Shoes for 'Barefoot' Running

As a clarification, the barefoot running movement has more to do with the mechanics of running, than the exact degree of nakedness appropriate for your feet.  With that in mind, here are a list of potential options for barefoot running:

• Nike Frees - these are basically 'advanced cloth running shoes'.  Nike makes Frees with various levels of support, so this is potentially a good way for those interested in barefoot running to gradually try it out.  One downside is that the older models I used to wear broke down quickly, and at $40-80, it is a fairly expensive shoe to replace

• Aqua Shoes - these are generic shoes often found at pools or beaches.  They often have rubber soles, without much additional support - perfect for developing the proper running mechanics.  I personally use these right now.  Another great benefit to these is that they can be purchased at Walmart (or any other major retailer) for approximately $10

• FiveFingers - these are the 'cool' barefoot running shoes.  Aesthetically, they're quite different from other shoes, and have been compared to 'gloves for feet'.  The major downside to these are the cost, typically costing over $80

• Terra Plana Evo - the Cadillac of barefoot running shoes, these puppies cost $150.  I don't really know much about them, although they claim to be the original 'barefoot running' shoe

• Hauraches - the running shoes of Tarahumara indians, these shoes are basically a piece of rubber, with a string attached.  From the linked website, you can purchase the shoes for $20-$50 (depending on level of assembly required).  Alternatively, it has instructions on how to create your own running sandal.

• Barefoot - after much practice, some people decide to forgo shoes altogether.  Not sure this is a good idea, particularly in urban settings (glass, debris, etc.), but there are some people that do it.  This is free (excluding potential medical injury costs).

Living Within Limits - Chapter 12

Generating the Future

Hardin tells the story of an American journalist who once visited a refugee camp in Russia, on reports that half the people died of starvation.

Noticing some sacks of grain stacked on an adjacent field, he asked the patriarch of the refugee community why the people did not simply overpower the lone soldier guarding the grain and help themselves.  The patriarch impatiently explained that the seed was being saved for next season's planting.  'We do not steal from the future,' he said.

Unless perpetual growth is obtainable (unlikely in the opinion of Hardin), then we must try to settle the population at a stationary/stable state.  Otherwise, if we continue to expand without limits, we will face a bleak future, which will likely involve a potential population collapse (has happened before).


Malthus had at least one supporter...

John Stuart Mill was one of the only economists of the 19th century to deviate from the camp of 'growthmanship'.  He advocated for the idea of a stationary state...

If the earth must lose that great portion of its pleasantness which it owes to things that the unlimited increase of wealth and population would extirpate from it, for the mere purpose of enabling it to support a larger, but not a better or a happier population, I sincerely hope, for the sake of posterity, that they will be content to be stationary, long before ncessity compels them to it.     -Principles of Political Economy

Necessity (was) the mother of invention...

So said Aesop, the famous fabler, twenty five hundred years ago.  Paradoxically, today invention has become the breeder of necessity.  Welcome to the world of 3000 sq ft 'cribs', luxury SUVs, performance running shoes, 50 inch LED TV's (3D optional), etc. etc.


What goes up, must come down (but faster)...

The tragic truth is that the rise and fall of civilizations (and markets) is not a symmetrical affair.  'From barbarism to civilization requires a century; from civilization to barbarism needs but a day' (Will Durant). 


Trendspotting vs fundamental analysis...

Proponents of the idea that the indefinite (implied, infinite) future will mirror the recent past is a form of 'synoptic' forecasting.  This methodology is similar to 1) trying to predict the weather based upon historical weather patterns, or 2) trying to predict future stock prices by reading historical price charts.

The alternative is through fundamental analysis, in this case taking into account the laws of diminishing returns, finite resources, geometric growth, etc.

Living Within Limits - Chapter 11

The Demostat

Negative feedback is essential to produce stability in a self-regulating system.  Consider elements in nature, such as body temperature, blood sugar level, cell salt level, or even animal population levels.

