Longitude Prize 2014 - Objectives all wrong (in my opinion)

The public have been asked to vote on 6 different areas of research to stand a chance of some development in that area being funded. The idea is to find something that makes the world a better place. In principle, I think its a good idea, but I think they've got the objectives all wrong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27425224

It seems to me that, as usual, the problem is growing demand, and the objectives for the competition are to find innovative new ways to meet demand, rather than asking why demand is growing so fast. Basically its unsustainable, because even if they crack it, it wont last because demand will just keep growing.

For example, one of the areas for research is flight. They want someone to develop a commercially useful aircraft that has zero carbon emissions. Great. But why not ask if demand for air travel needs to grow? Despite us now living in an age where international video conferencing can be done very cheaply, a lot of business execs still insist on meeting face to face. I can see the point in that. There are certain subtleties in a negotiation that don't show on a 19inch LCD monitor, so maybe the goal should be to make video conferencing better. For the leisure side, maybe our government could promote the many qualities of our own turf rather than us all going abroad for our jollies, or maybe the holiday companies could put packages together that make more use of ships. Something like 3 days in southern England somewhere, then the ferry across to Calais, then a week in France or Spain. Domestic flights could be practically eliminated if we had a working rail network.

Another area they're looking at is fresh water supply. They're on about finding a cheap and clean way to build a sea water desalination plant. But why not look at better ways to capture and store the water we already get? Not just in the UK, but everywhere. When I was a kid, my school was involved in a project in India where they built a water channel network, of artificial waterfalls, that caught water coming down off the mountains and stored it in a massive underground reservoir. It was such a success that a whole village was built around it, and the project was repeated I believe, with equal success.

Food is in there too. Yet we already know that we simply throw away most of the food we buy. There's no point finding better ways for us to produce food just for us to throw it away. Maybe the goal should be to stop us wasting it so much instead, then there'd be no shortage and no need of any new technology.

It all seems too simple too me.

 

I dont want to appear flippant but would it not make the world a better place if we got rid of all politicians and their ilk

 

The objectives reflect sociological preferences we are collectively unwilling to give up in favour of goals with a higher reality quotient.

Strange as conditions are presently, things stand the way they do because anything more sensible wouldn't make (keep) the right people rich.

Humans seem able to get used to any status quo. In some ways democracy contributes to keeping the status quo lower than it really has to be. It's the best choice out of a bad lot.

 

Actually, no. While I see your point, and agree with it to a large extent, politicians are a necessary evil. Without them, there is no government. Without government, what you are left with is a large collection of individuals with their own, often conflicting, ideas about how things should be. Basically we'd all end up fighting each other. We see this happening in the world today, anywhere where the government is either very weak or outrageously out of touch with the people (I mean to a greater extent than is the case in the UK).

If if we rewind time back a couple of thousand years or so to when Britain was populated with a collection of disparate tribes, each tribe would still have had their tribal leaders, their 'chief', which were in effect the politicians of their day.

 

Very true about tribes but disagree about not fighting each other how many good people have we lost in the last two conflicts and for what ?

 

I agree about the wars, but when I was on about us fighting each other, I meant on a much more localised scale. Consider for example if I wanted to cultivate the green just over the road from my house, and there was no set of laws or any enforcement of laws, so I just took my spade and did it. But then another neighbour decided they wanted to also do it. Fine, I can't manage the whole green, probably neither can they, so we each claim a bit that we can manage. But then other neighbours also want some. Someone who was late to the game finds there is no land left, so they start digging my bit. There are no laws saying they can't, because there is no system of government, so they do it and destroy all my crops in the process. Now after putting in all that work, I'm not going to just let them do it, so I attempt to chase them away from 'my' patch, but they fancy their chances, so they don't run. There are no police to call because without politicians and government, there are no laws, and no law enforcers, so the only two options are a) I walk away and let them win, b) they walk away and let me win, or c) we have a fight and the winner keeps the land, at least until the loser regroups and comes back with his mates, or another challenger steps forward.

 

So true. For some time now Earth has been capable of producing more than enough to feed its human population, without any genetic modifications to seed. People still live at risk of starving because of politics -- the rules of the game -- not productivity.

 

Too many people, full stop.

 

I disagree, but if we stick one extra word into your statement, then it becomes the indisputable truth.

Too many greedy people, full stop.

By greedy, in this context, its quite a sweeping term and not entirely accurate. In this context, by greedy, I mean, for example, people who buy more than they will use, just because they were tempted, or people that want it all without putting in the effort. Its already been reported that in the UK alone, the average household throws away something like £500 worth of unopened, still packaged food items every year. That statistic doesn't even include half eaten meals that got binned simply because they were far too big in the first place, or that roast chicken that the best bit of breast meat and thighs were taken off for sunday dinner, and the rest went in the bin when it would have easily made a couple of meals worth of chicken fried rice or soup or sarnies for work.

'Greedy' also extends to whoever it was that worked some black magic to brainwash us all into thinking if its not in a supermarket, its not food. Most obviously there's home grown stuff, but its not just that. In some local woods near me, there are hundreds of acres of wild strawberry plants, wild garlic, hazel nut trees and various other bits and pieces. Nobody ever collects anything from there (well I do, I love the wild garlic leaves). Many common weeds are actually perfectly good food too, but instead of eating them, we spray them if they're in our jurisdiction, or just ignore them and walk past if they're in someone else's. Nettles are abundant everywhere in the UK, and they make a most delicious and wholesome soup. Its simple, delicious, nutritious, abundant and free, yet the vast majority of us ignore this resource, or poison it off.

