Red Pill Blue Pill

You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up and believe...whatever you want to believe.

You take the red pill.....you stay in wonderland...and I show you just how deep the rabbit hole goes.






Too many people take the blue pill. The red pill world for us is even more disturbing than the reality outside of the Matrix. Best keep taking the blue pill.

Ethics at their worst

I was reading a book 'What is Good?' by A.C Grayling where he discusses at length what makes for a good life and the views of some of the greatest minds in history. A great read.

As with all such books the subject turned to the issue of the holocaust. Specifically he raises the issue of Adolf Eichmann who is well documented as stating his disgust at the events which he himself instigated and controlled.

About his visit to Chelmno where they were still gassing people in trucks he said "I did not stay to watch the whole maneuver. I couldn't stand the screams: I was too anxious..."

As for his trip to Auschwitz he said "I preferred not to watch the way they asphyxiated people... They burned the corpses on a gigantic giant iron grill.. I couldn't stand it: I was overcome from nausea".

The main thrust of the argument (although Grayling questions this he never provides an explanation) is how can someone at the same time be so disgusted and horrified by what they see and yet be responsible and do nothing about it. And Eichmann was clearly involved. In many ways his open disgust for the activities he was responsible for makes him even more loathsome.

I noted a parallel in a current book I am ready regarding. It replays the story of "Pig' by Roald Dahl. I will not relate the whole story but it was the story of a kid who did not eat meat all his life due to his aunt but when she dies he tries it and, curious, makes his way to the slaughterhouse where he is disgusted by what he sees. I will not spoil the ending.

This story in itself is not the relevant part. His disgust at the processing of a live pig into meat was. The author of the book discussing this tale spent his life moving between vegetarianism and eating meat.

What got me thinking was there are few adults now who do not understand what goes on in a slaughter house, who do not know in many cases how poorly animals are kept and of course that many of the resulting animal products are simply not required. Most people would be nauseated by the sites we see in a slaughterhouse and few would care for the cries of the animals. Few would approve of watching a pig being bled to death.

And yet today I ate meat. Yesterday I ate meat and I have no doubt tomorrow I will eat. I am not making the argument that the killing of animals is in any way parallel to the killing of animals. Simply that knowing my reaction to seeing animals killed would be similar to Eichmann's to seeing the deaths of humans and yet I still eat meat. A parallel I for one feel very uncomfortable about.

What problem are you trying to solve

I thought that the article I read today on a new green initiative highlights the issue of how confused the green world is.

The context is Anaerobic digestion. The process breaks down organic matter to produce biogas which can be used as a renewable energy source for heat and power, and as a transport fuel. It produces a nutrient-rich digestate which can be used as fertiliser, and importantly it keeps organic waste out of landfill, which cuts greenhouse gas emissions. At its full potential it is thought anaerobic digestion could produce enough electricity to power 2 million homes.

Visiting the Ludlow plant, Joan Ruddock said:

“Anaerobic digestion is extremely attractive. Why would we go on throwing food waste into holes in the ground when we could generate our own electricity and end up with a product that can be returned to the soil?"

Thanks Joan. So what are we doing here? You note the reference to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. How? If you have a ton of food waste and put it in a hole in the ground it will emit green house gases (probably methane). Which if left to enter the atmosphere would cause the greenhouse effect. So when I take it and burn the methane then it is released into the atmosphere? But note the renewable energy claim. Why is it renewable? If it is carbon neutral because the creation of food locks up carbon which is then released then ok. But that is not what happens. It is the bacteria from rotting food which creates the gas I think. Essentially the waste food is food for bacteria whose byproduct is methane. Is this carbon neutral. I have no idea whether the methane produced contains more carbon than the food alone (i.e. what effect does the bacteria have on the process).

Nowhere is there reference to the amount of carbon used to grow the food, to transport the food, to cook the food etc. Maybe if less food was wasted then we may actually see a reduction in the overall problem.

So what are they trying to achieve? Renewable electricity (not a compelling argument that this achieves it), a reduction in landfill (is that a problem for organic waste), reduction of methane in landfill (already technologies for dealing with that) or all of the above?

If it is all of the above then it says to me that waste food is a good thing. This is intuitively wrong so quite what is the problem this seeks to solve.

Waste is waste. No point worrying about what to do with it without working out how to reduce it.