The Malthusian Demostat is the theory of what regulates human populations.  Hardin argues, like the Demostat, that 'true respect for life must include respect for the functions and necessity of death'

Demostat
Overpopulation -> Misery/Vice -> Less Fertility/More Death -> Equilibrium
Underpopulation -> Surplus -> More Fertility/Less Death -> Equilibrium

Individual thinking vs community thinking...

These two philosophies have conflicting values.  In individual thinking, the value of one person is infinite, and cannot possibly be sacrificed.  Any action which causes the suffering to accrue to just one person is unjustifiable.  In community thinking, there are certain actions that, though unpleasant for individuals, can be a 'blessing' to the whole.

Community-oriented thinking was more pervasive during prior times, than today.  Though we now have mega-cities, western society (the drivers of progress) are shifting individuals further and further away from communities.  Today, the 'greatest honor is accorded to speakers who focus on individual interests to the exclusion of community interests.'

Living Within Limits - Chapter 10

What Malthus Missed

"Each new mouth brings with it a new pair of hands"...

So goes an old European saying, and so often goes the popular criticism of Malthus's predictions of imminent human misery.  Since his works were published, Malthus has been shown to be wrong, fairly consistently.  World population has sky-rocketed, yet at the same time, wealth per capita (adjusted for inflation) has also grown miraculously (living standards have improved on average in each successive generation).

This hard-to-ignore truth defies (Malthus's) conventional wisdom, and seems to imply that all 'hands' are immune ot the law of diminishing returns, which socio-economically states that 'normal persons seek to minimize the time and effort he expends on essential work' (default position of psychology).

Feeding of the five thousand... thousand, thousand, thousand...

The production factors necessary for human sustenance can be broken down into 6 elements:

1. Inherent fertility of soil
2. Genetic quality of the seeds
3. Amount and quality of cultivation
4. Amount of fertilizer
5. Amount of pesticides
6. Amount and timing of water inputs

According to diminishing returns, as the human population has grown, we are quickly using up the available farmland, beginning with the most fruitful, and then moving on to the less.  Lacking fundamental changes, this policy has been present for long periods of human history, and has helps to explain the relative slow growth of human progress prior to the industrial revolution.

However, thanks to technology, 'the diminishing returns caused by the policy of using the best lands first have been overshadowed by the increasing returns resulting from improvements in other production factors.  Yet with each factor there finally comes a level of application at which diminishing returns dominate the results.'  Lacking the discovery of other factors through which to leverage greater efficiency, we will eventually exasperate all means of further increasing the output of the resources we have.

Perhaps then we may return to more biblical roots, and turn to the Lord God to give to us our daily bread.

Barefoot Running - Episode 4 (Day 18)

Did about 2-3 miles this morning... feet a little blistered up... calves feel much better than after prior runs...

one of my friend said something about barefoot running potentially causing the arch found in foots to disappear over time... will have to look into this...

Goldman Juxtaposed - Fiduciary Duty or Big Bonus

Exhibit 1 - 5/19/2010

Seven of the investment bank’s nine “recommended top trades for 2010” have been money losers for investors who adopted the New York-based firm’s advice... -Bloomberg  


Exhibit 2 - 5/11/2010

"Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS - News) traders didn't lose any money at the end of each trading day during the first quarter, a first for the Wall Street firm, which typically loses funds on at least a handful of days in the period." -WSJ


Exhibit 3 - Date Unknown

Our clients' interests always come first.
Our experience shows that if we serve our clients well, our own success will follow. -Goldman


lol, wtf?

Living Within Limits - Chapter 9

Exponential Growth of Populations

Hardin believes that population growth is ill-grasped by broader society, partly due to the failings of history.  Malthus said that across the span of history, the secular trend of population growth has always been up.  However, this has been masked by oscillations from period to period, concealing its true nature from cursory analysis by humans.  Of no help has been professional historical analysis, which Malthus explains thus: 'the histories of mankind taht we possess are histories only of the higher classes.'

