“What’s the point?”, I could retort. Or talk about freedom, independence and self-determination.
But for now, I will just point you to the answer given by J. D. Salinger in his novella “Zooey“:
“I like to ride in trains too much. You never get to sit next to the window anymore when you’re married.”
And you get to read on trains even less.
The nuclear industry is keen on coming up with probabilistic risk assessments that show that a serious accident at a nuclear power plant can only happen every 20,000 years or so (admittedly this number is from a somewhat outdated report from 1974). Apparently, this is supposed to keep people’s minds at ease. But it shouldn’t:
This should not have happened. At least not yet.
This does not mean that once Chernobyl has happened, mankind will be safe for 20 millennia. It’s just statistical, so two accidents could happen in consecutive years (although according to these statistics, the next accident would then be – again statistically – 40,000 years away).
But I have a much more general problem with these risk assessments: I just don’t believe that anyone can predict the safety for the next 20,000 years of a technology that has been around for 60 years. I think this is beyond the capability of any statistical model.
I have recently been thinking about our abilities to predict the risks of technologies because I had just come across a study by NASA’s Space Shuttle Safety and Mission Assurance Office that examined the risk of the first Space Shuttle missions and found that these were actually 10 times more dangerous than the current Space Shuttle flights.
Especially in light of the recent catastrophe in Fukushima where the possibility of a combined earthquake and tsunami had apparently not been considered (which in itself is a bit odd, considering that Japan is [a] an island that is [b] quite prone to earthquakes], this report by NASA provides valuable lessons for the risk assessment of nuclear power:
And then there is of course still one fundamental difference: If a space shuttle explodes, the astronauts die. That is sad, but they had accepted that risk. – The radiation from a nuclear power plant however kills much more indiscriminately.
A warning to everyone: I don’t like it when you call or e-mail me and your first sentence is “Why didn’t you answer your phone?” Even if it’s not posed as a question but as a statement (“You didn’t answer your phone, that’s why I e-mail you…”), the reproachful undertone cannot be missed.
Don’t disturb!
I could give all kinds of reasons:
But I won’t.
Because it’s none of your business. I don’t owe an explanation to anyone about what I do with my time. It’s my life. Nobody is entitled to my time or attention.
I am not a slave to anyone. And I definitely won’t become a slave to a little gadget, like too many people have become.
Sometimes, I wonder what aliens would think about us humans if they came to visit from another planet: They would notice that we have machines with us or on our desks that sometimes emit a sound, upon which the humans jump to attention immediately and drop everything else, whether it’s a book, their dinner or even a conversation. The aliens would have to come to the conclusion that we are controlled by these beeping machines. – And maybe some of us are, sadly.
Links:
Nach Wochen des Mordens, Bombardierens und apokalyptischen Schwadronierens durch den libyschen Führer Gaddafi hatte die Weltgemeinschaft in Form des UN-Sicherheitsrates ausnahmsweise mal selbst genug von den ewigen “Ermahnungen”, “Aufforderungen” und “dringenden Bitten”, mit denen sonst auf Menschenrechtsverletzungen reagiert wird. Vor wenigen Stunden verabschiedete der UN-Sicherheitsrat die Resolution 1973, mit der eine Flugverbotszone gegen Libyen verhängt und militärisches Eingreifen durch die UN-Mitgliedsstaaten gegen das libysche Militär zum Schutz der libyschen Zivilbevölkerung authorisiert wird.
Dies kommt spät; angesichts der bevorstehenden Einmarsch in die Stadt Bengazi durch die libysche Armee eventuell zu spät. Unter Berücksichtigung dessen, daß Russland und China, die ansonsten die “Nichteinmischung in innere Angelegenheiten eines souveränen Staates” über alles andere stellen, ihre Vetostimmen nicht ausübten, ist dies dennoch einer der raren Momente, in denen mich die UNO positiv überrascht hat.
Und was macht Deutschland, das derzeit einen temporären Sitz im UN-Sicherheitsrat innehat? Deutschland enthällt sich der Stimme.
