I just finished reading a blog post that compares educational achievement across the globe (read it here). As an American, it initially troubled me, since the main thrust of the discussion was the U.S.’s failure in math and science education, compared to other countries. One of the points the author focused on was that textbooks in the U.S. tend to be extremely broad, but not particularly deep, in their coverage of a subject. Apparently this type of survey approach isn’t as effective as the methods used by better scoring countries (deeper dives into fewer subjects).
He then suggested a brilliant idea! Why not source textbooks from the most successful countries for a given discipline? There are, of course, plenty of problems with this approach. Textbooks exist in a wider pedagogical plan that spans years; they also are the products of, and supporting text for, particular cultures. There are also great advantages to a broad diversity of global study that would need to be preserved. Still, the fundamental notion of globally sourcing our educational materials and methods has extreme fundamental merit.
There seem to be two approaches to drawing value from this idea. One is a top-down approach which is centered around one or more NGOs, UN committees, etc. The other, and more fun, is a bottom-up approach of looking at centers of excellence around the world and drawing their resources into an informal global collaboration. When all is said and done, each text book has to be translated one at a time, and each school or person needs to make individual choices regarding participation. This is classic crowd sourcing applied to a highly educated and effective crowd.
I wonder how you feel about this. Please comment.
Tim Rohde is Co-founder/Publisher & COO of the-future.com.
By Prof. Paul Padley
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Rice University
In order to make great scientific discoveries, it is important to build great experiments. Outside Geneva, Switzerland, the most complex experiment ever built will soon start collecting data, and it is worth asking why scientists are convinced that something new will be found with it. Let’s look at the history of Big Bang science and see what lessons we can draw from that.
In 1929, Edwin Hubble published his paper A Relation Between Distance and Radial Velocity among Extra Galactic Nebulae.
This is the paper which established that the universe is expanding, in a way consistent with there being a “big bang.” What is interesting to note is that Hubble was working at one of the greatest observatories of its day, Mt. Wilson. He was using the 100-inch telescope, which was a phenomenal instrument for its day and by having access to it, was able to collect the data that established what we now call the “Hubble Constant.”
This was a revolutionary observation that changed how we understand the universe.
Measuring the Hubble Constant is one of the fundamental cosmological measurements that can be made. Refining the precision of that constant is an important goal for science and was one of the motivating goals for building the Hubble Space Telescope. The name was no coincidence, it was a name not just in honor of Edwin Hubble, but in honor of one of its primary scientific missions — measuring the Hubble Constant.
More than just measuring the Hubble Constant, it turns out this telescope has completely upset our view of the universe. When I was a student, I was taught that there was a Big Bang and that the universe was expanding. Gravity was acting on the matter in the universe and the expansion was slowing down. An important question was whether the universe was open or closed, that is — would gravity cause the universe to collapse back in on itself, or not? Scientists were hoping to resolve that question with the Hubble Space Telescope.
What they found was completely unexpected: It appears that the expansion of the universe is not slowing down, in fact, it is speeding up. The expansion of the universe is accelerating! This was a completely surprising result. I remember sitting in the auditorium at CERN when Saul Perlmutter of the Supernova Cosmology Project (http://supernova.lbl.gov/) presented this result (which was simultaneously obtained by the High-z Supernova Search team (http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/supernova//HighZ.html). The auditorium was full of skeptical scientists ready to shoot down the claim. However, one by one, all the hostile questions were answered and the result has stood the test of time.
The accelerating expansion of the universe is now one of the greatest mysteries in science. What is clear is that the universe is not going to collapse down on itself — it is being blown apart. What is also clear is that it took a new facility such as the Hubble Space Telescope to make this amazing discovery possible. The scientists working on the Large Hadron Collider at CERN are anticipating that they are going to make amazing unanticipated discoveries it’s what happens when you build tremendous new facilities.
The demand for eco-friendly fashions has skyrocketed. When we founded SYKA Textiles, most North American designers were skeptical that the concepts “fashionable” and “eco-friendly” could coexist. Perish the idea! We’re not making dungarees. We’re in the business of fashion! But with initiatives like FutureFashion, leaders in the field incorporated new fabrics into their designs, educated their customers, and created new niche markets. The excitement of eco-fashion had begun.
As textile wholesalers, we were thrilled to see beautiful fabrics whose production had less of a negative environmental impact. Our goal was very clear: to make stunning, high-quality, eco-friendly fabrics accessible to the fashion industry. We did this by launching the first-ever brand of eco-friendly fabrics, the Eco-Lux Collection. However, since SYKAs inception, one of the greatest challenges we have faced is striking a balance between the ideals that define and shape what makes a fabric eco-friendly and meeting the particular demands of the fashion market. This has been exciting as well as frustrating, since both forces are dynamic and, when considered together, often appear at odds.
We find that the expansion and success of eco-friendly fabrics in fashion depend strongly on compatibility between the green movement, market demand, and the strong business skills required in this industry.
As a result of the explosion in environmental concern, businesses seeking to become greener face many options. Unfortunately, the trend has also brought with it many unsubstantiated claims from advertisements, magazines, and of course, the Internet. Rather than using solid scientific evidence, these claims often take a very emotional and moralistic more-perfect-and-pure-than-thou position. Often misusing all of the latest buzzwords, they compare the greenness of various eco-fibers and fabrics (complete with winners) and make lists of too-good-to-be-true fabric properties that are not substantiated. We acknowledge our bias. At the same time we firmly believe that if businesses circulate unproven information, green improvements are less likely to occur. Eco-fashion simply becomes a short-term way to capitalize on a passing trend, and may end up doing more damage than good.
We feel its necessary to clarify, as best we can, some of the green qualifiers used in the fashion industry and how they relate to fabric and fashion.
In fashion fabrics, much confusion arises from the misuse of the terms natural, organic, and eco-friendly. These terms have often been used interchangeably, diluting any specific meaning. For instance, natural and organic are not the same. Yet we have many people asking us for natural or organic fabrics, while actually meaning eco-friendly. Natural means that the fiber has been harvested and produced with minimal human processing. For todays most popular fibers, this usually means cotton, wool, silk and linen. In apparel, unless specified (and certified) otherwise, natural fibers are not organic. To qualify a fiber as organic, as in organic cotton, fiber production must adhere to strict standards and be certified by the appropriate governing body. The Organic Trade Association has clear and comprehensive information on this matter. For producers who go to great lengths to make a certified organic product, it must be extremely frustrating to see conventional fibers marketed as organic.
An eco-friendly fiber may or may not be natural and/or organic. What it unequivocally does not mean is that the fiber has zero negative environmental impact. We do not know of any fiber that has zero negative impact. Certainly, all production has some.
The most straightforward way to define an eco-friendly fiber is by specifying that at least one major step in its production has less of a negative environmental impact than the conventional alternative. For example, bamboo, soy, and hemp fibers are eco-friendly because their production requires lower levels of herbicide and pesticide usage compared to conventional cotton. Similarly, organic cotton, a natural, certified organic fiber, is also eco-friendly for this reason. All of these fibers bio-degrade at a faster rate than petroleum-based fibers such as polyester and nylon, and come from resources that may be renewed. These fibers, as well as others, make up a large portion of the new green fibers used for fashion, and their usage is an important step in the right direction.
