A New Year Declaration of Ignorance

As 2015 becomes 2016 a lot of us begin to reflect on what has happened to them in the past year...
or many years before that. We ponder our past hopes, dreams, achievements, opportunities, mistakes, and regrets and (in the end) say "What the heck happened to me?"

I have been doing just that. I have been writing this blog for over three years now, with 2015 been my most productive year in content-making (so far). It began (as it said on the top of the page) as "a place for random scribbles and writings." Just after graduating from university I didn't know what to do with my life. I never really did even as a child. I had no idea what to do. The decision to make this blog happened just before I revisited my High School after sorting out a few financial stuff with the Job Centre. I had made one during a course at Uni as it was a requirement for the class as a way to show everyone your ideas and grasp of the 12 rules of animation. The idea of making one for my own artwork and writings became obvious soon afterwards. But from the start outside forces turned it from a simple showcase of my talents to something more commentary-like.....
I had read about the PETA protest game Pokemon Black and Blue from a magazine article and felt that the idea that the games promoted animal cruelty stank of "video games cause violence in the real world" bullshit. That article resulted in my first ever internet rant. The last sentence of that "rant" was (after thanking PETA and that magazine for giving me the push to write it) "Things are going to get very interesting in deed." And they did...
That first post was written in November 2012. By New Year I had a number of pieces of work uploaded. In January 2013 I officially called my examinations of various aspects of human culture "acts of cultural vandalism." I had begun to truly look at the world we live in and began to use my curiosity indiscriminately on to everything, from atoms to the vast cosmos....

"When you're curious, you find lots of interesting things to do."- Walt Disney

But recently I had an idea that involves my curiosity.

Back in September me and my mother visited the sets of the Harry Potter films. While there I looked at the T-shirts on sale at the shop that is in the mock-up of platform 9.75 (work it out). It had shirts that labelled you a "witch" or "wizard", as you might expect there. But there also were T-shirts that labelled you (in gold medieval-style script) a .... "muggle."

"Muggle" T-shirt from Harry Potter Tour (2015)

For those not familiar with Harry Potter, a "muggle" is the name given to anyone who isn't able to use magic. It's like the when the term "civilian" is used when referring to people who aren't in the military. It's a word that has been adopted by many in geekdom, usually to refer to "jocks" or people who buy stuff with a warranty.

Anyway, the thought that is the reason for this New Year post is the one I had when I saw that grey T-shirt (which I bought soon after). Muggles are people who can't use magic. In fact, most muggles aren't even aware of magic's existence. They are ignorant of the existence of Hogwarts. Or the fact that kids are disappearing through the wall between platforms 9 and 10 in Kings Cross Station every August. It's this idea of muggle ignorance that made me remember a big fact about the world. A fact that is expressed greatly in this quote...

    "Its obvious that we don't know one millionth of one percent about anything." - Thomas Edison

Everything we will ever learn and remember individually throughout our lives is just a tiny microscopic fraction of all the knowledge that exist in the universe. The human brain can only remember so much. We can try to read the whole Encyclopædia Britannica or other large reference materials and try to cram as much as we can from our school textbooks, but in the end its impossible for any human or sentient being (except maybe gods or some AI system running a massive database) to know absolutely everything. But despite this many of us think they do know everything....

“Nothing is more beautiful than to know all.”- Athanasius Kircher (c.1670)

We probably know at least one person who thinks he/she knows everything. They are more of them when comes to knowing everything about a single subject (doctors, lawyers and that). They are individuals in history that claim to have known everything at their time, such as Athanasius Kircher and Thomas Young. But we can easily dismiss them because we all know stuff they didn't, such as the Higgs boson and the final resting place of King Richard III. But what about people alive today who repeatedly blab on about things like, climate change, poverty, gun crime, obesity, the Middle East, terrorism, hackers, and many other things that sale newspapers. How can we be sure they do know everything? Academic points? Experience in the field points? Success points? Or the fact that person appears friendly or all-knowing, like that guy in the bar or cafe? But I feel that many of these people are caught in a trap. The trap of thinking they know everything. After a long time (maybe years) of reading, writing, and talking about various stuff (and receiving little or no challenge to their words) they become to think that they are intellectually invincible and wholeheartedly believe that they know everything (in the field of interest or (more dangerously) everything in general).

