Oh, dear! Immortality?

Even in death, there’s no break from social media. Almost a third of British people plan to name a “social media manager” in their will.  This manager will be responsible for updating their Facebook accounts in accordance with their instructions. More than 10% of people would want a custodian to post items at least once a week. There’s little appetite for vanishing from social media: only a third of people want their accounts to be deleted when they die.

This is nonsense.  What you ought to do is to leave the project to a relative or trusted friend to make of it what they will, if appropriate.  Sell it, if it is commercially orientated, or have it quietly laid to rest (can you actually terminate these Facebook pages, and what is the procedure?).   But have someone operating it in your memory is simply egotistical, if not spooky.  There is too much preening and none-too- subtle boasting, not to mention the misinformation out there.  What we want are more thoughtful offerings on social media, not voices from the grave!

Depleting the soil (Part 1)

We are losing soil at a rate of 30 soccer fields a minute. If we don’t slow the decline, all farmable soil could be gone in 60 years. Soil grows 95 per cent of our food and sustains human life in other more surprising ways, so this is a huge problem. “Many would argue soil degradation is the most critical environmental threat to humans,” says Peter Groffman, who studies soil microbes at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies in Millbrook, New York.

Soils don’t just grow our food, but have been the source of nearly all of our existing antibiotics, and could be our best hope in the fight against antibiotic resistant bacteria. A single gram might contain 100 million bacteria, 10 million viruses, 1000 fungi, and other populations living amid decomposing plants and various rocks and minerals.

Soil is also a surprising ally against climate change: as nematodes and microorganisms within soil digest dead animals and plants, they lock in their carbon content. Even in their degraded state, it is estimated the world’s soils hold three times the amount of carbon as does the entire atmosphere.  Water is also lost when soils degrade. A UK government report published in 2012 suggested soil degradation costs the country £233 million in flood damage each year.

Small wonder endangered soil is making ecologists so nervous. Soil extinction transforms a fecund soil into a dusty, micro-biologically flat shadow of its former self. Once that diversity is gone, it’s gone for a long time. Soil takes thousands of years at a minimum to be productive. Worn out soil tends to form a dense, compacted layer that repels both roots and water. Farmers try to get rid of it.  “Everything we do causes soil to erode,” says Groffman.  In the past farmers left fields fallow or rotated crops that needed different nutrients. Or they grew peas or beans that added nitrogen to the soil via the nodules in their roots that host rhizobia bacteria .  This kept the soil in balance.  But so industrial has farming become, and so mono-cultural, that these good practices have been abandoned .  Instead they cover the ground with ammonium nitrate.   But chemical fertilisers can release polluting nitrous oxide into the atmosphere and excess is often washed away with the next rain. This leaches nitrogen into rivers, damaging algal blooms. More recently, we have found that indiscriminate fertiliser use hurts the soil itself, turning it acidic and salty, and suppressing the symbiotic relationships between fungi and plant roots, sometimes turning beneficial bacteria against each other.

As the soil degrades the modern farmer simply adds more fertiliser.  Long-term use of these fertilisers risks turning even fertile soil to desert. In 2003 for instance, researchers found that almost 5% of US soils were in danger of  serious damage or extinction, although this may well be an underestimate. A different group scoured soil survey results in China, and found 17 types had gone extinct, and a further 88 were endangered.  (extracted from an article by Joshua Howgego, New Scientist)

Tomorrow: what is being done about it.

 

Voice recognition- friend or foe?

Your voice is distinctive , depending on your physical makeup and the language you speak.  The latest machines can tease apart the most minute differences, although changes in a voice owing to a cold or a stressful situation can confuse the listening machine.

The  latest version of Apple’s operating system learns what your voice sounds like and can identify you when you speak to Siri, ignoring other voices that try to intervene.   Voice-identification systems have started to creep into everyday life, from smartphones to police stations to bank call centres. Google has recently unveiled an artificial neural network that can verify the identity of a speaker saying “OK Google” with an error rate of 2 per cent.

For machines, recognising individual voices is different from understanding what they are saying. The recognition software has been fuelled by massive sets of vocal data built into a huge model of how people speak. This allows measurements of how much a person’s voice deviates from that of the overall population, which is the key to verifying a person’s identity.

I have reservations about some tech innovations, but this seems to be a good one. The technology is already being used in criminal investigations. Last year, when journalist James Foley was beheaded, apparently by ISIS, police used it to compare the killer’s voice with that of a list of possible suspects. And the banks JP Morgan and Wells Fargo have reported started using voice biometrics to figure out whether people calling their helplines are scam artists.   A voiceprint gives insight into the speaker’s height and weight, their demographic background, and even what their environment is like. It may soon be possible to detect a person’s likely diseases or psychological state through voice analysis. (Aviva Rutkin, New Scientist, Oct 2015)

Where one can draw the line is if these machines can understand (and report on?) what you are saying, which an altogether different proposition.  Samsung designed their smart TVs to record private conversations.  Now why should they do that?  This looks like another weapon to be potentially used by secret services, foreign hackers  and crooks.

