Tuesday, 6 February 2007
New Site
Just I just started blogging, Waq convinced me to start a new blog on wordpress! And I can't even import these posts there-starting fresh! Visit me at sohas.wordpress.com!
Sunday, 4 February 2007
The Star : 2 shocking discoveries
I was suprised that crime in Malaysia is getting more violent. Guns and pistols are more easily available this days. Shocking Discovery 1 :The robbery in Subang Parade just shocked me. Where is Malaysia heading towards? I shall not dwell further into this. Just something to think about.
While reading the article in thestar.com.my, Shocking Discovery 2 : I noticed the usage of the word comrade. We were just discussing in our Mandarin class that the Chinese still use this word '同志-tong zhi' in the daily newspapers. I was just suprised that the Malaysians also use this, although not frequent, but it is just astonishing!
While reading the article in thestar.com.my, Shocking Discovery 2 : I noticed the usage of the word comrade. We were just discussing in our Mandarin class that the Chinese still use this word '同志-tong zhi' in the daily newspapers. I was just suprised that the Malaysians also use this, although not frequent, but it is just astonishing!
Updates
The weekend has gone by yet again with me wasting time. We went out on Friday night and returned just in time to catch the last tube, then proceeded to play StarWars Risk, which Bill and me won against Andrew and Sara! The dark side won with luck and the ability to use Order 66. What happens is that, when we declare order 66, we challenge and try to win the opponents territory. The suprising thing was that the odds were 3/8, but we got 15/29 of their territory!
Saturday passed by with me attempting to to some work on FYP and only managed to do Question 1 of Power System Economics. My flat mates supposed to go and watch Notes on a Scandal but ended up watching Pursuit of Happyness which I wanted to watch! Apparently it was good.
Sunday started off with me doing some reading in the morning and then headed to my uncle's for my cousin's birthday party(he's 8). It was alright but just a waste of time for me.
Saturday passed by with me attempting to to some work on FYP and only managed to do Question 1 of Power System Economics. My flat mates supposed to go and watch Notes on a Scandal but ended up watching Pursuit of Happyness which I wanted to watch! Apparently it was good.
Sunday started off with me doing some reading in the morning and then headed to my uncle's for my cousin's birthday party(he's 8). It was alright but just a waste of time for me.
Friday, 2 February 2007
Population Debate III
I really liked Waq’s last entry and totally agree on the point that we have to
“teach the culprit 10% of the population who drive high powered cars, fly with individual jets and travel 10 times a year, and heat their castles to learn some energy saving”.
Nevertheless, I still stand by my point, quoting Tesco, “every little helps”. By cutting down on usage of these devices, travelling less and doing more teleconferencing does help as the Malay saying goes, “sedikit-sedikit, lama-lama jadi bukit”. We should not be selfish and just care for the duration that we are alive on this earth. How about our next generation? We now blame our forefathers for the industrial revolution and using up all the resources without thinking of our future. Now, researches are being carried out to further improve efficiencies of power consumption and increasing the usage of greener energy.
I am not saying that all governments should impose drastic measures to curb population increase. All I am saying is that these political leaders should not take this matter lightly and look for ways to encourage population control by means of incentives to those who exercise family planning.
In conclusion, human beings are diverse in every sense and every one is a unique being. We don't even share the exact replicate DNA. Hence, what are the chances that we all can agree on one solution regarding an issue? Being a complex society as we are, there exist a hierarchy of needs to be satisfied and all of us try to satisfy our own needs, family needs, community needs, national needs and further down the line, global needs. With global needs being the least important desire on our individual mind, I rest my case.
“teach the culprit 10% of the population who drive high powered cars, fly with individual jets and travel 10 times a year, and heat their castles to learn some energy saving”.
Nevertheless, I still stand by my point, quoting Tesco, “every little helps”. By cutting down on usage of these devices, travelling less and doing more teleconferencing does help as the Malay saying goes, “sedikit-sedikit, lama-lama jadi bukit”. We should not be selfish and just care for the duration that we are alive on this earth. How about our next generation? We now blame our forefathers for the industrial revolution and using up all the resources without thinking of our future. Now, researches are being carried out to further improve efficiencies of power consumption and increasing the usage of greener energy.