But the trap can also inflict others - in people who want to know everything (on one subject or in general). The one subject type is very common Something happens that prompts them to think about a subject and curiosity drives them to find out as much as they can on that subject, such as who the heck Kate Upton is? Usually one Wikipedia article is enough. But sometimes some go further. In the case of "Who the heck Kate Upton is?" it'll easily become an activity that can be described as stalking, which is why most people stop at the Wikipedia article. But this doesn't only apply to celebrity worship, the same thing can happen when something bad happens to someone's personal whelm, like a death (natural or inflicted) or a diagnosis of the medical kind. Just ask any parent who's got a child that is sick or disabled. In that last case, a group of people equally curious about a subject band their efforts together and form advocacy groups for the sake of others curious about the subject and find casual browsing isn't giving enough information. Depending on the politics of the people running them, such groups can be a force of good (providing useful accurate information to whoever enquires) or ill (providing misinformed facts and excuses to do things that'll cause harm). You may know of such groups already.

I kind of fell into this trap in the past. When I first encountered the Eyewitness Visual Dictionary of everyday Things back in 2000 and got inspired to make my own version, I thought the book needed improving by including stuff it excluded. This thought was responsible for me to begin reading encyclopaedias for leisure at the age of 12 - to find out more about everyday objects. By 2002 I stopped making the books, but still read reference books for leisure. But I developed ideas for other books to do and filled files of notes and sketches for them (I still do, except most of the notes are now in digital form). I think this could have been down to the fact that during that year the school was given planners that contained factoids and quotes - and one of them was of Thomas Edison. The one I mentioned may not have been the very quote I saw, but the message is the same - we don't know everything. This is a fact that has become more apparent to me as my personal reference library began to mushroom out of my room an into the hallway and I began to surf the internet on a daily basis, plus beginning to regularly watch documentaries on TV. There is so much information out there that no one person can take it all in.

We are living in what has been called the "Information Age."  We have more access to all sorts of information than ever before... and generating more so every day. It's no surprise that "information overload" is becoming a symptom of living in the 21st century. But it isn't a "modern" problem. It has been for centuries....

"As long as the centuries continue to unfold, the number of books will grow continually, and one can predict that a time will come when it will be almost as difficult to learn anything from books as from the direct study of the whole universe. It will be almost as convenient to search for some bit of truth concealed in nature as it will be to find it hidden away in an immense multitude of bound volumes." - Denis Diderot, Encyclopédie (1755)

Sound relatable?

And after years of researching my big fields of interest - technology and culture - I have found concrete evidence that backs up this fact.

• In 2014 the UK alone published 20 new book titles every hour. So many in fact Jamie Byng of publisher Canongate Books has said “I think we publish too many books".
• According to Nielsen (the American TV ratings people) in 2014 the average American household receives 189 TV channels - and only watches 17 of them.
• In 2013 all the world's digital devices created 4 zettabytes of data.
• In 2015 about one trillion photographs were taken, and 60 million of them were uploaded to Instagram every day.
• In December 2014 300 hours worth of new footage is uploaded on YouTube every minute.
• In one minute on 12th February 2015 712 new websites were created and 2,623 blog posts were written. (from p164 of Guinness World Records 2016)

That is a lot of information... and its increasing.

How can one person factor all this in?

Can one person watch every cat video on YouTube or 

read every new book that gets published as it comes out?

NO

It's humanly impossible. 

That's why we have Google - to sort out the useful stuff from the "crap" instantly.

So the next time someone claims to know everything, imagine that person trying to read 20 books in one day. Can you read 20 books in one day? Exactly... unless your Johnny 5. 

But here's another thing about information I have learnt (more recently) ....

Facts have a half-life.

This is an idea that has been around for a while, but it has been popularized recently by Harvard mathematician Samuel Arbesman in his 2012 book The Half-Life of Facts (which I have read and referenced). He gives a brief synopsis of his book in this TED talk from 2012.