From Eco-Fibers to Eco-Fabrics
Ultimately, it is the fabrics that are important in fashion. If eco-fibers are gentler on the environment than the conventional alternative, we must identify which stage(s) of fabric production has a less negative environmental impact. There are numerous stages in fabric production, and if all are not considered, it is next to impossible to discern the relative eco-friendliness of one fabric over another. With the widening concern over the environmental impact of the fashion industry, there are many opinions on which fabrics are better. We dont see how these conclusions can be drawn, because there have been no good comparisons of the overall process. At this point, we can only compare, at best, one stage in the process and ask ourselves, How does this fabrics stage of production compare with another fabric, in terms of negative environmental impact?
The first stage of production relates to fiber production, and is the main focus considered for most eco-friendly fabrics like bamboo, soy, hemp and lyocell (commonly known as Tencel®). Matters such as irrigation levels, natural or chemical fertilizer use, herbicide and pesticide use, land availability, speed at which source plants grow and replenish, and the overall treatment of animals needed to produce hair or silk all must be considered.
After the fiber production, the second major stage is yarn spinning. Issues here include the energy and materials used to process the fibers, the type of dyestuff used (e.g., for yarn-dyed fabrics), as well as the actual waste by-product derived from the different processes. Lyocell is environmentally friendly because the solution used in the yarn fabrication is not flushed into the environment.
The third stage is the actual fabric production. This differs according to the particular standards of each weaving and knitting mill, and/or dye house. Mills and dye houses concerned with producing eco-friendly fabrics will often obtain international certifications for compliance (see below). In addition to considerations of energy use and other by-products when making greige fabrics, energy and water usage along with dyeing/finishing multi-phase processes are extremely important factors. If the fabric is to be used to make fashionable garments, then it needs to be dyed and finished to certain specifications. Here, the important steps in the process become the type of dyestuff used, the application of toxic mordants to improve fastness, the other chemicals and solvents used in the finishing process, the energy and water required for dyeing and finishing the fabric, and the extent of runoff and wastewater treatment. Reactive dyes, commonly known as low impact dyes, vary in terms of environmental friendliness depending on the type used and the manufacturer. In general, however, they are gentler on the environment than conventional dyes, because they are more efficiently absorbed resulting in less polluting runoff. These dyes are used in Eco-Lux fabrics.
Finally, for the last step of post-production, the distance and transportation required to ship the fabric to the garment manufacturing plant and eventually, to the end consumer are factors to consider when determining if a product is eco-friendly.
These steps offer a very rough framework in the production process, but illustrate the numerous points at which the environment can be affected by fabric manufacturing. This obviously does not begin to address the very important and related subject of fair and ethical conditions for workers. We are not aware of any published scientific study by an unbiased third party that has come close to addressing these numerous steps in fabric production. This would be a monumental task, but one that we feel the scientific community should address.
Eco-Fabrics in the Fashion Market
Author Katherine Govier said, “When everything is fashion, the only genius is timing,” and all indicators tell us that the time is ripe for eco-fashion. Al Gores documentary An Inconvenient Truth, and British entrepreneur Sir Richard Bransons financial commitment to combat the threat of climate change have helped bring green concerns to the forefront of the public agenda. In Vancouver, Canada, where SYKA was founded, preferential consideration is given to green businesses competing for contracts for the upcoming 2010 Winter Olympics. In fashion, we have seen companies such as Patagonia and, more recently, the U.K.-based retailers Marks & Spencer and Tesco successfully make headway in this arena. Will this trend to be replaced as quickly as it arrived, or will it endure?
The term sustainable is not one we use often, because its meaning seems to have been lost. From our perspective, sustainability refers to long-term objectives that are both environmental and economical. The definition of sustainable development, as originally drafted by the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987, refers to meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the needs of future generations. As such, development policies and environmental protection are not at odds, as both aim to increase peoples overall welfare. In fashion, this means that environmental and business practices need to interact often to keep up with a fast-paced and changing industry. Using the environment as a canvas for strategy, businesses must be able to provide the right product at the right time, and at the right price.
Supplying the right fabrics for fashion has both intuitive as well as pragmatic elements. Fashion is a product of many factors including culture, geography, and cycles that turn at an ever-increasing speed. Even though fashion is currently considering green issues, television shows like Ugly Betty, and movies like The Devil Wears Prada, remind us that the industry is generally portrayed with a certain lightness in relation to serious world issues. In order to be used more extensively in fashion, eco-fabrics must complement fashion design with high quality.
The intuitive element in our work is finding the right quality, texture, hand, style, weight and color of fabric. Almost all eco-friendly fabrics have wonderful tactile properties, but we have found that the job of successfully sourcing consistently high-quality and fashionable fabrics requires a substantial investment of time and resources. We travel around the world and attend major textile trade fairs to learn whats up and coming. We also consult fashion experts, monitor industry publications and, of course, listen to our customers input.
Finding and achieving what is fashionable is no small feat, especially when working with some of the new eco-fibers. Bamboo and soy, while wonderfully soft, are new and the quality can be highly variable. Hasty production, lack of experience with new fibers and less-than-optimal technology can add up to frequent defects. Because we have built a reputation around quality with Eco-Lux , we take a number of steps to ensure a solid, environmentally sound product rather than a quick fabric fix for a booming market.
When we source our fabrics, we also source our suppliers. Of the numerous mills we visit annually, we shortlist the ones that not only have the technology to produce beautiful fabric with minimal defects, but also stand behind their words with good business practices. We test and monitor our fabrics and develop strong relationships with our mills. We visit the mills in person several times a year. We also seek international certification and verification from mills, such as ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and Oeko-Tex Standard 100. We have developed relationships with serious mills that care about quality and eco-friendly fabrics. This approach also helps us to customize and develop new and unique fabrics.
The issue of price is a contentious one when it comes to eco-friendly fabrics. If the industry is to become more environmentally friendly, eco-fabrics should be reasonably accessible and affordable. However, as it currently stands, if variables such as quality and quantity are controlled, eco-friendly fibers or fabrics cost more. This is because there is less supply, fewer suppliers, and quickly increasing demand. While its likely that prices will fall as supply increases, its doubtful that these fibers will ever cost as little as conventional ones.
Recent media reports have suggested that sustainable fashion can be had for the same cost as conventional clothing. This builds unrealistic expectations for consumers, which leads to disappointment when faced with a higher price tag. When uniqueness (as in eco-friendly fibers) and quality are demanded along with low prices, theres always something in the equation, such as fair trade, that has to give. Implementing environmentally friendly practices comes at an added cost. If there was none, the debate would be needless, because changing our ways would be cheaper and thus swift and easy. Ultimately, the consumer must be willing to pay extra for an eco-friendly garment, at least until regulation forces all producers to meet these standards.
If we are to improve the health of our planet and build a sustainable future, the massive international garment industry must adopt the eco-friendly movement. We have seen amazing strides in the improvement of the quality, availability and impact of eco-fabrics, but there is still plenty of work to be done. Green businesses must start to acknowledge that eco-friendly fabrics are worth pursuing and not a fading trend. There is no quick solution. In fabric and fashion, we have the choice to turn around some of the environmental consequences of rapid industrialization.
The “disposable society” is taking a well-deserved beating from more and more people these days. The scourge of our environment, our pocketbooks and our souls may be headed, itself, for the dustbin of history. The forces pushing back against the disposable society come from some familiar and some surprising origins. The ecological imperative has finally hit the mainstream. The “maker” and diy (do-it-yourself) movements are fostering a new enthusiasm for individuals to work with their hands. And several sites on the Internet have made it easier to find qualified repair professionals. All of this is converging with what appears to be a long-term need for average Americans to tighten their belts. While there are plenty of companies that have yet to catch on, repair is back and it’s here to stay.
