June 2007 Archives

Otters, Again

Saw my family of otters again this lunchtime. The young ones seem to have grown up now: they were all looking big and healthy as they were fishing in the Rheidol. I followed them along the riverbank and I think I’ve seen where they’re nesting, which is cool.

Another interesting discovery: I didn’t realise that otters were vocal until one climbed on a rock to get a better look at what I was up to (I’d clambered down the bank to see them better) and started squeaking to the others.

Tried to get a picture, but, again, conditions were against me. Some day, maybe.

Fictional Twinning

Claire‘s birthday trip to Manchester was a success last weekend; saw some good comedy, drank ’til late at a gay bar which has to be the only pub I’ve ever seen to have a balcony overlooking the middle of a multi-storey car park, and spent most of Sunday recovering. It’s not like being 21: staying up 7am to 3am and getting into the pub by mid-afternoon hurts the following day. Maybe I’m getting old.

We stayed at my mum’s house, as she’d vacated it to go to Somerset. She was apparently staying in a town called Wincanton, which has an unusual characteristic. It’s one of only two towns I’ve seen to be twinned with a fictional place (it’s twinned with Ankh-Morpork). The other is, of course, Westerburg, which is twinned with Daventry.

This week we’ve kept ourselves busy with ongoing QParty organisation. We posted out the first half-or-thereabouts of the invitations this morning, to the people we know the addresses for. Would you believe that in the entirety of Aberystwyth it’s impossible to buy C5-size envelopes with a window?

Back to League Of Gentlemen Night II.

1/0

On Ruth’s recommendation, I’ve been reading 1/0 (One Over Zero), a webcomic that ran from 2000-2003. It’s remarkably clever, drawing ideas about religion and philosophy and determinism and morality into a silly little abstract universe of it’s author’s (Tailsteak) creation. It could be said to be fourth-wall breaking, except for the fact that it never really had a fourth wall to begin with: the author is the omnipresent deity of the comic (although he denies the title himself), and his own character plays a very real part in it’s ongoing stories.

If you’re looking for a few hours distraction here and there, give it a whirl.

Years later, I recommended the author’s latest webcomic, Forward (after I accidentally hacked into a system and stole future episodes).

Carbon Neutrality

Recently, Kit wrote about carbon offsetting, calling it wishful thinking at best – at worst, greenwash. In particular, he was looking at tree planting as a method of offsetting carbon emissions, because it’s the most popular method by far. Just this morning I passed a truck making deliveries to a shop around the corner from me, proudly proclaiming in letters on the back that were almost as big as the company name, "We are a carbon neutral company."

This got me thinking about the mathematics of carbon neutrality. As I understood it, every year your company assesses it’s CO₂ production, estimating how much carbon it’s flinging into the atmosphere, and pays another company to plant trees that will "offset" the carbon emitted by absorbing the gas in that way that plants do – through photosynthesis. I found myself wondering how long this process takes – for instance, if I produced X tonnes of CO₂ last year, so I need to buy Y trees to counteract that… how long will it take those Y trees to absorb X tonnes of CO₂. The missing variable, T, doesn’t seem to be widely publicised – and there’s a huge difference between this year’s emissions being absorbed in one year than being absorbed in 40 years.

It turns out, thanks to some research this morning, that this is actually accounted for. T is one year: therefore, in theory at least, your purchase of a certain number of trees will offset the production of – for example – the carbon emissions of a particular motor vehicle for the rest of it’s lifespan. It’s a very wooly theory, of course – the vehicle will become less efficient with age, for instance; some species of trees do not produce a net reduction in their local CO₂ levels for the first eight years of their lives; maintaining a sustainable forest makes significantly less impact on CO₂ than planting new forests; and as forests reach maturity (30-60 years, depending on the species) they become less efficient at impacting CO₂ again. There are lots of factors that aren’t taken into account, but at least my "missing variable" is.

It turns out that factoring in time isn’t a problem, because tree planting is really quite cheap. A hundred pounds or so shelled out when buying a new petrol-driven car (that’ll see pretty average use) pays for enough trees to be planted that – assuming that they are left alone during the entire working lifespan of the car and are not cut down or (worse yet) burned – the carbon emissions of that car are "neutralised." Good for you. You can feel a happy feeling about yourself.