The Half-Life Of Facts: Sam Arbesman at TEDxKC (2012)

Basically, everything you can consider a "fact" has the possibility to be proven wrong sometime in the future. You will have encountered this phenomenon yourself when you read a newspaper full of articles claiming that [insert thing here] is good/bad for your health. Some have made a good income out of this. Think how much money the Jim Pattison Group will made during Christmas through the sales of this year's edition of Guinness World Records. Surely you don't need to be reminded about this fact of life with all this constant proof of this. Right...?

So, we are all exposed to new information every day and this information has the potential to become inaccurate in the future. How can it be possible for one person to know everything? How can one person keep up with all the world's knowledge as it gets updated? English Wikipedia got in the past year an average of about 150,000 edits every day.

What I'm trying to say is that the idea of someone knowing everything is impossible. Everyone who claims to know everything (except probably Gods or some AI systems) is either lying, delusional or ignorant of the facts I just mentioned earlier... or just doesn't like to listen to the other person's viewpoint.

I feel that many of the people out there who do claim to know everything are the most ignorant. By been so sure of their beliefs (perceivably because they read all the facts) they ignore the counter-argument. And if that person happens to be in a position of power and influence it can be dangerous. More dangerous than a suicide bomber who acts alone.. or as part of a group. These "idiots" (as they deserve to be called) are ignorant about a lot of things, because it is impossible for them to learn everything that exists in the world.... in the same way muggles are ignorant about magic in Harry Potter, which brings us to the idea I had when I saw that T-shirt.

If it is impossible to one person to learn everything, maybe we are better off admitting our ignorance on pretty much everything. We can try to read up on everything on one subject, but in the end there's going to be bits of your knowledge on that subject missing. We should all admit that they are things we don't know and just accept it. But this shouldn't be an excuse to give up. It's fun learning new things (especially on stuff you are very familiar with). We should explore the frontiers of our knowledge and search out the stuff don't know let and make what is found the new knowledge. No one individual should have the absolute authority on a single subject. "Experts" should be challenged if possible if you feel that they are in the wrong. We all must learn that (in the end) no one person can know everything. We are all ignorant of stuff like the muggles. We are all muggles.

This brings me to my New Year Declaration. I have never claimed that I do know everything. I am very aware of the gaps I have in my knowledge of some things, such as sports. But people can think I do due to my vast knowledge (and posts) on many subjects. I'm just a good organiser of information. So good I am able to link subjects that (to the layman) appear unrelated. But I should set the record straight with a public statement. And this is it, my New Year Declaration of Ignorance....

I, Gordon Wallace (author of the Internet Sketchbook blog) will say for public record on New Years Day 2016 that....

I confess that I am a Muggle, 

as I don't know EVERYthing. 

Happy New Year 
everyone

Sneak Preview 5 - The Pokémon 20th anniversary special BIG act of Cultural Vandalism

Here's sneak preview number 5, regarding a certain yellow "mouse."

Pikachu vs Clefairy

"Start by picking up the palm-sized Nintendo Game Boy, insert the proper cartridge and switch it on. Soon, a creature with a lightning-bolt tail bounces through an animated sequence and pops a cute grin. You have just met Pikachu, the most popular of the Pokémon, a creature--part cherub and part thunder god--that is the most celebrated cartoon icon since Hello Kitty." - "Beware of the Pokemania" by Howard Chua-Eoan and Tim Larimer, Time magazine (22nd November 1999)

And on the subject of the cuteness of Pokémon, lets take the opportunity to discuss an answer to this question. Of all of the 150 original species of Pokémon that existed then, how come the one that was chosen by the community to be the mascot of the entire franchise was... 

Pikachu? Why Pikachu?

Here's my theory. Pikachu easily became the mascot of the franchise due to the great (and somewhat contradictory) combination of power and cuteness. Pikachu's bright yellow fur with patches of brown and red cheeks made the rabbit-sized rodent easy to recognize at a distance, like a New York taxi cab, and (been a primary colour) made him (Most pikachus we see in the media (especially Ash's) are male. Female pikachus have an indent in the tip of their tails that make it look like a heart-shape.) appealing to young children. The same logic can be applied to the other cute critter that the creators had also chosen as a mascot - Clefairy. The pink possible alien featured predominately in the earliest media, even been a lead character in the first ever Pokémon manga adaptation (the long-running Pokémon Pocket Monsters by Kosaku Anakubo). Been pink, Clefairy could have easily have gained a young female following just by her looks alone (Its hard to imagine a male Clefairy (admit it)). But Pikachu won out... how? If you put them side-by-side they look kind-of similar....