Of all the long-term trends favoring repair over disposal, none is more compelling than the fate of the planet. Every year in the U.S., alone, over 200 million tons of trash go into landfills. Over 63 million computers are disposed of. Over 148 million functioning (or repairable) cell phones are dumped. Cameron Church of Conergy Deutschland GmbH once told me, “Remember, REDUCE, REUSE and RECYCLE are listed in order.” Repairing things indirectly reduces the need for new items and directly supports reuse. While the U.S. is doing an increasingly good job of recycling, the opportunities for keeping repairable items in service is only now being explored in earnest by the mainstream.
This mainstream is divided into two camps: those who are more likely to hire a repair professional and those who are more likely to do it themselves. The world of professional repair has been enjoying significant expansion and enrichment due to new Web resources that promote and critique various services. Resources like Angie’s List, Service Magic and Yelp have brought much needed light to the world of repair services. These sites provide the ability for consumers to publish feedback about their service experiences. While this may seem harsh at first, it rewards quality and excellence by weeding out service people who undermine the public’s trust, thus clearing the field for better service providers. This increases the likelihood that a consumer will get something effectively fixed and ready to continue providing value.
This type of improvement is a predictable outcome of the information efficiencies we’ve come to expect from the Internet. We can file this under business-growth-through-efficiency, but there is another kind of emergent growth happening that is both more surprising and more inspiring: the do-it-yourselfer is back and has been transformed into part cultural icon, part helpful info source, part performer….
The leaders in mainstreaming do-it-yourself repair are found in the diy (do it yourself) movement. One of their favorite haunts is the FIX section of diy.com. diy.com averages more that 150,000 unique visitors per month and is only one of many sites in the diy universe. Combine this with the 105,000 YouTube videos about repair and the 3,600,000 pages returned in a Google search of the term “diy repair” and you’ve got a whole lot of action around individuals repairing things. These resources run the gamut from highly informative and very ernest help to hilarious, don’t-try-this-at-home events. The common thread among these performances and articles is that something interesting comes from something broken or unused.
An even greater commitment to reuse (often through repurposing material) is found in the “maker movement.” Celeste Headlee’s succinct description of the maker movement says it best: “On a basic level, the movement is about reusing and repairing objects, rather than discarding them to buy more. On a deeper level, it’s also a philosophical idea about what ownership really is.” She goes on to paint the picture of this philosophy of ownership, namely – IF YOU CAN’T REPAIR SOMETHING, YOU DON’T REALLY OWN IT. The maker movement has a bill of rights which has caught the eye of several large industry players. It has a vibrant, interesting niche press lead by Make Magazine. It has Maker Faires that have now spread to every populated continent. They are celebrations of human ingenuity that honor some of the wildest artistic and engineering achievements executed with materials and objects that were discarded by the disposal-happy culture at large. These events are part science fair, part geekfest, part Burning Man… Note to world: this is not a fad.
Regardless of how much staying power and sustainability is built into the diy and maker movements, their impact on the future would likely be small, if not for the current economic decline. The ranks of committed diyers and makers has certainly swelled but, more importantly, the ranks of those who otherwise wouldn’t repair things has grown with the economic downturn. These new do-it-yourselfers search the Internet for answers and run into more than the Home Depot website. They find this new, vibrant culture that celebrates fixing things and making things. That convergence alone has the potential to reinvigorate the latent strains of self reliance and creativity that so strongly characterize the American past and deliver a new class of hands-on creators to the future.
Tim Rohde is Co-founder/Publisher & COO of the-future.com.
There is a certain romance in strolling a farmers market on a Saturday morning. Stalls overflow with the colors and textures of the season, from summers luscious reds and velvety greens to the autumnal harbingers of orange and yellow. The senses come alive, eagerly anticipating a little taste of cheese, or perhaps a sample of honey.
For hard-core food lovers like me, this is a little piece of heaven. Im noticing, however, that the farmers market seems more packed than usual these days local is hip again.
Everywhere I turn, I find more people sourcing their foods from local farmers and purveyors, but here is where the romantic notions diverge. While some are opting for flavor and freshness instead of the usual fare on the supermarket shelf, others are doing it in an effort to go green, or to support their local communities. Whatever the reasons, however, its clear that there is a movement at hand.
So how did we get here? And, more importantly, where are we going?
Sunflower Crop
Funny thing, movements. In this case, we seem to be giving a nod to the past, where sourcing food locally was less a matter or romance and more a matter of practicality: The farmers market was the only option in town. Supermarket chains changed the game, however, and suddenly it was easy to have tomatoes in the dead of winter. While this, in itself, was a marvel of technology and progress, it came with a cost, and in this case the biggest was flavor. As food became a commodity, and mass-production became the focus, flavor took second place to shelf-life. So while tomatoes might now last longer in your refrigerator, they are picked green and gassed to achieve that ruby-red color and they have zero palate appeal.
In an effort to preserve the all-important pleasure source of flavor, many chefs (bless their hearts) turned to their local farmers as a viable resource. The Union Square Market in New York City became a chefs shopping paradise, and some chefs went so far as to commission their own gardens planted with exactly the vegetables and herbs they desired. When their guests tasted the difference, they wanted those flavors at home. I dont blame them: If youve ever tasted a real August tomato, youll never again eat the supermarket variety in December.
Fast-forward to 2009, and we now have a species known as the locavore: He who eats no food sourced outside of an x-mile radius, in most cases 100 miles. I recently discovered a cafe in England that sources within 30.
In large part, I find this to be a good practice. It creates locally sustainable food systems and makes us less dependent on the flavorless products of agribusiness behemoths. Whenever possible I, too, like to source locally. Having said that, I recognize that such practices are not feasible to the world at large. I happen to be in an area surrounded by farmland in most directions, so it would be very easy for me to push the eat local agenda.
But what of the world populations that dont have such easy access? Or barely any food at all? In such cases romance is a luxury, and eating to live the primary focus.
The more I learn and research, the more questions that arise for me. I read books like Michael Pollans In Defense of Food and find myself in agreement with a lot of it. I watch movies like Food, Inc. and find myself disgusted by governmental intervention and subsidization. I also know, however, that the alternative presented by sourcing and eating locally cannot sustain the global food supply.
So where are we headed? Im not really sure. Are we willing to give up avocados on the East Coast, or mangoes? And are these even the questions to be asking?
What questions are you asking?
Jennifer Iannolo is the co-founder and CEO of the Culinary Media Network, as well as the creator of Food Philosophy, a blog and audio/video podcast celebrating the sensual pleasures of food. Her new cookbook, The Gilded Fork: Entertaining at Home encourages you to invite friends and family in while keeping the stress out. You can find Jennifer on Twitter ranting and raving about food and sensuality — with a heaping tablespoon of sass — as @foodphilosophy.
How did the universe begin? And, once knowing, will we ever be the same?
Interview with Dr. Paul Padley by Arthur G. Insana
How did the universe begin? And, once knowing, will we ever be the same?
Imagine a time when the mysterious and fundamental secrets of the universe finally have been answered and are as accepted as knowing that the Earth is round. Imagine a world in which other dimensions are opened up to exploration, or that limitless energy sources finally solve the global crises we face.
