. This is not to say that fashion, food and retail are not legitimate forms in the lifeworld, the issue is the all-pervasiveness with which they can take hold of the individual because of the increased availability, ease of consumption and greater pervasiveness of the market into the individuals life, particularly in the absence of little else. In otherwards, wealth can bring the market closer into the individuals life.

Overall, what Casey fails to explore in his article are the issues surrounding capitalism and of in-equality; the pervasiveness of capitalism into modern life (for example advertising, short life cycle of products, shopping as a pasttime) and the rising gap between rich and poor. In a meta-physical vacuum, individuals find meaning in the market and the values of the economic sphere, in science and its methodical reasoning away of the world. The economic sphere triumphs the assigning and 'exchanging' of differential value and worth above all else. The sciences triumph reductionist and narrow empirical based scientific results; attempting to find single causal explanations for everything. These spheres hold values other than love, giving, kindness, friendship as values in them selves. In a scientific-capitalist orientated society, wealth facilitates the integration of individuals into such a way of life. Wealth brings new possibilities and compels choices, not all these will be positive.

Related Link: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0808/1...ia=mr

Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.