Es geht um den Schutz einer Zivilbevölkerung gegen Bombardierungen, um die Unterstützung einer Demokratiebewegung gegen eine 41-jährige Diktatur, um die Abwägung von Menschenrechten gegen Staatensouveränität; und Deutschland enthält sich.
Hat Deutschland keine Meinung zu diesen Fragen? Vermutlich schon. Bundesaußenminister Guido Westerwelle begründet die Enthaltung des Landes, das gerne einen ständigen Sitz im Sicherheitsrat (und damit ein Vetorecht) einnähme, anders: “Wir sehen hier erhebliche Gefahren und Risiken”, sagte der Außenminister. “Deswegen können wir diesem Teil der Resolution nicht zustimmen. Deutsche Soldaten werden sich an einem militärischen Einsatz in Libyen nicht beteiligen.”
"Außenpolitik? Ich wollte den Job doch nur wegen der Reisen."
“Erhebliche Gefahren und Risiken” also. Für wen? Für Gaddafi? Das ist ja wohl der Sinn der Resolution. Die einzigen, die derzeit “erheblichen Gefahren und Risiken” ausgesetzt sind, sind die Menschen in Libyen, die versuchen, sich von einer grausamen Diktatur zu befreien. Oder meint Herr Westerwelle “erhebliche Gefahren und Risiken” für die deutsche Wirtschaft, falls Gaddafi doch an der Macht bleibt?
Die Zustimmung zu der UN-Resolution würde kein Land zur Bereitstellung von Flugzeugen oder Soldaten verpflichten. Nachdem Deutschland keinen Flugzeugträger hat, wäre ein deutsches militärisches Engagement derzeit auch gar nicht so gefragt, wie es der Außenminister darzustellen versucht.
Aber all das ist nicht wichtig, solange der bundesdeutsche Reflex funktioniert und demonstrativer Pazifismus sich in der Wählergunst positiv niederschlägt. So einfach und sicher, wie vor “Krieg” zu warnen und “Ohne uns!” zu rufen, kann man seine Umfragewerte gar nicht nach oben schrauben. – Daß für die Menschen in Libyen der (Bürger-)Krieg schon lange Wirklichkeit ist und wir ihn stoppen könnten, kann nur denen egal sein, die Menschenleben mit zweierlei Maß bewerten.
Und dabei hätte Deutschland eine besondere Verantwortung, nachdem auch wir an Gaddafi Militärtechnik geliefert und seine Einheiten ausgebildet haben. Jetzt könnten wir diesen Fehler korrigieren. Aber dazu bedürfte es einer wirklichen Außenpolitik.
Map-making has always had the problem of trying to fit the surface of a (roughly) ball-shaped object on a flat piece of paper.
A map reflective of the true proportions of our planet would look something like this:
However, most traditional world maps look like the following. It has the map (and thus the depicted land masses) stretched to fit the rectangular shape.
This in effect enlarges or over-represents the land masses that are farthest away from the equator. Because the continents in the north are closer to the North Pole than the continents in the South are to the South Pole, this exaggerates the size (and thus the implied might and importance) of the Northern hemisphere in contrast with the countries close to the equator and in the Southern hemisphere.
Iran has threatened to boycott the 2012 Summer Olympics in London because the logo of the games resembles the world “Zion”. Iran has now complained to the International Olympic Committee – 4 years after the logo was launched.
But see for yourself:
To me, the logo looks more like Lisa Simpson giving head. (An interpretation which the Islamic Republic of Iran probably finds only slightly less evil than anything that smacks of Zionism.)
Might Iran simply be looking for an excuse to avoid any athletic competition after its recent showings in chess and weightlifting, where Iranians were outplayed by Israelis respectively?
For the first time in almost a year, I have managed to run a half marathon (21 km = 13 miles) again yesterday. I ran at Eton, a small town situated west of London, which forms one community with the town of Windsor, home to the oldest still inhabited castle in the world.
The run was held at Dorney Lake which will be the site for the rowing events at the 2012 Summer Olympics. (While running, it occurred to me that Britain should actually not have been awarded the “Summer” Olympics, but at best the “Mixed Weather with some Sunshine and scattered Showers” Olympics because the local definition of “summer” might disappoint many visitors.) Running around the same lake for 4 laps might not sound too interesting, but when you’re on your last legs, you don’t have much of an eye for the beauty of nature anyway.