Now imagine that that time has come, and that the world of imagination is reality.
Experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), at CERN, near Geneva, Switzerland, are on the verge of potentially not only discovering those unsolved universal mysteries, but also of opening the door to a mind-boggling array of new technologies that may promise to eclipse the notions brought to us by the science of fiction.
Imagine a time when the mysterious and fundamental secrets of the universe finally have been answered and are as accepted as knowing that the Earth is round. Imagine a world in which other dimensions are opened up to exploration, or that limitless energy sources finally solve the global crises we face.
Now imagine that that time has come, and that the world of imagination is reality.
Experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), at CERN, near Geneva, Switzerland, are on the verge of potentially not only discovering those unsolved universal mysteries, but also of opening the door to a mind-boggling array of new technologies that may promise to eclipse the notions brought to us by the science of fiction.
As we beta-launch the-future.com, we are proud to open our doors to some of the worlds most ground-breaking theorists pioneers on the razors edge of tomorrow.
We welcome Dr. Paul Padley, professor of physics at Rice University, and a lead physicist of experimental research for the LHC. Dr. Padley has agreed to become a regular editorial contributor to our feature: Portals an open channel of communication with leading global thinkers from a variety of disciplines integral to our evolution as a species. Dr Padley also is joining our Board of Directors, as a science mentor and advisor.
For this first overview of the operations at CERN, we spoke with Dr. Padley to foster a better understanding of the LHCs purpose and goals. Subsequent interviews and articles will delve more deeply into the Colliders ongoing experiments, with supplemental articles from Dr. Padley, himself. (See his first accompanying article: Revolutions in Science.)
t-f/c: Can you explain what the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is?
Dr. P: The LHC is a particle accelerator which takes protons and accelerates them to 7 TeV protons crashing into 7 TeV protons (7 TeV energy is the energy a proton would have after being accelerated to 7,000,000,000,000 Volts), which is seven times more energetic than has ever been achieved before. [According to CERNs run plan for the next year, the accelerator will initially start at 3.5TeV on 3.5TeV and then will be raised to 5 on 5.] It (the Collider) will take two beams of protons, which are going in opposite directions, around the ring. They will hit, head-on and, in those collisions, new matter, new processes, should reveal themselves.
This computer-generated image shows the location of the 27-km LHC tunnel (in blue) on the Swiss-France border. The four main experiments (ALICE, ATLAS, CMS, and LHCb) are located in underground caverns connected to the surface by 50 m to 150 m pits. Part of the pre-acceleration chain is shown in grey.
So whats going on is were harnessing Einsteins equation E=MC², to take the energy were putting into those protons and convert it into mass energy and make new unobserved particles particles that havent been seen before in nature or see processes taking place, that we havent seen before in nature.
The processes and the particles that we see in this, are things that must have happened in the beginning of the universe, or shortly after the Big Bang and these processes were examining are what give rise to the structure of the universe. Were actually, really trying to do cosmology on a microscopic scale were trying to understand the underlying physics that goes on at a sub-atomic level. Theres a deep connection with what we see in the universe, and what we see on the microscopic scale that well be examining.
t-f/c: How do you make that assumption?
Dr. P: We know some of the properties of the universe we know some of the things we see and we cant explain what we see in the universe without invoking something that we call the Standard Model of Particle Physics. You cant explain where the elements come from, you cant explain where the quarks that make up the protons and neutrons come from, and how they interact, without using the Standard Model of Particle Physics. So, what were doing, at these high energies, is replicating a point in time, shortly after the Big Bang, where the energy density of the universe is comparable to the energy densities well have in these collisions.
t-f/c: Still, the experiments begin with a basic assumption?
Dr. P: Theres an assumption being made that the laws of physics today, are the same laws of physics that existed at the beginning of the universe. Its not totally outside the realm of debate, so people can call that into question.
t-f/c: So, your experiments are an attempt to recreate The Big Bang or, maybe, The Little Big Bang?
Dr. P: I do experimental particle physics were trying to understand the most fundamental constituents of matter, and how they interact. Were trying to understand the most basic elements of the universe. Now, we know that when we look out at the universe, its comprised, largely, of dark energy and dark matter. So, about 95% of whats out there in the universe has not been identified by science. And this is a big mystery. There is a sub-set, a small minority, of scientists, who explain dark energy by saying well, the laws of physics could be a bit different and what youre seeing could be an effect of that. But the thing that you see with the Hubble telescope is an accelerating expansion of the universe and thats a complete mystery. So, for me, this is an opportunity. We dont know what 95% of the universe is made out of lets try and make some of that stuff in the lab.
* * *
In upcoming coverage of the LHC, well examine the importance of the research, the global cooperation required to mount this enormous effort of science and the potential applications of the discoveries made.
For example, it sometimes takes decades for technological applications to arise from pure scientific theory and research: Did you know that your Global Positioning System (GPS) requires the application of both Einsteins special theory of relativity and his general theory of relativity to correctly calculate your position? Without correcting for the effects predicted by those theories, the GPS would never get you to your destination at least, not the one you intended!
Or, that this year marks the 20th anniversary of the World Wide Web coincidently, a monumental technological advancement that not only makes this communication possible, but originally was developed by the deep thinkers at CERN, for their own internal use. http://info.cern.ch/www20/
As we embark upon our species journey toward tomorrow, it should not be lost on us, that to understand the future, pioneers like Dr, Padley and his colleagues must look back to the very beginning of time. AGI
Revolutions in Science
By Dr. Paul Padley, Professor of Physics, Rice University
Ehsan Masood posed the question “Are we witnessing the end of science? This is an excellent discussion and it is correctly pointed out that the LHC at CERN may lead to the revolution. There was an interesting comment made that is worthy of a bit more conversation: Masood writes, “Revolutions in scientific thinking are always difficult but perhaps one reason why we may see fewer of them in the future is because of the highly professional way in which modern science is organized. It takes a lot of courage to challenge conventionally accepted views, and it needs a certain amount of stamina to constantly battle those who want to protect the status quo. Mavericks do not do well in large organizations, which is what some scientific fields have become.”
As someone who is working on one of the LHC experiments, I would like to give an insiders view that is quite contrary. The major experiments at the LHC have been preparing to analyze the data that will be forthcoming when the LHC is turned back on. Of course no one knows, in advance, what will be found (you wouldn’t need to do the experiment if you already had the answer) and so the collaborations survey the theoretical ideas that are in existence and, using simulations, see how well they can test these ideas. They have produced large documents called Physics TDRs that survey all the ideas that have been put through this process. This is like a dress rehearsal for when the data will be available.
What is striking, incredibly striking, about these documents is that a large fraction of the effort is exploring the potential for discovering evidence of new and revolutionary science. The CMS experiment (full disclosure, I am a collaborator on that experiment), has assets of Web pages for the public about the physics that will be pursued by the experiment
http://cms.web.cern.ch/cms/Physics/index.html and you can see that physics, beyond what is known, is the major goal for the experiment. The fact that we might not have a clue as to what that will be is fully acknowledged
“The Higgs mechanism and speculative theories like supersymmetry are exciting physics and will be scrutinized and tested at CMS. But if they are not correct and we, instead, see new, interesting and different phenomena, this could launch a revolution in physics, sending theorists back to the drawing board and challenging our ideas about the world at the most basic level.”