 

The classic observation about society without government (and by implication politicians) was made in 1651 by Thomas Hobbes in 'Leviathan'. The final sentence is often quoted.

"Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short."

 

Pete's right I'm afraid - there's just too many people (who expect a certain level of lifestyle).

Africa starves whilst the developed world farms its best land to feed us, grow bio fuels or flowers for market.

The ten million would have been better offered to someone who can think up a palatable way to stop the human race breeding. That said, Tescos (or any other corporation) could put up twice that money out of this weeks profits to anyone who can work out how to increase the rate of growth.

 

The UN publishes some interesting data about population growth. There's reams of it it you do a search for 'UN population'
There's a basic synopsis here -
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45165#.U4z6TSiCgcs
and it isn't encouraging reading.

 

It takes never-ending planning, time, and discipline to cook for a household. Planning is buying only what is needed and what will be eaten, and buying as cheaply as possible because you need to do maths in your head on the fly to work out the real bargain in each case. It takes time to acquire and prepare food, store it for use, and clean up afterward. And it takes discipline to stick to the menu, carry out the plan, and not overindulge fussy eaters.

For many, this is too great a burden on limited coping resources, and the supermarkets are ready to help the many with ready meals that are convenient, and some even packed in black plastic to make you think the contents are superior in some way, if you are that easily persuaded (as an exhausted breadwinner might well be, on a bad day).

So I wouldn't go entirely with greed as the problem with food consumption. Besides, IMO, greed is an outgrowth of fear. When too many of us live too close together struggling for a share of diminishing resources, fear is inevitable and it separates people from their common sense.

One of the sociological preferences we are unwilling to give up is the hope of ever-longer life (a euphemism for physical immortality). That one will surely result in too many people, full stop.

 

This, as far as I can tell, is a problem confined only to people in the more 'rich' western countries, and even then, only the last couple of generations.

I think you've hit the nail on the head though. The problem is that people seem to have become to pretentious. Too many cooking programs perhaps? People think a meal is not a meal unless it has a name perhaps? And you can't make a meal with a name without a very specific set of ingredients and a very specific preparation ritual, so if you haven't got the time, skill or ingredients to make a named meal then you can't make anything with the ingredients you have perhaps?

My approach, which I'll admit has taken me a while to get used to (but now I find it easy), is this. When I buy stuff, I always think "how many different things can I do with this?". I don't concentrate on a specific answer, that would be too much like hard work. I just think if I can immediately think of more than one thing, then its worth having. I also ask myself, can I use this up before it goes bad? If my gut instinct says the answer is no, then I don't buy it.

This shopping strategy means I end up with cupboards, fridge and freezer full of food, not stuff that I need for specific meals, but stuff I can mix and match to suit mood and energy levels. There are no named meals in my house, and at meal times every gets the same thing and if one person objects, tough. The one exception being if wife and I fancy something very spicy, in which case the kids will usually gets theirs dished before the spices are added, if that's practically, otherwise they'll get something else, using mostly the same ingredients but without the spices.

The result of all this is that my life, as the one that does most of the shopping and main meal cooking, has actually got easier. I can entirely miss out a planned shopping trip if the mood takes me, because I know that I can always concoct a decent meal out of whatever I can find in the fridge, freezer or cupboards because the stuff I put in there is all 'mix and match use for all sorts' type of stuff. There is always either rice, pasta or noodles in the cupboard (usually all three) which combined with the fact that everything else I buy is good for all sorts, means that there is always a decent meal to be had, even if at first glance it looks like we're about out of everything. It all means I spend less on shopping, having more time, more creative freedom in my cooking, and we waste very little (I chucked a small piece of cheese yesterday that had gone mouldy for no good reason, despite being in the fridge).

I also make a lot of meals that comprise something in a sauce, like pasta sauces and such, or fried rice dishes, risottos etc. That means I can make plenty, enough for people to get second helpings if they like, but then box up and freeze whatever is left in the pan at the end. That means half a plate full of good food doesn't end up in the bin, because we only dish out what we actually want, which further contributes to our significant reduction in food waste.

And all of this is quick and easy and cheap. I believe its also pretty much what my grandparents' generation did routinely, except of course they didn't have freezers so they had to think a bit more about how they would store stuff and how long for. I think the same principle is still common practice in other countries. In fact, one time on my jollies in Greece, an actual restaurant owner told me that if I fancy something that is not on the menu, or is not available because they've run out, he will invite to look in his fridge and tell him what I'd like. It was a bit strange for a Brit to be told this, as that is something that generally doesn't happen here, but I'm told it is quite a common approach in many countries around the Med region, which combined with the fact that in such places, the daily specials board is often a much larger list than the fixed menu, demonstrates that in such places, they routinely make best use of what is available, rather than starting out with a set of ideas and trying to fit the available resources to those ideas.

 

Nope, just tooooo many people, world wide, and very often in the third world countries that cant support them.
Every time Africa has a famine the west jumps in a sends food.

I can remember years ago, when I was at school we collected money for Biafra, they were all starving, they still are, and always will be, all the time we keep propping up their populations, which the countries cant support.

We only support our own overpopulation by using intensive farming and technology, we are out of balance with nature, and we spend money helping other poorer countries also get out of balance with nature.
Its all got to end one day but no one seems to want to put the breaks on, they just keep mumbling on about global warming and climate change.