That would have been a better reason to visit Eton and Windsor.
The course was almost completely flat, perfect to run at an even pace. The organisers had pace-setters and I decided to run in the 9-minute-per-mile flock, aiming at a total time of 2 hours. The first 10 km are always relatively easy for me, so I could break out of the pack, albeit not by much. I maintained a very steady pace, not even slowing down in the third quarter although this was the one where my feet and muscles began aching and I was thinking “what a stupid idea; why didn’t I just go for a long walk instead?” The last quarter is psychologically easier because you’re already counting down the mile markers: 11, 12 and finally 13. With the goal of a race time of under 2 hours in sight, I managed to carry on regardless of physical pain and fatigue, fighting for every minute.
Usually lacking the energy for a final sprint, this time I had prepared myself: In addition to the standard podcasts on my MP3 about revolutions in the Middle East, book reviews and other information supposed to prevent my obsession about wasting valuable brain-time to set in, I had downloaded some music of which I believed it would catapult my body into über-human speed. I opted for the soundtrack of “Matrix Reloaded”. It worked: On the last 1.5 miles, I managed quite a sprint and finished in 1 hour, 57 minutes and 10 seconds.
Now I am going to ache and limp for 2 days, but the sense of achievement is worth it.
At the risk of providing the British government with more arguments to cut police funding, some citizens can indeed do the job quite well:
This month, a gang of robbers tried to burglar a jewellery store in Northampton, England in daylight. The store alerted the police and activated the security shutters, but before the police could arrive, the robbery attempt was foiled single-handedly by an old lady who attacked the six robbers with her handbag.
To me, it is most shocking that so many people walk and drive by without intervening.
Women have consistently been earning less than men, even in highly developed countries,
“Even I am earning less than my male predecessors.”
and even in 2011. This is still true in most industries, even for women with the same qualifications as men. (For the related topic of female under-representation on corporate boards, see here.) It seems especially odd nowadays, because in many countries more women complete secondary education and do so with better results than men. For many university courses, it is not uncommon to have more female graduates and they are often the ones with better grades.
So why do women on average still earn less than men?
1. lack of comparability
Even after making adjustments for socio-economic background, chosen degrees and grades, women in the same professions earn less than their male colleagues. Many will take this as sufficient evidence for an anti-female gender bias in the distribution of income.
I however suggest that even after allowing for all of these socio-economic adjustments, we still haven’t achieved a level of comparability. Because we are missing something else. Something that might be equally important as qualifications: Expectations, specifically expectations about life.
2. different expectations in life
Based (so far only) on my own personal, professional and academic experience, it seems to me that men are more focused on a career than on most other aspects of their lives. Women however, are also interested in finding a relationship, starting a family and other aspects of their social life. Please note that I am not saying that women are less interested in pursuing a career than men, I just think that they might be less mono-focused.
3. different incentives in the mating process
This is already an obviously distorting effect in itself, but it is exacerbated by the different incentives this sets for men and women in light of the non-career choices that both make, especially the mating habits:
a) Men are looking for an attractive, caring and faithful woman. Some men appreciate an educated and independent woman, but (too) many men still don’t. Beyond the level of having a job and an income, the financial status of a woman is rather irrelevant to men.
b) Women who are looking to find a man are therefore encouraged to take care of their looks and to present themselves as lovely, sweet, etc. Beyond an average qualification and income, there is not much to be gained for a woman in the mating process by spending more hours at the office. She had rather devote this time to finding a sexy dress. (And it open to debate if this means that the man or the woman is the more shallow one of both.)
c) While women also don’t mind to find an attractive, caring and faithful man, they have an above average interest in security. This includes financial security. For most women, the financial status of their potential partner is an important factor.
d) For men, this clearly sets the incentive to work as hard and as much as they can in order to earn more and thus maintain or increase their chances with the ladies.
4. conclusion
Because women are looking for well-off men, it is women who are subliminally forcing men to work and earn more. The gender pay gap is the women’s fault.
The Happy Hermit 