Similarly, French naturalist Jean Henri Fabre said: 'History celebrates the battlefields whereon we meet our death, but scorns to speak of the plowed fields whereby we thrive.  It knows the name of the King's bastards, but cannot tell us the origin of wheat'.

Thoughts of/on Interest

Positive View

By influencing the distribution of rewards in society, compound interest selectively confers power on those who are capable of postponing gratification.  Compound interest favors people who take the long view (Hardin).

Negative View

Usury is the derivation of profit from biological time, which is linked to life, considered sacred, God-given and divine, leading to excessive worrying about money instead of God, thus subjugating a God-given sanctity of life to man-made artificial notions of material wealth (Wikipedia).

Renaissance of Barefoot Running

http://www.barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/

The above study is what brought about the recent surge of interest in barefoot running.  I suggest anyone interested to take a look at the study, as it has some very interesting findings, and possibly paradigm-changing ramifications.

Summary Findings:

Our research asked how and why humans can and did run comfortably without modern running shoes. We tested and confirmed what many people knew already: that most experienced, habitual barefoot runners tend to avoid landing on the heel and instead land with a forefoot or midfoot strike. The bulk of our published research explores the collisional mechanics of different kinds of foot strikes. We show that most forefoot and some midfoot strikes (shod or barefoot) do not generate the sudden, large impact transients that occur when you heel strike (shod or barefoot). Consequently, runners who forefoot or midfoot strike do not need shoes with elevated cushioned heels to cope with these sudden, high transient forces that occur when you land on the ground. Therefore, barefoot runners can run easily on the hardest surfaces in the world without discomfort from landing. If impact transient forces contribute to some forms of injury, then this style of running (shod or barefoot) might have some benefits, but that hypothesis remains to be tested.

Barefoot Running - Episode 3 (Day 12)

Did about 2 miles last night.  Legs are sore again.  Nothing new to report.

My left knee has been feeling weak lately... been trying to rest it a bit more.  Feels OK as of this morning (though a bit tender still).

Living Within Limits - Chapter 8

Growth: Real and Spurious

"Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world"
-one of the Rothchilds (or Albert Einstein)

Money is Sterile...

To truly fathom the power of compound interest, Hardin offers a lustrous illustration:

In Chapter 27 of the book of Matthew we are told that when Judas regretted betraying Jesus for thirty pieces of silver, he brought th emoney ot th echief priests saying, 'I have sinned,' and cast down the pieces of silver as he left the temple.  At that poin thte booty became the priests' problem.  They decided that since the coins were 'the price of blood' they should not be added to the holy treasury... instead, they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in...

But suppose some rambling Rothschild, or other capitalist, had persuaded the priests that they should 'make their money grow'... Had this happened, Matthew 27 might have been written along the following lines:

'Taking counsel with certain wise men called economists, the priests converted the thirty pieces of silver into gold (presumably the equivalent of 2 grams of gold), which they used to open up an account in the People's Perpetual Gold Bank of Jerusalem, saying "Let this wealth purify itself by quietly drawing interest at 5% per year for two thousand years.  Then let both principal and interest be withdrawn from the bank and divided among all the people then living who regret the death of Jesus.'

At 5% compound interest the total sum would, in two thousand years, grow to 4.8E42 grams of gold, roughly 800 trillion earth mass equivalents (Mass of Earth is 5.9E27 grams)

Both Aristotle and Martin Luther agree, that 'money is sterile'.  This is proven simply, by imagining a gold bullion sitting inside a vault in a bank.  Whether after ten years, or 100 years, or 2000 years, the gold will never increase, not one ounce.  What would happen if gold could beget itself?  Why, then everyone would make a deposit with the People's Perpetual Gold Bank of Jerusalem, in the hopes of getting their 'free lunch'.

Debt is not...

What does grow, is debt.  Debt is an abomination that has the power to multiply itself - debt begets more debt.  Today, we have a debt-based society.  Our money is a form of IOU (debt).  All purchases are financed by debt.  Our banks happily lend to all willing to borrow.  Our government's lifeblood comes from the willingness of others to lend to us.