A Clefairy and a Pikachu together -

For a direct comparison purposes only.

(I didn't make this gif)

The only reason I could think of why Pikachu became the mascot of the franchise is down to power! While Clefairy (been a fairy-type) had menacing psychic powers, Pikachu had power that was more relatable in the real world - high-voltage electricity. Although psychic abilities are great and appeal to fantasy-junkies, nothing beats raw electricity when it comes to the macho-imagination of boys. To my understanding, girls would like Clefairy and Pikachu just by looks alone, but the psychic powers (and their modern transfixion of the colour pink) would skew their love to Clefairy's favour. However, boys (despite saying otherwise) will also find the two cute, but they would like Pikachu more because of his awesome power that can be easily translated into the real world. There is no need to imagine the damage Pikachu can cause, because it can be demonstrated in the real world. Something that was easily demonstrated to a child when his "idiot" friend gains a Darwin Award.

Electricity: Kites public information film (1989)

You don't see any PIFs about Scanners, further proving my point.

That was how Pikachu became the No 1 Pokémon among fans. He is a massive destructive force packaged in a small fur-ball of uber-cuteness any kid would want to hug.... 

The aftermath of an ill-prepared hug of a Pikachu

(here as a warning for anyone who thinks of doing so).

A cuteness that, according to Nick from At The Buzzer,  could (in the unlikely event of Pokémon suddenly becoming real in our world) cause the end of humanity. Oh, the things people with idle time think about....

All that was needed was the vocal talent of Ikue Ōtani in the anime and the creation of a kawaii icon was complete. Believe it or not, Clefairy nearly became Satoshi's first Pokémon in the pilot episode of the anime. That's what happened to Red in the Pokémon Pocket Monsters manga. But this was changed in the last minute when it came clear that more fans related to Pikachu than Clefairy.

Although, I feel that Meowth could have easily been a rival contender in that contest. 

I mean, everyone likes cats, just look how many they are on the internet. 

Meowth takes over Robot Chicken's Twitter account (February 2015)

And Meowth is not alone in this debate. Since Gen 1 a number of Pokémon have come into been that could challenge Pikachu's role as mascot for the franchise. In September 2015 Warrior13 on the gaming website supercheats.com compiled this top 10 of possible candidates.

But be warned, with fame comes ridicule, as we will revisit Robot Chicken later.

The Time Car (2003)

With 2015 been the 30th anniversary of Back To The Future (and been the year Marty, Doc and Jennifer visited in Back to the Future Part II) Back to the Future was a huge feature in this year's cultural clout (along with that new Star Wars film... and Spectre... and the film adaptation of The Martian).

Even I managed to do something (on the McFly) on the very day we were supposed to all have hoverboards. (Those dangerous things you have been calling "hoverboards" aren't really hoverboards. They got wheels! I'm the few who never saw them as one!) And I did this drawing on the day as well during my Inktober challenge.

Drawing from Inktober challenge -

Featuring humanized Absol Indians.

With all this talk about Back to the Future (and Christmas coming up) I thought this is now a good time to show you all something (probably embarrassing) from my past .... 

The first ever piece of fiction I've ever written.

Originally called The Time Travellers (lame name, I know) The Time Car was a story based on Back to the Future starring characters from The Simpsons and Pokémon and some alternate version of me as Doc. (There is worse fan fiction out there). 

If you want to know how this "masterpiece" came to be and (what you really want to do after reading this) read the actual story, just click the link under this mandatory legal notice.....

For legal reasons I must say beforehand that anything featuring in this story that were created by others (e.g. Matt Groening, Satoshi Tajiri etc (I can't keep track of everything)) belong to their respected creators. Everything else (including how everything is combined here, as far as I know) is mine. I'll ever claim someone else's work as my own.

To Story

Christmas Card 2015

Here's my digital Christmas card for 2015....

Sneak Preview 4 - The Pokémon 20th anniversary special BIG act of Cultural Vandalism

Here's another sneak preview featuring something I think the world must know NOW!