For me, and most of my colleagues, this is the foremost goal of the experiment. In fact, this is even a bit self serving, because the greatest rewards in academia go to those who have challenged the status quo and had their ideas prevail. (Einstein was unable to get a job in academia until he had done so — he had to work in the Swiss patent office until then.) Like all good science, the ideas and results that come from the experiments will be scrutinized and challenged. However, the correct ideas will prevail. Most of us expect that there will be a revolutionary change in our view of the universe.
Money may make the world go ’round, as the song says, but given the whirlpool of global financial chaos that has been swirling around us for the past year, it would appear that the Earth is spinning out of control, with no brakes and little hope of slowdown if you listen only to the non-profits of doom.
Have we reached or will we reach the end of everything? Is capitalism the promised cure? Is socialism the poison pill? Is globalization the inevitable future for economic stability?
World economists argue and disagree upon the severity of the current crisis, and offer sometimes conflicting prescriptions to restore global economic health, while politicians pander to PAC agendas. But where does truth reside?
As we look at the future of money, and the economic climate of Planet Earth, we thought that there is no better way to face the challenges of tomorrow than by understanding the successes and failures of the past — the evolution of economics.
Ron Insana, senior financial analyst for CNBC, and a financial journalist for the past 25 years, also made forays into the world outside the newsroom, with his own hedge fund, and then as a managing director for SAC, one of the worlds most successful hedge-fund companies.
We have opened our special feature, Portals, to continuing conversations with Insana, for his insights, and occasional advice, as we attempt to navigate the turbulent financial waters that flow toward what some call an uncertain future.
t-f/c: What does history teach us about the way in which global economics evolves?
RI: Weve gone through an enormous revolution, both in economic practice and economic theory, over the course of human history. By the same token, some of the basic elements of economics have been at work as long as there have been civilized societies — whether older, primitive agrarian societies, or pastoral societies or beyond that mercantilist, capitalist, socialist or communist forms of economic structure.
Obviously, the ancients wouldnt recognize the moderns, when it comes to economics. Having said that, if you look at societies as far back as ancient Mesopotamia, youll find contracts, for lack of a better word, that mirror some of the more sophisticated derivatives that we use today.
t-f/c: In what way?
RI In the tendency toward economic behavior. Despite our most recent economic setback, the tendency is toward some form of capitalism as the most meritocratic way to allocate resources and wealth. And I dont think that thats going to go through some of the changes that some people anticipate today. Many are arguing that were heading toward something more socialistic in nature, even though most people dont understand capitalism and the way it works.
I doubt if were headed in that direction., and if we are, its a detour. Capitalism, as one famous person said is a terrible system of economics. The only ones worse are all the others.
Entrepreneurialism and technological development are better fostered in an environment like our own, than in most of the other systems that have been tried and failed. So capitalism appears to be the best economic system
Capitalism didnt exist prior to Adam Smith. It has its strengths and its weaknesses, in the sense that capitalism is (and this is an arguable point) a better way of allocating scarce resources; is a better way of fostering entrepreneurialism, innovation, technological advancement; and also is a better way of allocating reward, than any other.
People will make the case that those are arguable points. I dont see how they are, given that history has shown that neither communism nor socialism, the two biggest rival schools of economics, have done any better.
Communism has been an out-and-out failure, which we know from the Soviets and the Chinese, who no longer practice it. They have a command and control economy, but theres an element of capitalism that actually provides the engine of growth.
Socialism, as its constructed in Europe, or Social Democracy, has not benefited the economies of Continental Europe in the same manner as capitalism has in most of the Anglo-Saxon countries.
Theres also been a life-style choice a kind of trade-off between working to live and living to work which is something the Europeans talk about all the time they work to live the Anglo countries tend to live to work. So in certain instances, they have higher productivity, in some industries, and in other instances. Certainly, our rates of growth, our rates of unemployment, are much better, historically, than theirs. So, we could debate it for quite some time but I think the evidence is pretty strong that capitalism, without being xenophobic or jingoistic about it, is considerably better as an economic system
That having been said, there are forms and variations of the theme that have been tried, from unfettered free-market capitalism to something that has a greater degree of regulation and government intervention. Somewhere between the extremes of unfettered free-market capitalism and too much government interference appears to be the capitalist system that works best.
t-f/c: Do you see any other potential system evolving out of the current economic situation?
RI: I dont know I dont think so, because, at the moment, there arent any really credible alternatives. The notion that, somehow, large societies can achieve some sort of completely egalitarian state seems to be a Utopian ideal that is less than practical.
t-f/c: Simply because of population?
RI: Partly.. smaller countries have had greater success with experimentation around equal distribution of wealth, socialized medicine work and living rules. But, when youre talking about 300 million people, its difficult to implement such a system (unless communism were practiced in a very pure form each according to his needs, etc.). First, I dont think humans tend toward economic equality. I think they tend toward accumulation.
Which is actually a post-14th Century phenomenon. One of the things that was interesting about the Plague, that the book, Connections, by James Burke, spoke about, was that one of the unexpected consequences of the Plague in Europe was that when the population was cut by half, suddenly materialism grew, because the survivors were able to accumulate the wealth that was left behind.
And there was an important change in the view of earthly existence that developed modern materialism. So, the notion of materialism may have accelerated the move toward capitalism which was largely defined by Adam Smith.
t-f/c: Which ran counter to religious philosophy?
RI: Not really. Religious philosophy prohibited things like usury, charging interest and profiteering, but obtaining wealth by brute force was never something that was frowned upon. People accumulated wealth as warriors, as emperors. The motivation might have different Divine Right of Kings, political power. Wealth was part of the trappings, and wasnt necessarily for wealths sake. Power might have been the greater motivation, at the time. But theres been no major civilization, to my knowledge, in which the ruling elite did not accumulate both wealth and power.
t-f/c: Despite the constant rumors of a single world currency as the key to a stable global economic future, you dont see that happening? Why not?
RI: Well, we have one its called the U.S. dollar. the de facto reserve currency of the world is the greenback. There are countries, which for various political purposes, are threatening to diversify away from dollar-denominated holdings of securities, whether theyre stocks or bonds, etc., in an effort to gain some political advantage over the United States. But, in reality, the most widely used currency in the world is the dollar, and will likely be so for quite some time, for a variety of reasons. The world is already dollarized, for all intents and purposes, and replacing a currency thats as dominant as the dollar requires (particularly in the sense of a one-world currency) harmonizing the economic policies of every country on Earth that wishes to participate in a singe currency structure. Much in the way the European Union wanted to create the Euro. That process began in 1957 with the Treaty of Rome, after World War II, when it was decided that Germany was required to attach its economic fortunes to France, so that it would be disinclined to attack its neighbors in the future. And that led to the European Common Market, which led to the European Union, and harmonization of economic policies in Europe. Ultimately, that led to a managed exchange-rate mechanism which ultimately led to a single currency in Europe.
And, were still not sure that is stable. The economic policies of the countries in Europe are still wildly disparate. They have not ever maintained the criteria that is each country is required to maintain to support a single currency. They dont have a singular central bank that has the type of mandate the Federal Reserve does that allows them to have an effective continent-wide monetary policy which is required for maintaining a stable single currency. All of that is a little heady; what I’m really saying is that they have not worked out the kinks they should have worked out, prior to instituting the Euro.