The prosperity of our society was built upon the backbone of debt.  More accurately, the wealth of our society was built upon the belief that debt could be converted into something of value (underlying collateral).  However, the flaw, as Hardin points out eloquently, is that 'the convertibility of immaterial debt into material wealth should never be assumed.'

There are two sorts of wealth-getting: one is a part of household management, the other is retail trade.  The former is necessary and honorable, while that which consists in exchange is justly censored; for it is unnatural, and a mode by which men gain from one another.  The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, not from the natural object of it.  For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest.  This term 'interest', which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent.  Of all modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural. -Aristotle

It is monstrous and unnatural that an unfruitful thing should breed, that a thing specifically sterile, such as money, should bear fruit and multiply of itself -Oresme

Usury...

The following list of individuals were against usury (interest) - Plato, Aristotle, Cato, Cicero, Seneca, Plutarch, Aquinas, Muhammad, Moses, Philo, Buddha (from wikipedia, citation needed)

From the King James Bible:

[Exodus 22:25] If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.

[Leviticus 25:36] Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee.

[Leviticus 25:37] Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.

[Deuteronomy 23:19] Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:

[Deuteronomy 23:20] Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it. ("and who is my brother")

Historically, there are many well-respected opponents of charging interest.  Biblically speaking, usury is hardly portrayed as commendable... something clearly banned in order to preserve the well-being of one's own community, but accepted when applied to strangers, and those in other tribes.  Certainly, not as bad as murder or adultery (universally condemned), but nevertheless, its the kind of (bad) behavior best saved for those not in one's own immediate family.  (Muslims ban it outright)

How wealth is created...  How resources are made useful to man...

1. Take already existing, but diffusely distributed materials, and bring them together into higher, useful, concentrations (iron, copper, etc.)
2. Energy released from accumulations (coal, oil, etc.)
3. Reducing the amount of human effort required for a certain task (lever)
4. Reducing amount of time spent to perform a task (wheel)

People never create wealth, in the conservation sense (humans have never created a single atom, such tasks are reserved for God alone).  We simply take what is already there, and make it useful to us.  Wealth is the creation of anything, but only making useful what was once useless (to us).

There is one true source of 'wealth' on earth.  Consider, 'there is a daily input of wealth from the outside in the form of radiant energy from the sun.  Some of this energy is captured by the earth, so terrestrial wealth should steadily increase.'

Inflation, the ultimate tamer of usury...

If usury is to be portrayed in a negative light, then inflation is to be thought of as something virtuous.  Hardin gives a general overview, including a historical example of hyperinflation in Rome.  However, the key insight that he offers is this: '(we) have never experienced more than the opening stages of (inflation).  Our limited experience inclunes us to make light of the danger of truly runaway inflation.  The 'normal', slow advance of inflation is dwarfed by rare and explosive outbraks of hyperinflation.' (emphasis added).

Another side of Keynes...

Much has changed since the days of early Christianity.  Today, we regard usury as normal, and could scarcely imagine a world without it.

Though most only appreciate one aspect of his genius nowadays, John Maynard Keynes stands out among economists in his view of interest.  In his essay, 'Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren', he believes that some day we may...

...return to some of the most sure and certain principles of religion and traditional virtue - that avarice is a vice, that the exaction of usury is a misdemeanour , and the love of money is detestable... But beware!  The time for all this is not yet.  For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to every one that fair is foul and foul is fair;  for foul is useful and fair is not.  Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still.

Approximately, half of the 'another hundred years' have passed.  Keynes would likely be rolling in his grave, if he knew about his 'intellectual' descendants (forgive me Sir John, that's their names for themselves.  I would never insult you in such a way).

Living Within Limits - Chapter 7

Cowboys Economics vs Spaceship Ecology

Economist Kenneth Boulding was the first to develop the idea of economic systems as two varieties. 