I have noticed that many online sources have made the mistake of confusing pictures of Tsunekazu Ishihara (president and CEO of The Pokémon Company) with that of Satoshi Tajiri. In fact its so widespread that if you did a Google search for an image of "Satoshi Tajiri" you'll find that the first few images you'll get are of Tsunekazu instead of Satoshi. It's like when people confuse Samuel L. Jackson with Laurence Fishburne. This potential confusion (which is made worse by Satoshi's reclusive nature) has to stop. For the sake of future video game history scholars, here's a helpful jpeg....

The SALR are a new thing for the Internet Sketchbook.

I only just came up with the idea of it today.

You heard it here first.

Book Review - NeuroTribes by Steve Silberman (and an added word about bad critics)

Last week I found an interesting book while out shopping one day. It was called  NeuroTribes: The Legacy of Autism and How to Think Smarter About People Who Think Differently by Steve Silberman... or (in the American version) NeuroTribes: The Legacy of Autism and the Future of Neurodiversity (the British publisher has a issue with the word "neurodiversity.") Until I found this book that day, I have never heard of Steve, the book, or his iconic Wired magazine article 'The Geek Syndrome' that was the seed of it, so when I first read it it was with virgin eyes. And after reading all 400-odd pages in two days all I can say is that this book is....

.... one of the best history books on any subject ever written. (Feel free to use this quote everyone.)

I could stop here, but after reading it I found and watched interviews of Steve on YouTube by a number of autistic-related groups, including NAS. And in one of them he talked about the few negative reviews his book was given and singled out one particular review.

The review in question stated that the book was unfair on regards to people with "low-functioning autism" because he over covers them in nine pages of the book.

Does that sound suspicious to you? "Nine pages"? What nine pages is the reviewer talking about? Well, there's a simple answer to that question. If you go to the book's index you'll find that the term "low-functioning individuals with autism" is listed to nine pages. And if you go to the pages in question you'll find the only mentions of the term "low-functioning autism."

That's just lazy reviewing. A page doesn't need to say the term "low-functioning autism" when describing a person with low-functioning autism, in the same way you can talk about sex without actually mentioning the word "sex." Its a disgustingly lazy review that an be easily misinterpreted by people who are unaware of what I just said earlier.

Unlike some reviewers (who just read the blurb on the cover or skim the Wikipedia page) I make the time to read or watch the actual main subjects of my posts. It'll be criminal if I didn't do so ... or try to do so within my means (even if it takes years to finally getting around to do so). I guarantee that (or your money back).

And for the record for those lazy reviewers who couldn't be arsed to read a whole feck'n book, if you did take the time to read this book properly (and not put it on your head as a hat) you'll find that chapter 2 - "The Boy Who Loves Green Straws" - is entirely the back story of one boy who can be described as "low-functioning" and the actions of his parents in raising him and how they got conned by the quacks into prohibitively expensive treatments to "cure" his autism. Its a cautionary tale to show the true misery caused by the confusion caused by the "Autism Wars" of the 2000s and the misconceptions about autism it continued to pedal to the masses. A whole 37-page chapter - ignored! Of the nine pages that reviewer was "referring" to only one is from that very chapter. The term "low-functioning autism" is only mentioned in that whole chapter. It's like saying a book about the LGBT community doesn't do enough coverage  about "same-sex marriages" because (according to the index) it only mentions it half-a-dozen times where in fact it has a whole chapter dedicated to it... and saying that chapter is "weak" because it only says the term once! This lazy review of a "masterpiece" just makes me....

This chapter is one reason Steve wrote this book and why I think this book is one of the best history books on any subject ever written. It provides a non-bias subjective perspective to the subject that can be scrutinized to no end to find little fault. It is properly researched with interviews of prominent figures, such as Lorna Wing, and examinations of the original papers by the likes of Leo Kanner and Hans Asperger. Steve has said that his aim for writing this book is "so no one else has too," so for it to be true he has to do the proper research.