Given that experiment, its hard to see how you can take however many hundreds of countries there are in the world and create a system under which you have a single global central bank, harmonized economic policies among all the countries on the planet, where theyve contained their budget deficits to three percent of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) (as is required by the Europeans). There are certain parameters around which their economies have to function in order to maintain the stability of the currency. Now its almost impossible on a global scale. Given the fact that the world is mostly dollarized, I dont see a credible competitor to the dollar, in the near term.
t-f/c: Isnt that philosophy of stability the reason this issue keeps coming up? Some people think that is the only way that the world may find financial solvency, in the near and long-term future?
RI: This is where George Soros goes with equilibrium theory hes got his own ideas about how to stabilize the global economy, through a notion he calls reflexivity. And, ultimately, that will lead to some sort of alternative to the dollar, through the International Monetary Fund issuing something called special drawing rights its a very complex structure that hes talking about. And it is 44 percent comprised of the dollar, anyway.
Complex systems, as we know from Chaos Theory, are inherently unstable, so I dont know how you go from the relative stability that we have right now, to achieving a greater degree of stability when youre trying to manage the entire planet with a single currency given that each country has its own set of political and economic concerns that have yet to be harmonized. You would need a single economic system, you would need a very cohesive political structure, which Europe doesnt even have, in order to create a single global currency. And I think anybody who contemplates that notion hasnt the foggiest idea of what he or she is talking about, when it comes to global economics. First of all, its not achievable in our lifetime, and second, if it ever is, it would involve the dissolution of nation states and a much more harmonious global environment than we currently have. Chinas purchases of U.S. bonds keep interest rates down, and by extension, allow the U.S. economy to keep growing, so they can keep selling to our market.
If we have a collapse of the U.S. economic system, which we flirted with, dangerously, just a few months ago, China, as we saw from their export figures in the Spring, will suffer far worse than we will. So, a lot of this talk, to be utterly frank, is B.S. and is political posturing, and has nothing to do with economics.
t-f/c: So, therefore clearly, we have reached a point in which all international economies are interdependent. What does that mean for the future of money?
RI: Same story, really. Money is money. Its fungible. Were not going to see the disappearance of major currencies, I dont think, in our lifetime, or major currency blocks, for that matter. The Yuan (Chinese currency), which people are increasingly excited about, or Renminbi (RMB) — one is for domestic consumption, one is for trade — is gaining some traction at the outer edges of China as a tradable currency, but its not fully convertible. Its still managed by the Peoples Bank of China in a fixed exchange-rate regime, which is somewhat inflexible and problematic.
I dont know moneys money whatever is a storehouse of wealth, a means of exchange that facilitates trade is money, whether its gold, whether its paper, whether its an electronic entry, then thats the evolution.
Increasingly, were becoming more and more electronic and its a book entry. However uncomfortable people might be with that — thats more relevant than which currency is dominant on the planet.
One thing Ill say is that the experiment being tried right now with the U.S. dollar, is that we are the largest net debtor nation in the world that continues to borrow in its own currency. If we were to ever have a dollar crisis, while it would drive interest rates up, potentially, here at home, the net result would be to effectively screw our overseas bond holders because they would be paid back in devalued dollars. They would lose money. This is their chief concern that they would lose money on their holdings of U.S. Treasuries or other investments. Most net debtor nations are required to borrow in the currency of the lender. Which is why weve seen currency crises in the past (like the Russian rubble crisis in 1998, or the Asian currency crisis in 1997), cause such havoc in those economies, because, effectively, their outstanding foreign debts increased by twice the magnitude of the decline in their currencies. In other words, if their purchasing power was cut in half, that meant their debt to foreigners doubled over night. That is, effectively, what happened in Asia in 97 and Russia in 98. and so, it becomes an extraordinary burden to pay back that external debt.
Whereas, instead of defaulting on our debt because of the devaluation of the currency, we actually end up benefiting, because were inflating the debt away with devalued dollars. Its an old political trick, quite frankly, and it works to our benefit.
t-f/c: Well, if the world were to move to a totally electronic monetary system, how is the asset value determined? Is it just perceived value… if there is no actual physical money backing it?
RI: The notion of physical money is an interesting construct, given that loadstones, seashells, wampum and
Wampum
other forms of currency were used to represent a medium of exchange, a storehouse of value, however you want to define the primary functions of money. It was either gold, precious metals, base metals, paper currency that was backed by gold or silver. Or then, just paper money and credit.
The fact that weve evolved toward an electronic book entry, which is quantified in dollars, is just part of the evolution of money. You work for a sum, and the sum is deposited in your account, electronically. And so you are trading your work for that electronic entry, which really is no more abstract than getting a piece of gold, which someone, somewhere, decided, because of its relative scarcity, was one of the most valuable commodities on the planet.
In reality, its just a commodity. Diamonds are not nearly as scarce as they used to be, whether theyre manufactured, or whether theres a glut of diamonds, worldwide, because the Russians have become such prolific producers, along with South Africa. Whats to say that there couldnt be some extraordinary find of gold that would alter its value?
Its unlikely, because even today, the entire amount of gold thats been mined in the history of the planet could fill about one-third of the Washington Monument (http://money.howstuffworks.com/question213.htm). Its a relatively scarce commodity. But the fact that people still harbor the desire to go back to the gold standard is as arbitrary as any other construct, when it comes to money.
An electronic system is not really that much more abstract than swapping a loadstone for a sheep. How do you determine the value of a sheep, versus the value of a cow? Depends on who needs it more. These are relatively abstract concepts, even though theyre seemingly more acceptable because theyre physical. But were kind of past the point where a barter-style economy, or a gold-standard makes any sense.
t-f/c: But even when your employer deposits your paycheck electronically, there still has to be some tangible asset represented by the electronic deposit.
RI: You can withdraw cash. I suspect there has to be some physical currency to be utilized. Although, I would say 100 years from now, that might not be the case.
t-f/c: What would the nature of the asset exchange be?
RI: Why would the value change? The value is what the value is. Its based on what people perceive as whatever the value of an hours worth of work or an hours worth of entertainment or an hours worth of output happens to be. Thats the value determinant. Or, on a relative basis, given the political and economic health of a particular country, whats the value of a currency, vis a vis the political stability and economic output of another country? Those are perception-based values that change from time to time.
t-f/c: How does all of this affect the future of trade?
RI: Well, assuming that we dont have another extraordinary setback that leads to something more like a great depression than a great recession, global trade will continue, and with any luck at all, will continue to broaden ad raise living standards of developing nations, Unfortunately, to a certain extent, that comes at the expense of developed nations. But it doesnt have to be a zero-sum game. And economics isnt despite the fact that many people say it is.
Living standards can rise through greater exposure to, or among, developing and developed nations as money and capital move toward the place that has comparative advantage for certain industries. So, as that globalization process continues, assuming that it does, it certainly alters the economic playing field. It may alter the balance of political power, But, on balance, its a good thing.
And again, barring any further disruptions, I suspect, or any move toward trade-protectionism, the tendency toward globalization is fairly strong.
There are too many technological developments now, that make it difficult to go back, unlike prior periods in history. Whether its the Internet, or whether its the ease of travel, whether its electronic communications — its too easy to connect with others, relative to the past.
Which means that not just our interdependence, but our interactivity, tend to increase and foster more and more, rather than less and less, globalization.
t-f/c: What do you say about the fringe futurists who talk about the New World Order — the idea that theres a shadow government pulling all the strings, behind the economic scenes, and that our future is a bleak one under such elite rule?