Cowboy Economics...  Resources -> Production -> Wastes

For cowboy economists, their primary focus is on the good that is produced.  This (predominant) priesthood subscribes to those famous statistics GNP (Gross National Product), GDP (Gross Domestic Product), GDP/Capita, etc.  Most of modern-day economics would fall under this category.  The general well-being of a person, or groups of peoples, can effectively be summed up, in the opinion of these economists, in the average value of goods produced.

What they fail to consider are the 'bads' which result.  For example, when a century old forest is demolished in order to make way for a strip mall, GNP takes into account the cost of destruction (which provides employment, adds to GNP, and makes everyone 'better off'), while failing to take into consideration the value of the forest destroyed (aesthetics, habitat for animals, soil erosion, air quality degradation, etc).  Accountants, long familiar with the idea of double-entry book keeping (which essentially maintains balances in financial matters, much as nature maintains balances in physical sciences), would likely recommend augmenting our present form of GNP with a GND (gross national destruction). 

Spaceship Ecology... Resources -> Alteration -> Pollution

Narrow-minded ecologists come from the same species as narrow-minded economists (homo-sapiens).  These individuals would just as quickly 'deplore the exhaustion of the sources and the pollution... while giving scant credit to... the difficult art of shaping potential wealth into actual human wealth (production)'. 

It is important for economists & ecologists (forrmerly sister sciences; Greek root -oikos) to fully appreciate the difficulties of the other's job.  There are different times when one of the three factors will be stressed more than the others.  During the early days of America, when land and resources were plentiful, and cowboys were few, the emphasis has been on production.  Now, the time of the cowboy has come and gone.  With the advent of the spaceship age, its time to restore the empahsis to all three factors of resource, production, and waste.

Living Within Limits - Chapter 6

The Ambivalent Triumph of Optimism

Reserves or Resources?

When you hear people talking about oil, have you ever gotten the two terms mixed up?  (Proved) reserves are oil deposits which can economically produced with today's technology at current prices.  Resources are the total oil deposits available on Earth.  To economists, when the price of oil moves up, more oil reserves are 'produced', as it becomes economically viable to extract more oil (scarcity creates more oil).  Geologists believe otherwise.  Thinking in terms of resources, they know that human beings have never produced a single drop of oil, ever.  Maybe it was a coincidence that the two terms sound so similar.  Yet, they paint decisively different pictures.

Does that cause you to pause the next time you read a headline like this one?

http://www.france24.com/en/20100318-venezuela-ups-proven-oil-reserves-23-percent

Optimism, Pessimism, and Journalism

For mainstream press, there are a couple good rules to follow for writing an article:

1. Catch the reader's attention with the first sentence (see above)
2. Optimism attracts more readers than pessimism (see above)
3. If a last minute cut must be made, cut the end
• Due to space requirements, and attention span of audience
• (Pessimistic) Qualifications for (optimistic) headline grabbers typically come at the very end of the article

This confluence of factors contributes to a optimistic bias in most major news reports.  However, don't fault journalists too much, because there is much more happening here besides biased news reporting.

Chicken Little...

For roosters, attracting the attention of the hens is an exercise in machismo, involving the parading of their brightly colored facial ornaments, as well as the strutting out of their chests.  In fact, when hormones have been injected into roosters which reduced the behavior and coloring, hens were less sexually attracted.  Darwin seems to favor machismo (if you don't believe me, think of some other examples yourself). 

"An entrepreneur is an optimist by definition" -Kenneth Eaton, Management Consultant

Optimists are praised for stimulating demand in the community and economy.  Pessimists are shown to be wrong, time and again, in their predictions of the inevitable falling in of the sky.  For structural reasons hinted at in the last sentence, 'optimists prosper in every decade, but the last' - tho pessimists are also unlikely to prosper should the sky fall.

Most of us enjoy hanging out with optimists.  Consider the last dinner party you attended.  Was the center of attention the one proclaiming that better day were sure to come, or the prophet of doom admonishing sinners to turn away from their sins lest they be consumed like a moth?  It is no stretch from here, to presume that optimists enjoy advantages in other areas as well, for example in attracting sexual mates, and enjoying higher rates of reproduction.  Over time, this will serve to strengthen the positive bias in a population group.

