stuff: October 2007 Archives
Problematic stuff, oil. So precious, so harmful, so useful, so sparsely distributed around the globe. We are addicted to it, and through being so give billions of our hard-earned to people who would rather see us dead or enslaved, and to dictators and other tyrants. One thing is for sure and that is it is going to run out. From that, we can also conclude we are going to use it all. And seeing as we are going to use it all, setting up mechanisms to reduce our usage is not necessary - does it matter to the environment who used it? Does it matter in the great scheme of things at all? Not really. One man reducing his consumption means another has more to use, and he will.
However, as the price rises because demand rises whilst supply declines (commodity markets behave how economists expect us all to behave) other fuel sources will become more commercially viable. Cost will, however, most probably rise overall. Cost of transportation; cost of heating; cost of living. But think of the immense slack in our economies that we can use up to cover these costs: we could probably reduce power consumption by 20% without breaking a sweat. Aircon is unnecessary in Britain (open the window) and getting a job closer to home or home closer to work is possible for a lot more people that let on. Using infra-red detectors to switch off TVs and gadgets when no-one is in the room. Walk to the post box instead of drive. Simple things. No detriment to us individually. If I reach my 60s I'll look back at the late 20th Century as the gloriously, uniquely, indulgent period it was, where frugality and modesty in our wants were thrown aside for a brief moment in history. Our future, I think, won't be worse for lack of fuel. Other things might make it worse, but excessive consumption and inefficiency as a mode de jour are not the be all and end all of a happy life.
Oil will run out. Let's not get too wound up about it. As Buddha said when asked, "how should I get out of the burning sun?" just "step into the furnace".
However, as the price rises because demand rises whilst supply declines (commodity markets behave how economists expect us all to behave) other fuel sources will become more commercially viable. Cost will, however, most probably rise overall. Cost of transportation; cost of heating; cost of living. But think of the immense slack in our economies that we can use up to cover these costs: we could probably reduce power consumption by 20% without breaking a sweat. Aircon is unnecessary in Britain (open the window) and getting a job closer to home or home closer to work is possible for a lot more people that let on. Using infra-red detectors to switch off TVs and gadgets when no-one is in the room. Walk to the post box instead of drive. Simple things. No detriment to us individually. If I reach my 60s I'll look back at the late 20th Century as the gloriously, uniquely, indulgent period it was, where frugality and modesty in our wants were thrown aside for a brief moment in history. Our future, I think, won't be worse for lack of fuel. Other things might make it worse, but excessive consumption and inefficiency as a mode de jour are not the be all and end all of a happy life.
Oil will run out. Let's not get too wound up about it. As Buddha said when asked, "how should I get out of the burning sun?" just "step into the furnace".
I made some the other night and it was just what the doctor ordered. I was about to write up the recipe but there are plenty on the web anyway. Mine was pretty much the BBC recipe except with a bit of spud in it to thicken it up and single cream instead of coconut milk to make it extra lardy and tasty. A good way to make use of the inside of a pumpkin if you're decking one out for Halloween.
Crusty rolls with butter are compulsory.
Crusty rolls with butter are compulsory.
Why Money Doesn’t Buy Happiness is a strange article in Newsweek explaining how psychologists have discovered that after a certain point you get less enjoyment from more money. This is the diminishing returns principle, applied to application of a resource (money) to gain a return (happiness) and is nothing new, having been first described in the 19th Century. What is interesting is the odd reasons they come up with for their being less return for money. According to the article the range of choices creates stress and therefore unhappiness. But surely you don't need to be a good earner to have access to such a bewildering array of choices? You don't, of course. You choose between 17 different cheap types of pasta instead of 17 different types of expensive pasta.
They seem to have missed the obvious answer, which is that relative wealth is important to us. Notice how the optimum happiness from wealth is around the comfortably middle earnings region? This point is also where you end up being relatively wealthier than most of the population, with a sharp decrease in numbers of people above you (those that are have a sharp increase in income). You're wealthier than most people but still part of the lumpen masses, with plenty of similar peers, which is what lots of us like. Notice how gap year kids (and backpackers generally) love living what would be described as itinerant, meagre lives, eating cheap crap and sleeping in bug infested hostels when in the developing world but would be mortified to do the same at home? Because their position in the society they are in at any one time is more important than the materials they own or have use of.
Keeping up with the Joneses, attaining or maintaining a good position in society, relative wealth are what drives us to work five days a week; not an intrinsic need for a Nintendo Wii or stuffed quails' eggs. Expanded choice isn't the cause of diminishing returns from greater wealth: the extra effort; the dislocation from your peers; the irrelevance of being more better off (once you're better off, that's the important thing) than the next chap is what reduces the return from money once you get beyond the upper quartile.
They seem to have missed the obvious answer, which is that relative wealth is important to us. Notice how the optimum happiness from wealth is around the comfortably middle earnings region? This point is also where you end up being relatively wealthier than most of the population, with a sharp decrease in numbers of people above you (those that are have a sharp increase in income). You're wealthier than most people but still part of the lumpen masses, with plenty of similar peers, which is what lots of us like. Notice how gap year kids (and backpackers generally) love living what would be described as itinerant, meagre lives, eating cheap crap and sleeping in bug infested hostels when in the developing world but would be mortified to do the same at home? Because their position in the society they are in at any one time is more important than the materials they own or have use of.
Keeping up with the Joneses, attaining or maintaining a good position in society, relative wealth are what drives us to work five days a week; not an intrinsic need for a Nintendo Wii or stuffed quails' eggs. Expanded choice isn't the cause of diminishing returns from greater wealth: the extra effort; the dislocation from your peers; the irrelevance of being more better off (once you're better off, that's the important thing) than the next chap is what reduces the return from money once you get beyond the upper quartile.
It's funny, but some people I know have never heard of eggs mashed up in a cup. What poor lives! So for anyone that hasn't heard of them, here's what it involves:
Perfect food for cold miserable days.
- Boil some eggs (2-3) for 5 mins (until hard)
- Peel the shells
- Place eggs in a cup
- Add butter, salt, pepper
- Mash up with a knife
- Eat with a teaspoon
Perfect food for cold miserable days.