RI: That just B.S. Thats been around for a thousand years; the Illuminati and all that. Anybody whos worked in a large corporation knows that any large group of individuals cant even make a singular decision on what to have for lunch. Ruling the world is not that easy. Theres too much evidence against conspiracy theories.
Ill use oil prices as an example, where OPEC has tried to be an effective cartel for over 30 years now. And theyve been so effective that from 1986 to 2000, the price of oil was somewhere between $15 and $20 per barrel, generating billions of dollars of losses for major oil companies and depleted reserves for the members of the cartel. And then, between 2002 and 2007, we had a super spike in oil that took it from about $30 per barrel to about $147 per barrel.
And everybody was crying conspiracy, and the conspiracy lasted for the entire time that the global economy was growing at such a clip that the supply-and-demand balance in petroleum products was historically narrow. And you had geo-political influences that helped drive up the price of oil, and the risk premium that was placed on oil as a commodity was much higher than normal because of Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Venezuela, difficulties in Saudi Arabia — all manner of influences that coalesced to drive oil prices to record highs, both in plain dollar terms and inflation-adjusted terms.
Since then, oil has gone from $147 per barrel to a low of $34 in March, and back to about $70 today. So, if there were a conspiracy, it is a very poorly executed one — unless the five-year run has now created enough accumulated wealth to offset all future losses that would come from declining energy prices.
So, its nonsense, and this is something that Bill OReilly of Fox News was pushing so hard in the fourth quarter of 2005 — that there was a group of people getting together in a room and dictating what the price of oil should be.
That would be all well and good, if the volatility of oil prices wasnt so extraordinarily high. If you really want a conspiracy, you want $100 oil, forever.
And they dont have it. So, they either are so good at hiding the conspiracy through extraordinary volatility or it cant be done. And theres more evidence that it cant be done on a sustained basis, than to the contrary.
Markets can be jiggled with or manipulated, for short periods of time, as we saw with gold, silver and the Hunt brothers debacle in 1980; as we saw with Italian conglomerate FerruzziFinanziarias attempt to manipulate grain prices in the mid-1990s; as we saw with Sumitomo Corps attempt to control copper prices in the 1990s. These games can only last for so long. Theres no grand-scale manipulation that everybody talks about. People can attempt it, but everyone whos attempted a long-term manipulation and a long-term conspiracy, has failed miserably.
One of the great things about the Illuminati, if you read about it on the Web, in terms of a one-world government is that, as the one-world government continues to form, these individuals who are at the center of it had become so subtle, having failed at every attempt to achieve their one-world government, that now, we dont even notice their influence. Which is a great argument for saying that theyve failed completely and it doesnt work. And now, theyre so underground and so secretly manipulative that we dont even know its happening. And that would be a form of thought control that is inconceivable and also flies in the face of the success of that type of structure.
t-f/c: What do you see happening, domestically, in the next year, five years, 10 years?
RI: Well theres an interesting three-way battle going on right now, among Washington, Wall Street and Main Street. Washington is reflecting some of the populist anger thats arisen from what were clearly excesses that took place on Wall Street over the past several years. Wall Street is fighting to retain its independence and its ability to innovate, financially, to put it gracefully. And Washington is trying to come up with some sort of hybrid environment in which there is more balance between unfettered free-market capitalism, which knows no bounds, or no limits on compensation, for that matter — and, something that is more responsible when it comes to compensation, risk management and innovation that rewards Wall Street disproportionally, relative to Main Street.
Now some of that is a perceptual problem, some of thats a reality. We have the widest gap between rich and poor thats ever existed in this country, and thats causing certain social strains.
By the same token, Im not sure that the current administration has the foggiest idea what it needs to do to put the economy back into the delicate balance that allows for rewards to be dispersed appropriately among the population.
And these are old friends of mine, many of them have gone completely off the rails, in recent months.
So I think theres going to be a struggle. I think at the end of the day, the Obama Administration will lose more than it wins when it comes to trying to clamp down, whether its health care reform, financial regulatory reform, climate change legislation. I think that, given that most presidents are visitors rather than permanent residents of Washington, the powers that be — which turn out to be in the Capitol as opposed to the White House, and in the lobbying groups, in industry — will turn back the more ambitious agendas, for something thats somewhat more watered down. That, I think, ultimately, is a good thing,
Regulatory overreach, or dramatic change thats enacted hastily, without full understanding of unintended consequences, will largely get beaten back. At least thats my hope. In the longer run, its a crapshoot.
Assuming that we get past whatever remaining headwinds we have in this crisis, the U. S. economy, as people have said, over and over again, has been remarkably resilient and tends to bounce back from these crises, more dramatically than people anticipate — whichever crisis you want to pick: 9/11; the bursting of the Internet bubble; the economic and banking crisis of 1990/1991; the biggest recession we ever had, prior to this one, from 1980 to 1982, where we had double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates.
When the tide turns, it tends to turn for real, and you can get a protracted economic recovery thats stronger and more durable than most people think. So that is the hope. The Federal Reserve has done a great job of helping to pull us back from the brink and possibly even engineer that kind of recovery. We may have a W recession, if you will, or a double-dip recession, and a W bottom in the stock market who knows? Thats my first inclination. But that concept is beginning to draw a little too much attention, which, now instead of putting me in the minority, is starting to put me in the consensus. So, Im beginning to take the W off my screen and put up a V and think that the economy might just take off like a rocket and surprise everybody. Because economies and markets do that.
Weve had an extraordinary rally off the bottom from March, in the stock market, that has caught everybody by surprise. The people who are still bearish and think were going to hell in a hand basket just missed the opportunity to make 50% on their money, in the last four months, and will continue to say that were in a recession, even after GDP turns positive.
So, I think the near-term picture is probably a little brighter than most people realize. The longer-term picture revolves less around things like health care and financial market regulatory reform than it does around education. That is where we still come up horrifically short, when it comes to preparing children for an entirely competitive global marketplace, in which the only way to be rewarded is to be educated and to be an innovator.
Thats where the U.S. is falling farther and farther behind. And I think thats the most important and least-discussed issue (at least, discussed honestly), in a way that would have some meaningful consequences for children.
t-f/c: What do you think the administration has to do to set the stage for our best possible future?
RI: The attempts that theyre undertaking right now would probably represent headwinds, rather than stimulus. I dont think health care reform is going to stimulate the economy. And I certainly dont think that financial market regulatory reform, even though it may be necessary, is a stimulant. And I dont think that climate change legislation would stimulate economic activity. The best I hope for is that the administration does very little that is restrictive and does as much as possible that is stimulative. And that they dont make the types of policy mistakes that get in the way of an economic recovery.
Art Insana is Co-founder/Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of the-future.com.
Theres a revolution afoot in giving, and you might already be a part of it without even realizing it.
Have you ever contributed to Wikipedia, or posted a comment or suggestion on a help page? Have you ever made use of these sites? Contributors and beneficiaries alike are creating online networks of individuals with shared interests and goals, and little or no interference from money-making middlemen. They are participating, one-to-one, in what has become a renewed spirit of benevolence, whose effects are now spreading to more-traditional forms of charitable giving.
We are, by nature, a generous species. We like to help each other. In fact, studies show we get a rush from it. But we also like to feel a connection to what were doing, as if were right there beside the people were helping not just writing a check.