We have to be mindful of our natures, b/c it can be hazardous to view the world through such rose-tinted lenses all the time.

Living Within Limits - Chapter 5

Default Status

In law, the default position is expressed in the well-known statement: "Innocent until proven guilty."  Innocence is the default position as a matter of method, not fact.  The burden of proof rests upon the investigator and the evidence to prove otherwise.  Failure to do so would suggest the justification of the default position (innocence) as distillation from facts.

Perpetual Motion Machines

In science, as in law, there are default positions, for example the 1st and 2nd laws of Thermodynamics, stating that energy must be conserved, and that work releases heat (in a closed system).  This has not kept man, being an inquisitive & indominable creature, from pursuing the perpetual motion machine - a device which would convert heat from the surrounding into work (reducing entropy).  Such a device would refute the fundamental basis of thermodynamics.  Unfortunately for us (but fortunate for the fabric of creation), our ingenuity has yet to match our imagination on this subject. 

In science, the perpetual motion machine is considered an 'original sin', because it violates the Postulate of Impotence defined by the default position.  In other words, default positions define the limits that govern modern science.

Soft sciences are not bound by hard rules...

However, modern day economics currently has a default position that more closely resembles the perpetual motion machine, rather than real limits (such as the conservation of energy).  Impotence is not a term well-liked by economists.  Neoclassical econ can be well summarized by George Gilder, who in his book Wealth and Poverty said that

'The US must overcome the materialistic fallacy: the illusion that resources and capital are essentially things which can run out, rather than products of the human will and imagination which in freedom are inexhaustible.'

Translation: Capital can solve any problem; wealth can be created from the imagination; therefore poverty and limits can be overcome if we will it (God-like) - (Scientific Translation: Perpetual Motion Machine)

I'm hungry...

What is ironic is that there is one rule of economics that is so basic, it may not even be taught in Econ 101, yet is known by all: "There is no free lunch".  This is the oft-disregarded default position of economics.  By the time students graduate Econ 101, however, this truth will have been drowned out by far more useless knowledge.

But doesn't history tell us otherwise...

As my friends are keen to point out, since the 1700's we have made significant strides in progress.  Standard of living has been going up exponentially for the past 300 odd years.  Why should we expect the future to be any different?  This is a valid question, and I hope to address it in a future post.

Barefoot Funning - Episode 2 (Day 4)

So I bought my 2nd pair of aqua shoes today from Walmart (my first pair from target was very bad, I would highly recommend AGAINST them), and I did about 1-2 miles at a pretty leisurely (slow) pace.

The shoes were wonderful (sorry, I could not find them on the walmart website - but they're called aqua shoes).  They were actually very comfortable to wear on the inside, and fit quite snugly, despite being one size too large.  I am definitely noticing that running primarily through the "balls of the feet" seems to work my calves significantly more than running through my heels.

I've been thinking more about sneakers (specifically running shoes) lately.  It irks me that the corporations have created foamy sneakers that render our natural gifts useless.  Then again, their marketing certainly has made the jogging market much larger than what it would have been 'naturally'.  I can't help but feel like I could create a shoe that can free people from this podiatry of oppression.

Living Within Limits - Chapter 4

Population Theory

Socialism, Capitalism, Communism, and Democracy... all ideologies agree...

At the first UN conference on population in Bucharest in 1974, the Chinese delegation espoused that 'Population is not a problem under socialism... (insert scapegoat) the primary way of solving the population problem lies in combating the aggression and plunder of the imperialists, colonialists... and particularly the superpower.'  (Four years later, the Chinese government instituted the most wide-spread population control initiative in human history: the 1-child policy.)

At the same conference, the Indian delegation offered up this gem: "Development is the best contraceptive", which effectively brushes off the worst effects of overpopulation - hunger, disease, deforestation, and soil degradation.  The U.S. so enjoyed this philosophy, that they adopted it as their own during the 2nd UN population conference ten years later, repeating India's slogan, "Development is the best contraceptive."