It's no surprise really that the book is done so. Steve has been editor and contributor to Wired magazine, one of the most eminent publications about science, technology and geek culture. I know its not Nature, but tech magazines are equally as scrutinizing fact from fiction as any scientific journal when it comes to reporting scientific research. I mean, you can't imagine healing crystals been advertised in Wired, could you? Exactly. It's no wonder Steve's original feature 'The Geek Syndrome' created a huge response. Compared to most magazine features (which tend to stay in public memory for just a few weeks at most) Steve still get's emails about 'The Geek Syndrome' even now in December 2015, 14 years after its first printing. How many magazine articles can you think of that still gets such a response so many years later?

Steve has been about to tackle the subject of autism with an equally subjective and sympathetic light. He has been able to have a subjective scientific eye to the subject because of two things.

1. He studied psychology at Oberlin College (which has proven useful in dealing with a subject that involves a lot of psychiatry). 
2. How the subject of autism first came on his journalistic radar - by accident. 

In 2000 Steve was on a "geek cruise." (It was an attempt to hold a hacker convention in a non-traditional convention hall-like location by holding it on a ship. What? What did you think I meant by the term "cruise"?). There he met iconic computer programmer Larry Wall. He hoped to arrange an interview with him after the cruise. He said "That's fine.... but I should tell you, my wife and I have an autistic daughter."

A few months later he was working on the profile of Judy Estrin (one of the unsung builders of the internet). For research he approached her brother-in-law Marnin Kligfeld for an interview. He said "Sure... but just so you know, we have an autistic daughter."

The next day he was talking about this seemingly odd coincidence of encountering two autistic children in Silicon Valley he just encountered to a friend in a cafe. All of a sudden a woman at the next table blunted out to him "I'm a special-education teacher. Do you realize what's going on? There is an epidemic of autism in Silicon Valley. Something terrible is happening to our children."

That unexpected outburst of panic was the final stimulance Steve need to write 'The Geek Syndrome'. 

Steve also has sympathy for the people who have been victim to the whims of the neurotypicals. This is because Steve is gay.

 “My very being was defined as a form of mental illness in the diagnostic manual of disorders until 1974. I am not equating homosexuality and autism – autism is inherently disabling in ways that homosexuality is not – but I think that’s why I was sensitive to the feelings of a group of people who were systematically bullied, tortured and thrown into asylums.” - Steve Silberman, from this article in The Guardian (November 2015) 

Anyone with some knowledge of the history of society's attitudes towards homosexuals will know that in the mid-20th century gay men were the subject of psychiatric experiments involving electrodes and drugs to supposedly "cure" them. At that same time, autistic children were also subject to such experiments for the very same reason - to "cure" them. Steve has lived through the time all this was going on. One reason he moved to San Francisco in 1979 was that he could live “a gay life without fear”. It also helped that his parents were communist anti-war activists and he studied under the 1960s counter-culture heavyweight Allen Ginsberg. He is a natural outsider.

“I was raised to be sensitive to the plight of the oppressed. One of the things I do is frame autism not purely in a clinical or self-help context, but in a social justice context. I came to it thinking I was going to study a disorder. But what I ended up finding was a civil-rights movement being born.” - Steve Silberman, from this article in The Guardian (November 2015) 

He's not making out that last bit. There is an active "civil-rights movement" happening right now in the world. Autistic people are fighting back against decades of oppression, ridicule and been treated as medical curiosities that needed treatment so that they can become "normal." The very idea of making humans 100% perfect was supposedly put in history's trash bin when the Nazis lost the War and the concentration camps were liberated. But somehow the idea of "the perfect child" persisted well into the 21st century. Although the basic idea sounds fine (all parents want a healthy child), but the idea can be turned into an excuse for cruelty in the disguise of help. The development milestone chart is just a chart of statistics showing the average path of development. The fact that your child isn't meeting those milestones on time is not a sign of ill health. A chart shouldn't dictate when a child should gain the ability to say "ma ma." And in later years the idea of strangers dismissing involuntary movements and actions they have almost no control over as "bad behaviour" is as bad as treating someone differently due to their skin been rich in melanin. They can't really help it, in the same way a blind person can't help been blind.