I am not saying that all governments should impose drastic measures to curb population increase. All I am saying is that these political leaders should not take this matter lightly and look for ways to encourage population control by means of incentives to those who exercise family planning.
In conclusion, human beings are diverse in every sense and every one is a unique being. We don't even share the exact replicate DNA. Hence, what are the chances that we all can agree on one solution regarding an issue? Being a complex society as we are, there exist a hierarchy of needs to be satisfied and all of us try to satisfy our own needs, family needs, community needs, national needs and further down the line, global needs. With global needs being the least important desire on our individual mind, I rest my case.
Thursday, 1 February 2007
Population Debate II
Thanks for the information Waq! “America is by very far the largest oil consumer” is indeed true and I am aware of that fact. However, let me explain why America is excluded.
When the world were facing energy global climate change and excess emission of greenhouse gases which were driven by the industrial revolution in the 19th century, most of the countries signed the Kyoto Protocol which were negotiated in 1997 and came into effect in 2005. The US however, did not want to be part of this effort to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system; hence they did not sign it. Excluding the US, most of the other countries have set their own milestone with regards to ways of diversifying their energy resources and cut down on their carbon emissions.
Now, why does the problem boil down to population control? Imagine an increase of the population by 10%, we need more houses and more items in the house which uses up energy. Family units are getting smaller as people do not live together as one big happy family. People’s needs are ever increasing, once one need is satisfied, they demand for more. With the advances in electronics, each household increases their usage of various electronic devices and cutting-edge gadgets. Do you see a problem with people wanting to increase their standards of living? These devices consume way too much energy!
When energy is generated, its efficiency is not 100%. Typically, efficiencies vary from 60% to roughly 90% in the best case scenario. We should realise, for every 100MW produced, at least 10% or 10MW is dissipated in the form of heat to the atmosphere. This is apparent from the law of energy conservation. So, every time we generate electricity or use of energy, at least 10% of heat is released, leading to increases in temperature. This difference in temperature is experienced mainly in highly dense areas, such as central London where it is about 1 or 2 degrees warmer than zone 2 or 3.
In conclusion, the increase of population does cause increase in the demand for scarce resources and higher energy consumption.
When the world were facing energy global climate change and excess emission of greenhouse gases which were driven by the industrial revolution in the 19th century, most of the countries signed the Kyoto Protocol which were negotiated in 1997 and came into effect in 2005. The US however, did not want to be part of this effort to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system; hence they did not sign it. Excluding the US, most of the other countries have set their own milestone with regards to ways of diversifying their energy resources and cut down on their carbon emissions.
Now, why does the problem boil down to population control? Imagine an increase of the population by 10%, we need more houses and more items in the house which uses up energy. Family units are getting smaller as people do not live together as one big happy family. People’s needs are ever increasing, once one need is satisfied, they demand for more. With the advances in electronics, each household increases their usage of various electronic devices and cutting-edge gadgets. Do you see a problem with people wanting to increase their standards of living? These devices consume way too much energy!
When energy is generated, its efficiency is not 100%. Typically, efficiencies vary from 60% to roughly 90% in the best case scenario. We should realise, for every 100MW produced, at least 10% or 10MW is dissipated in the form of heat to the atmosphere. This is apparent from the law of energy conservation. So, every time we generate electricity or use of energy, at least 10% of heat is released, leading to increases in temperature. This difference in temperature is experienced mainly in highly dense areas, such as central London where it is about 1 or 2 degrees warmer than zone 2 or 3.
In conclusion, the increase of population does cause increase in the demand for scarce resources and higher energy consumption.
Wednesday, 31 January 2007
Population Debate I
The inter-bog debate kicks off with Waq’s view on the topic: “There are too many people on Earth. It’s international an issue. Governments should enforce laws to control human population growth.”
I remember during my younger teenage age, the world population was 5,821,946,536(July 1996 estimate). However, the population has expanded to 6,525,170,264 as of July 2006. We can see an increase of 12% over the decade. Why has there been a drastic increase in the population? Is the trend following Moore’s law regarding the number of transistors in an integrated circuit? (In other words, exponential increase).