Confirming the fear about anti-depressants

Earlier in the year a review confirmed a link between antidepressants and suicidal behaviour in children. The researchers looked at 70 studies involving more than 18,500 people, and found that under-18s taking either of two classes of drugs – selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) – were more than twice as likely to have suicidal thoughts, or attempt suicide, than those taking a placebo. The report stressed that the overall suicide risk was still low, at three in 100 people, but suggested that where possible, under-18s should be offered non-drug treatments such as psychotherapy.

This doesn’t just apply to young people. Some years ago I was put on Paxil, an anti-depressant and SSRI, to help me sleep. A week later I found myself becoming totally irrational and feeling suicidal.  How can they sell drugs for depression that enhance depression? Among other things Paxil has been associated with autism, birth defects and weight gain of up to ten pounds (I put on weight as well, an extra indignity). Paxil is still on the market, and so are other drugs that should be carefully controlled, such as  painkillers oxycodone, hydrocodone, and fentanyl, the most commonly abused drugs, addictive, with horrible  side effects and responsible for an alarming rise in suicides and unintended deaths.

The old pharmaceutical businesses were started by Quakers on Quaker principles. Those were the days of working to improve the health of the community, not simply to make big profits. Now American TV is full of ads for drugs showing beautiful, happy people enjoying full, smiley lives. But  listen to  the side-effects of some of the drugs they are made by law to mention in the ads!  Scary. How did the pharmacuetical industry get to advertise on TV anyway? (silly question- we all know the answer). I used to work for a pharmaceutical company in the days when their products were called “ethical pharmaceuticals”. At some point big pharma must have had  a short burst of moral  self-revelation and dropped the claim.

Too much choice

Most of us are not, in the parlance of economic theory, “rational utility maximisers”  but, in the words of Herbert Simon, are  “satisficers”,  opting for what is good and easy enough, rather than becoming confused to the point of inertia in front of huge choices of goods in the shops.

Tesco, the very large British grocery chain (in financial trouble through over-expansion – sounds like the EU) decided to improve its situation by scrapping 30,000 of the 90,000 products on its shelves. Smaller grocery chains, like Aldi and Lidl, only offer between 2,000 and 3,000 lines and are doing just fine.  For instance, Tesco used to offer 28 tomato ketchup,s while in Aldi there is just one in one size.  I can hear huge sighs of relief!

In addition, Tesco is experimenting with a system that makes it easier and quicker to shop for the ingredients for meals:  Basmati rice next to Indian sauces, tinned tomatoes next to pasta.

The standard teaching is that choice is good for us, that it confers on us freedom, personal responsibility, self-determination, autonomy and lots of other things that don’t help when you’re standing before a towering aisle of water bottles, paralysed and increasingly dehydrated, unable to choose.

The reality is that less choice means less stress.  It has also created a new problem: the escalation in expectations to a point that we all expect perfect products that we will never get, leaving the buyer disappointed .  As they say:  “The secret to happiness is low expectations.”  In 2002 I wrote the following poem about choice, long before the business schools started to advocate smaller product ranges:

Choice
They think we’ll rejoice, offered infinite choice,
But in fact more is less; indecision means stress.
How did they ever think it was clever
To propose the adoption of every damned option
Under the sun, instead of just one?

Just take the car, where they’ve gone far too far.
Do I have to recap the ten types of hubcap
The number of doors, colored carpets on floors,
The bumpers, the hoods, powered windows, faux-woods?
One mentally cowers in the face of horse-powers,
Different colors and trims and personalized shims,
When on the highways the cars look alike.
Henry Ford, hurry back and offer just black!

Take the cereals on offer: a hundred they proffer,
And do so in aisles stretching out there for miles.
Vitamins added; beware the array
Or you’ll quickly be glutted in C, D and A.
If you read all the labels, ingredient tables,
I very much fear it would be a career.

Hi-tech sort of gear is a category where
They include lots of stuff that you don’t use enough,
Or remember it’s there, or particularly care.
The shops you buy through mostly haven’t a clue;
The instructions are vast, and a whole day has passed
Before you work out what the feature’s about.
And I’ll have a good bet that at once you’ll forget
What buttons to press, and you’ll just have to guess.

Oh, take me back home where the buffaloes roam,
Where you rock in your chair in fresh air with no care,
Where in the boondocks the shops have small stocks,
And you’re settled and done with a “choice” of just one;
And you buy your provisions with no endless decisions,
Just a simple invoice and no multiple choice.

So who’s going to tell the people who sell
That we’re doing just fine without over-design?
Who’s going to complain: “Keep it simple and plain”.
Let it do just one task, that’s all that we ask.”
I have just made a start: “Give us less a la carte!”
Come, you too can rejoice with more time and less choice.

(Aug 2002)