I find that the best writings on a subject are by outsiders - people who initially had little or no knowledge of the subject, like Bill Bryson on A Short History of Nearly Everything. This may sound counter-intuitive, but its true. It may sound like a good idea to have someone who is involved in a subject in a professional way to write on the subject of their profession, like Carl Sagan on space, but there is the possibility of the writer having some form of bias. If we are talking about a former employee writing a history of their employer, of course they is going to be some bias. You won't expect a book about autism by Andrew Wakefield to be a positive read. It'll be just one massive piece of anti-vaccine propaganda.
Also I find works by experts in their field a bit of a struggle to digest, due to their use of a lot of technical jargon. The best writings use as little jargon as possible. Not everyone knows what the "clock speed" of a microprocessor represents. but you can explain it by comparing it to a pendulum clock. You got to make the subject relate to the reader, like Tom Standage did when he compared the impact of the telegraph in the mid-19th century to the impact the internet did in the 1990s in his book The Victorian Internet.

Been an outsider (with sympathy to the people affected) Steve has written one of the best history books on any subject ever written. And I would have been very disappointed if it wasn't when I bought it based on two things on the cover.

1. It has a foreword by Oliver Sacks (one of the last things he ever wrote and the reason the book came to be in the first place - he cattle-prodded Steve to write this book (metaphorically))
2. It won the Samuel Johnson Prize for Non-Fiction (the first science book to do so).

The only true criticism the book truly has is that its 400 pages long. Steve originally planned to write a 200-page book. But it could have been worst - Steve has 800 pages of material, so what you are reading is just half of all he written. He does plan to publish some of it online, including the last ever interview of Lorna Wing (before she passed away in 2014), so there's something to look out for.

To rap up I can only repeat what I said earlier... 

This book is one of the best history books on any subject ever written. 

Please read it (properly).

Some thoughts about the state of the Earth (prompted by events in Paris and things relating to them)

The city of Paris is in the buzz of the news recently. One reason is because of the UN Climate Change Conference that is taking place there by the time of writing (I'm future-proofing this post).

Because of this talk (and current findings according to scientists and other things) many are dubbing this talk the talk that'll "decide the fate of Earth" and many activists have used this event to voice their anger in many ways, from the premièring of this film by director Louie Psihoyos (of The Cove fame) to satirical ads mocking the event's sponsors.

With this event I think should use this opportunity to put in my thoughts about the future of the world regarding the all things relating to the environment. And this thought comes in the form of a very worded answer to finding out that  most people think economic recovery is more important than dealing with climate change.

(ham ham!)

So, everyone want a thriving economy. Everyone has a job that uses their best abilities for the benefit of everyone. Everyone has more money than they need to buy the essentials and has the ability to use that money to buy luxuries, such as foreign holidays. And when it comes the essentials, everyone is given a lot choice, such as what type of water to drink or whether their home has wheels or not. People can even afford to choose not to use horses for daily transport (let alone as a source of meat). Everyone is fit and healthy and has access to the best medical care possible and all the latest news and information, regardless of race, gender an preference, or religious belief. A utopia, basically.

But here's a question. Can it be possible to have a truly thriving economy anywhere if the environment is totally screwed up by resource depletion, mass uncontrolled pollution, mass extinction of most lifeforms (plant and animal) and irreversible climate change?

Can the business leaders and politicians of the world still deliver the "milk and honey" promises they always preach, if the Earth experienced this worst case scenario?

Let's start at the beginning.

If all the earth's natural resources have been used up with gay-abandon, is there any work of all the miners and engineers that use to extract those resources?

If they are no new resources left, what about the places that use to turn those raw resources into useful materials? You know the saw mills, the steel plants and the petrochemical refineries.

If they are no more new materials to work with, how are new products going to get made? What's going to happen to all the inventors, designers, the people who create the new visions for tomorrow?

And what about the factory workers and the retailers and advertisers who use to sale them?

If there is no new products, is there a point in hiring shelf-stackers?

If they are no jobs shelf-stacker jobs, how are the students going to pay their tuition?

The fried chicken place? Maybe.

But if all the resources have been used up, how are farmers going to grow crops without the help of fertilizer, pesticides or spare parts for their machines? And with polluted soil and unpredictable weather, is it possible for a farmer to grow enough crops to feed themselves and make a profit?

With little crops, how can the farmers feed their animals for meat and make plat-based products, like vegetable oil? Can fried chicken still exist in this ruined world? Can it be possible to make enough chicken wings to keep a chicken place a thriving business?