Whats changed, fundamentally, is that givers more and more want to take ownership of their own generosity. They yearn to be active participants, not passive donors. And they also want to be sure, in these troubled times, that every penny counts, that theyre not getting ripped off.
All of this adds up to what well boldly call the New Philanthropy, a movement thats already advancing by leaps and bounds. Leading the charge is DonorsChoose.org, one of the first and best practitioners of the new way benevolence is working. They are empowering givers at every step in the process, and theyre facilitating those connections between donors and recipients that have proved so profoundly fulfilling for both.
In the weeks and months ahead, well follow several DonorsChoose projects in real time so youll get an unfiltered view of how their process is actually working. But in the meantime, a few specifics about one of the leading lights in the brave new world of benevolence:
DonorsChoose.org was launched in 2000 by Charles Best, a social studies teacher in an impoverished Bronx public high school that was in desperate need of even the most basic schoolroom supplies. According to the website, he sensed that many people would like to help distressed public schools, but were frustrated by a lack of influence over their donations. He created DonorsChoose.org so that individuals could connect directly with classrooms in need.
Visitors to the website can check out a wide assortment of donation requests posted by public school teachers from across the country. Requests can be as simple as pencils for a poetry project, or as costly as musical instruments for the school band. Givers can search for needy projects by location, by subject area, or by a number of other criteria by typing in keywords. The goal is to help potential donors find a need that they feel is worthwhile. Thats where the sense of ownership begins.
Donors can give anything up to the entire amount being requested. When a given project is fully funded, DonorsChoose.org delivers the materials right to the classroom, and connects donors directly to the classrooms and teachers theyre helping. Contributors get updates and photos of the project, as well as thank-you notes from teachers and students. Ongoing communication often takes off from there.
Contributors get detailed reports from DonorsChoose.org as to how every dollar was spent, and the website team also carefully vets project requests to ensure the integrity of the program.
Since its inception, DonorsChoose.org has brought more than 200,000 teachers and contributors together to become change makers. Their secret, they feel, is simple: At DonorsChoose.org, you can give as little as $1 and get the same level of choice, transparency and feedback that is traditionally reserved for someone who gives millions. We call it citizen philanthropy.
Call it what you will, this new, more personal form of giving is clearly where the business of benevolence is heading. And we at the-future.com will be there to help you watch it happening.
Bob Somerville, a contributing editor for the-future.com, is a freelance writer and editor based in Washington, DC. He has written numerous books and articles on a wide variety of subjects, including healthcare and eldercare, science and engineering, food and diet, and animal welfare. His 2008 book Dogtown: A Sanctuary for Rescued Dogs won the Ben Franklin Award for Best Book of the Year (Animals/Pets category) from the Independent Book Publishers Association. He co-authored Century of Innovation, a look at the 20 greatest engineering achievements of the 20th century, with projections about the future of engineering. He lives in the Maryland suburbs and enjoys still being able, once in a while, to beat his 16-year-old son, Andrew, at tennis, golf, and Ping-Pong.
Patients who watch an online interactive program are more likely to keep their appointments for a scheduled colonoscopy than those who do not, according to a study. Patients age 50 to 65 who watched the video were 40 percent less likely to cancel an appointment. More cancers could be prevented or detected and treated early if more thorough instruction were r […]
New recommendations on devices, drugs and diagnosis in heart failure were launched at the Heart Failure Congress 2012, May 19-22, in Belgrade, Serbia, and published in the European Heart Journal. […]
University at Buffalo researchers are making significant progress on rust-proofing steel using a graphene-based composite that could serve as a nontoxic alternative to coatings that contain hexavalent chromium, a probable carcinogen. […]
These coatings offer protection against rust, scratches and moisture and improve adhesion: Surfaces with a nano coating. A new plasma process enables these coatings to be applied more easily and cost-efficiently -- on an industrial scale. […]
Clinicians, researchers and scientists from around the world will gather for Digestive Disease Week 2012, the largest and most prestigious gastroenterology meeting, from May 19-22, 2012, at the San Diego Convention Center. DDW, the annual meeting of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute, is jointly sponsored by the American Association […]
Is a contact wire missing or is it faulty? What's the situation in front of the entrance to a railway station or a tunnel? A 3-D laser scanner can increase the train's safety and reliability. […]
University of Iowa researchers have developed an MRI-based method to detect and monitor pH changes in living brains. The new technique provides the best evidence so far that pH changes do occur with normal function in the intact human brain. The team hopes to use the method to investigate the role of pH changes in psychiatric disease, including anxiety and d […]
How beauteous mankind is!
O brave new world
that has such people in ‘t!
- Shakespeare’s The Tempest
In the final scene of the film Quest for Fire, after learning how to harness the power of the flame, the first futurist gazes toward the silvery glow of the moon, and then afar, to the stars in the heavens, as [...]
Bill Gates said, “People always overestimate what they can do in one year and underestimate what they can do in 10.” While I half expect a letter from some poor Xerox PARC guy challenging the provenance of that statement, the truth of its content is undeniable. In the immediate rush of the present we can [...]
By Bob Somerville
Theres a revolution afoot in giving, and you might already be a part of it without even realizing it.
Have you ever contributed to Wikipedia, or posted a comment or suggestion on a help page? Have you ever made use of these sites? Contributors and beneficiaries alike are creating online networks of individuals with [...]
The Earth Pledge FutureFashion Textile Library online is the go-to source for eco-friendly fabrics. They promote renewable, reusable and nonpolluting materials and processes at every step of the supply chain and work to assist designers and brands in their sourcing. Since 2004, Theyve connected designers and suppliers in the sustainable design process, and have encouraged [...]
Are we destined to forever ravage the Earths natural resources, mindless of the damage we do? Is the legacy of humankind one of greed and selfishness, in the name of corporate profit, as environmentalists say?
Or, are there movements afoot that, behind the scenes, seek solutions on a global scale, shattering political and corporate boundaries in [...]
As textile wholesalers, we were thrilled to see beautiful fabrics whose production had less of a negative environmental impact. Our goal was very clear: to make stunning, high-quality, eco-friendly fabrics accessible to the fashion industry. We did this by launching the first-ever brand of eco-friendly fabrics, the Eco-Lux Collection. However, since SYKAs inception, one of the greatest challenges we have faced is striking a balance between the ideals that define and shape what makes a fabric eco-friendly and meeting the particular demands of the fashion market. This has been exciting as well as frustrating, since both forces are dynamic and, when considered together, often appear at odds.
Ultimately, it is the fabrics that are important in fashion. If eco-fibers are gentler on the environment than the conventional alternative, we must identify which stage(s) of fabric production has a less negative environmental impact. There are numerous stages in fabric production, and if all are not considered, it is next to impossible to discern the relative eco-friendliness of one fabric over another. With the widening concern over the environmental impact of the fashion industry, there are many opinions on which fabrics are better. We dont see how these conclusions can be drawn, because there have been no good comparisons of the overall process. At this point, we can only compare, at best, one stage in the process and ask ourselves, How does this fabrics stage of production compare with another fabric, in terms of negative environmental impact?
The intuitive element in our work is finding the right quality, texture, hand, style, weight and color of fabric. Almost all eco-friendly fabrics have wonderful tactile properties, but we have found that the job of successfully sourcing consistently high-quality and fashionable fabrics requires a substantial investment of time and resources. We travel around the world and attend major textile trade fairs to learn whats up and coming. We also consult fashion experts, monitor industry publications and, of course, listen to our customers input.