Despite their professed differences, the ideologies that these various countries have adopted all share a common thread - 'a deep faith in technological progress.  Holders of the reins of power in all nations believe that technology can solve all problems.'

As in all religions, faith in the cult of technology/progress is selective...

In economics, as in ecology, supply and demand are the two sides of the scale of equilibrium.  Unconsciously, when we speak of technological progress, we almost exclusively refer to increasing the supply, in order to meet (ever increasing) demand.

As Hardin keenly points out, 'technology that attacks the demand end of the demand-supply equation is not generally approved of.  This is not only true of contraceptives, or population.  Despite the fact that eating excessive sugar or fats is detrimental to our health, would we ever jeapordize sales by restricting the use of such products?  Unlikely in my opinion.

I personally discovered that running shoes, despite their pleasing aesthetics, fluffy comfort, and exorbitant price tags, are essentially useless (and indeed detrimental) when compared to the feet God made for me (for free).  30 years after its invention, this essentially useless industry is now a multi-billion dollar behemoth.  Will it ever go away?  Probably not, as it provides employment, which leads to wealth, which leads to progress, etc

Living Within Limits - Chapter 3

Uneasy Litter Mates: Population and Progress

"Colonize - Destroy - Move on"

Hardin begins the chapter with historical precedents for ecological disasters.  The ancient historican Herodotus, in the 5th century BC, reported that it was once possible to walk across what is the modern day Sahara Desert - Herodotus also promptly followed with the declaration that "Man stalks across the landscape, and deserts follow in his footsteps".  In Will Durant's The Age of Faith (famous collection of the history of civilizations), a Samanid prince once identified four earthly paradises: the regions of Samarkand, southern persia, southern Iraq, and Damascus - none of which are typically associated with idyllic destinations today.

History is filled with countless other instances of ecological disasters following in the footsteps of man:  Easter Island, Anasaz Indians, Mayans, etc.  Many of these examples are very well brought up in Jared Diamond's book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.

The Idea of Progress

Hardin argues that there are three great historical paradigms.

1) The Golden Age Paradigm - "presumes a wonderful world that once was but never more shall be" (ala, Garden of Eden)

2) Endless Cycle Paradigm - "unremitting repetitions in history with little enduring advance" (nothing new under the sun syndrome)

(Both were passed down from ancient times, and are products of a society ruled by its elders - gerontocracy)

3) Progress - thrust into society's limelight by Marquis de Concorcet;  firm belief in the unstoppable march of (material) progress - after all, society today is not referring to moral or spiritual progress, but it is firmly confined to material things

Barefoot Running - Episode 1 (Day 1)

I've been reading alot about barefoot running the past couple days, after hearing someone mention the infamous five finger shoes.  Tonight (early morning), I went for a run with my roomie at the gym at our apartment, and I tried it out for myself on the treadmill...

Distance:  1 Mile (walked probably 1/3 of it)
Pace:  10-12 minute mile
Pain:  Severe

As you can see, this was pretty miserable in terms of distance and pace.  I had to walk once my feet started blistering up.  As we speak (15 minutes after the fact), its almost impossible to walk around on the rough carpet without severe grimacing.  I will say though, it is definitely possible to feel the difference in the strides (ball-strike vs heel-strike) once the 'running' shoes were removed.  It was 'refreshing' (pain-aside) in that my feet felt much lighter, and the impact was very noticeably softer.

In any case, I think waterbreaks during work tomorrow will be quite an (painful) adventure.

Living Within Limits - Chapter 2

Overpopulation: Escape to the Star?
Question:  Can people colonize stars in the near future?

Hardin believes that modern society practices idolatry by worshipping at the 'Altar of Progress" - which equates to marveling at the ability of technology and economy to sustain perpetual growth (implied - to infinite).  The most common remedy to the inconvenience of overpopulation offered up by the Priests of Progress is the 'Dream of Extraterrestrial Migration".