The good news is that the population growth in developed countries are slowing down, but unfortunately developing countries, mainly 3rd world countries have to deal with increasing population. They can take a view that this is good for their economy as they would have more workforce and ability to create more job opportunities and market creation – main aim is basically economical focus to compete with more developed nations.
Now, this increase in population does have an adverse effect, or rather many adverse effects that can create a chain reaction. We all share a limited number of resources and these resources are depleting. The main current issue is the sustainability of oil and gas, as the main resource of energy. This non-renewable energy is facing a downward sloping trend and we have to collectively deal with these scarcities of energy as a global occupier and not base our decisions on national or local economy. Hence, can the world sustain and support the existence of the increasing number of inhabitants?
It is true that we can’t make up for the previous usage of non-renewable energy sources, but we can prolong the life of the existing sources by cutting back on consumption. We have to act fast! While all other animals and plants are facing extinction, the human population is the only inhabitants in the planet that is not faced with this problem. We are actually the problem creators! We are using up earths resources, displacing the natural habitats that used to be home to various species of flora and fauna just to make way for development of human activities.
In the next entry, I would talk about CO2 emissions, global climate change and various global problems which can be rooted back to population growth and industrial revolution.
I remember during my younger teenage age, the world population was 5,821,946,536(July 1996 estimate). However, the population has expanded to 6,525,170,264 as of July 2006. We can see an increase of 12% over the decade. Why has there been a drastic increase in the population? Is the trend following Moore’s law regarding the number of transistors in an integrated circuit? (In other words, exponential increase).
The good news is that the population growth in developed countries are slowing down, but unfortunately developing countries, mainly 3rd world countries have to deal with increasing population. They can take a view that this is good for their economy as they would have more workforce and ability to create more job opportunities and market creation – main aim is basically economical focus to compete with more developed nations.
Now, this increase in population does have an adverse effect, or rather many adverse effects that can create a chain reaction. We all share a limited number of resources and these resources are depleting. The main current issue is the sustainability of oil and gas, as the main resource of energy. This non-renewable energy is facing a downward sloping trend and we have to collectively deal with these scarcities of energy as a global occupier and not base our decisions on national or local economy. Hence, can the world sustain and support the existence of the increasing number of inhabitants?
It is true that we can’t make up for the previous usage of non-renewable energy sources, but we can prolong the life of the existing sources by cutting back on consumption. We have to act fast! While all other animals and plants are facing extinction, the human population is the only inhabitants in the planet that is not faced with this problem. We are actually the problem creators! We are using up earths resources, displacing the natural habitats that used to be home to various species of flora and fauna just to make way for development of human activities.
In the next entry, I would talk about CO2 emissions, global climate change and various global problems which can be rooted back to population growth and industrial revolution.
Tuesday, 30 January 2007
Fairtrade
After the Christmas holidays, IC's cafes were all selling only fairtrade coffee and tea. I was intrigued by it and was a bit skeptical on whether the proceeds really go to the farmers and the deserving parties. So I googled fairtrade and explored the website.
Basically, 'The FAIRTRADE Mark is an independent consumer label which appears on products as an independent guarantee that disadvantaged producers in the developing world are getting a better deal' -Fairtrade- It was first introduced in Holland in the late 1980s and now there are more than 20 participating countries.
I am now officially a coffee addict, especially with the buy 6 get 1 free deal at IC. Prices are high and consumers are bearing these costs and they assume that farmers are paid what they were promised. It is therefore not a demand-supply driven market, hence it loses its efficiency. I am still skeptical that the deserving parties are rightfully compensated with the fairtrade deals. We can just hope as anything that has bureaucratic process or hierarchy would involve money leaking somewhere along the chain.
Basically, 'The FAIRTRADE Mark is an independent consumer label which appears on products as an independent guarantee that disadvantaged producers in the developing world are getting a better deal' -Fairtrade- It was first introduced in Holland in the late 1980s and now there are more than 20 participating countries.
I am now officially a coffee addict, especially with the buy 6 get 1 free deal at IC. Prices are high and consumers are bearing these costs and they assume that farmers are paid what they were promised. It is therefore not a demand-supply driven market, hence it loses its efficiency. I am still skeptical that the deserving parties are rightfully compensated with the fairtrade deals. We can just hope as anything that has bureaucratic process or hierarchy would involve money leaking somewhere along the chain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