Where is the student going to go to pay their tuition, if all the miners, factory workers and retailers are out of work and can't afford fried chicken (let alone holidays abroad)?

This is a scenario John Maynard Keynes fans will recognise - the vicious cycle of unemployment. Factory closes down. No jobs. Workers have no money to spend. Retailers get no money due to lack of sales. Lack of sales causes closure of factory. And repeat.

In the past the government stepped in and start up massive infrastructure programs to employ many workers for them to spend their money, helping the economy to recover. But with no resources left to make concrete and steel, how are the new highways, ships and airports going to get built? In fact, with little money flowing about, who wants the new highways, ships and airports if there is no demand for products across continent, products oversea and foreign travel? Where are all the construction workers and engineers going to go?

Home?

With no money how is the work-at-home parent supposed to provide food for the children? Food that is in short supply, therefore expensive. If they can't be fed, how are they going to learn and play? With no resources left, will the kids still have toys? What about books to read? What will they have to expel the little energy they have? You could take them outside and see nature, but that is gone now. No flowers. No wild animals. No inspiration. Human culture is at a loss.

And that brings up the most significant thing? With all the resources gone how are the people going to light and heat their homes and means of transport? What's going to provide the electricity needed to power fridges, washing machines, TVs, computers, mobile phones, and the internet? What is going to power the planes, trains and automobiles? They all need energy to work. But how are you going to build the power stations, the wind turbines, the solar panels, and the nuclear reactors if all the materials needed to build them are gone?

So, you have no raw materials to make things, grow things, power things and stimulate the brain (except sex). The Earth can replenish many of them if given enough time... but would humans be around when that time comes? What about space, you ask? Ermmm. No resources to make and power a rocket, remember. No rocket, no space program.

And speaking of space, there is the issue of the sky. Thanks to extreme unchecked pollution the sky is constantly dark with little sunlight, meaning little energy for plants (including crops) and solar panels. How can you explain to kids who have never seen a clear sky that the cosmos is full of stars if they can't see them? With no idea about the existence of other planets (or asteroids) its no wonder no space program came to be. That space program could have made a difference, giving humans more resources to make and power stuff.

And with a polluted sky, how can you guarantee good health for life? There is no need for farmers to wastefully grow tobacco because the sky already gives everyone involuntary lung cancer... and other diseases.

And how can you cure their ills if there is no medicine to cure them. All the plants that could have contained the life-saving chemicals are gone.

But surely the doctors can do some surgery on us, right? Genetic engineering?

Remember those students who can't pay their tuition?

Remember those kids who were deprived of stimulation for their imagination?

They could have been those surgeons and geneticists and other people who could have made the nightmare scenario more bearable.

"But surely I could just through money at the problem, right?" says the rich businessman/investment banker. But the thing is.... your fortunes depend on everyone else spending money and doing "useful" stuff with resources.
The miners who extract the raw resources.
The prospectors who look for new resources.
The farmers who grow the crops (which will feed the cattle and the people).
The fishers and hunters who collect the wild animals for food and other resources.
The processing plants that turn these people's labour into useful materials and
the factories that turn those materials into stuff like pharmaceuticals, electronics, textiles, vehicles, weapons, and so on.
And those other industries too, like construction, entertainment, food, and computer software.
And the industries that make "nothing" physical, such as retail, travel, insurance, and finance.
Those industries are dependant on the others to exist.
How can someone sale insurance if there is nothing to insure?
How can it be possible to start a shop if their is nothing to sale?
And how can it be possible for an economic crash to happen due to the trading of sub-prime mortgages if no one could get a job that could pay enough for someone to get a home.... let alone a mortgage on it.

You see, everything connects. Such disasters caused by a low supply of a vital resource (like oil) have happened before. But that was just one vital resource. Imagine if all of them went? Imagine a world without electricity, internal combustion, jets, and plastics. Can you live without a computer, a smartphone, a car, or cheap clothes, let alone food at affordable prices? This world won't accept Discover card (or any card that that matter).

And you thought unpredictable weather and flooded cities were the worst things that could happen?

So, let me ask you this question again -

Can it be possible to have a thriving economy if the environment is ruined?

I'll let you decide....