Is it likely?  running the numbers...

Closest star to the Sun:  Alpha Centauri
Distance:  25 quadrillion (million million) miles
Speed of light:  671 million mph
DistanceLight Years:  4.37
Fastest man-made spacecraft:  Helios - 0.157 million mph (1/4300 speed of light)

Scientists Sabastian Von Hoerner postulated that the highest feasible speed for interstellar travel is approximately 3% of light speed - which translates to roughly 20,000,000 mph (roughly 128 times current top speed).  At that theoretical speed, it would take approximately 140 years to go from the Earth to Alpha Centauri.  In summary, we would need to create a vehicle that goes over 100x faster than the fastest one we have ever built, and then travel 140 years (5 generations). 

and the energy it would take...

The ship would require both fuel for acceleration/maneuvering, as well as energy to sustain life (human, animal, and plant... did you think humans could populate a planet by themselves?)  By the time the ship reached Neptune, the sun would begin to diminish, both physically and as a viable source of energy/fuel.  Most of the trip would be made in the dark of space, which as Hardin points out, is 'more romantic than nourishing'. 

how much would this cost...

A nuclear submarine costs approximately $1B, which translates to roughly $7M per sailor (excluding operating costs).  A spaceship that is able to support 5 generations, with supporting animals and plantlife, across 4+ light years is likely to cost significantly more than a nuclear submarine.
  
the problem is compounding faster than the (unlikely) solution...

The world economy (global GDP) is currently $61.1 Trillion dollars.  Assuming we could devote our entire economic output for a year to sending people to Alpha Centauri, and assuming it costs $7M per person (the same cost per person as a nuclear sub), then we can send roughly 8 million people every year.

The current estimate of population growth is 1.17%.  On the estimated base of 6.7B people, that means its growing at roughly 70M people every year.  Population growth outpaces spaceship sendoff rate by a 7:1 ratio (also not mentioning the fact that I would not want to be one of the ones left on Earth, when all its resources, year after year, is being devoted to a select few who are going somewhere else).

what would life be like aboard the spaceship...

It would be spartan.  The energy & economic costs of the trip would require that only the bare essentials be brought along.  In addition the impact that a tiny asteroid would inflict upon a vessel traveling at such high speeds would be catastrophic - it would require tremendous resources to carry out repairs.  There would need to be draconic measures imposed on the population of this ship, in order to insure its survival (3 kids?  Good luck...)

who is 'ideal' for the trip...

This final point is a philosophical one.  Due to the austerity measures, only some would be 'good' candidates for the trip.  Sadly, the same people who would be good for the trip, are the very ones whose behavior, if duplicated by the greater population, would have made the ship completely unnecessary!  Ultimately, it is this logical fallacy which reduces the 'space colonization' solution to the realm of science fiction.

Living Within Limits - Chapter 1

The Challenge of Limits

For most of human history, the dominant worldview was that 'resources were limited, human nature was fixed, and spending beyond one's income was a sin'.  This 'gatekeeper' attitude lasted until 1600's, when everything changed.  Science and technology were the catalysts - thrifty thoughts were replaced with spending splurges.  Since then, mankind, now an optimistic creature, has adopted the 'limitless' worldview - the intoxicating belief that we will (always) be better off in the future, so therefore it is OK to over-indulge a bit right now.

Hardin argues that in western society, there is a population taboo;  as a result, the possibility of over-population, if it ever arises, is traditionally brushed off, and the subject diverted to more pleasant thought streams.  It was not until Rachel Carson's Silent Spring was published in 1962, that public awareness of the hazards of environmental limits began to develop.

In addition, prophets of over-population are often labeled as pessimists.  But is that accurate?  The first such misunderstood malcreant was one Thomas Malthus, the British economist who first wrote extensively of human population, and its effects on human poverty.  However, Malthus's goal, like Buddha's and Hardin's, is to identify the cause of human suffering, and to mitigate its effects;  Malthus is anti-poverty, not anti-population.