As an optional aside:
I’m somewhat reminded of the Catholic Church’s practice of indulgences. It is the belief of Catholics that sins must be confessed to be forgiven, but that because humans are such naughty, sinful creatures, it’s pretty likely that they’ll have unabsolved sins at the time of their death. Mortal sins (the really serious kind) and concious rejection of God have you sent straight to Hell, but if you’ve merely got a few venial sins (the not-quite-so-serious kind) under your belt when you die, you’ll have to go to a place called Purgatory where you’ll be punished… er… I mean cleansed… of your remaining sins so that you’re pure when you finally get to enter Heaven. Catholocism also teaches that the time that you (or somebody else – even somebody already dead) need to spend in Purgatory can be reduced (let’s call it "offsetting") through penitential acts: usually prayer, but in the past, deliberately bringing punishment on oneself was perhaps almost as popular (fasting, wearing uncomfortable clothing, etc.). Prior to 1567, if you’d committed a sin – and you had the money – you could even buy your way out of it, purchasing an indulgence from your priest that offset, for example, several hundred days worth of penitential prayer without ever getting down on your knees or picking up a rosary. Some divisions of the Catholic Church still approve of giving money to charity as an act of penance, but "buying your way out of penance" by giving to God is now seen as wrong (I wonder how many "sinners" asked for their money back after being told that their indulgences, purchased before 1567, were no longer valid?).

That diversion aside: my research isn’t all fun and games, though. While initial evidence seems to indicate that carbon offsetting through tree planting genuinely can, done right, theoretically, kind-of reduce atmospheric CO₂ by an equivilent volume to that output by the sinner… er, I mean, offender (wow; it’s easy to accidently take a metaphor too far, isn’t it), the bigger question for many people is: what about global warming?

And that’s where it all falls down. All the studies seem to indicate that while tropical forests (you know, like the ones in Brazil that we just keep felling) cause a global cooling effect, forests in temperate areas have no net effect on global temperatures. It turns out that despite them removing carbon compounds from the air, they also provide a dark and (of course) light-absorbing surface which actually helps to trap heat close to the planet’s surface. Worse yet, evergreen trees (of the kind that are so popular in European tree farms) and plantations in cold areas have an even worse effect, absorbing the sun’s heat that would otherwise be reflected – at least some of the year – by snow.

We’re going to have to see a lot more long-term studies on carbon offsetting before we get a consensus on what it’s actually doing for us as a species, but it should be evident that it certainly doesn’t do everything it claims to do, or at least that it isn’t so clear-cut as it could be. As a way to make yourself feel less guilty for polluting the atmosphere, though, it certainly works a treat, and modern carbon offset companies help to make it a lot less effort than repeated Hail Marys or reducing emissions in the first place.

If that’s all a bit serious for my blog, take a look at CheatNeutral. CheatNeutral apply the carbon offset model to relationships – if you’ve cheated on your partner, pay CheatNeutral £2.50 and they’ll give you a certificate with which to apologise to your partner. They promise to invest your money in helping to ensure that other people don’t cheat on their partner – either by keeping them single or by keeping them faithful, so you can relieve the guilt of cheating by knowing that you’re helping to ensure that other people don’t get cheated on too.

QParty Progress

After weeks of debating and procrastinating, Claire and I have finally managed to order the invitation cards we’ll be sending out for QParty. I’m quite pleased with how they look (well, in proof form), and I hope that those of you who’ll be receiving them within the next fortnight or so will smile when you see them, too. Gratitude due to Paul for helping us to arrange them.

It’s all surprisingly complicated. Today, we spent some time discussing the concept of speeches. As anybody who knows me will agree, I love the sound of my own voice, but it’s always been a traditional part of wedding receptions – on which, in our own way, we’re modelling parts of QParty – to get certain other people… the father of the bride, the best man, etc… to say a few words too. But with no bride and no best man, it’s somewhat difficult to decide on the best way to provide the same kind of experience. We think we’re set, now, but for a moment I was wondering.

I’m looking forward to it, and it’s not even just because I like to drink and dance or because I like to get big groups of people I know together into one place: it’s because, though what others have said, it’s turning out to mean something. That’s kind of hard to explain:

I suppose it’s because other people are taking QParty so seriously. We weren’t sure that they would. We’d always said – once we discovered that neither of us were interested in marriage – that we would one day have a party in leiu of a wedding, because that’s the kind of party we like. Since then, we’ve gone to three weddings and one engagement party, and we’re even more sure that we don’t want to get married, but even more sure that we want to drink and dance and show everybody exactly we care about where our relationship stands.

I don’t know about Claire, but I’m genuinely surprised (it’s a good kind of surprised) at some of the responses we’ve had when we said we wanted to have this party. Especially from our parents, who’d already taken our name change in their stride, and from my dad in particular, who’s been especially proactive in helping us make our plans come to life… but also from our friends, who’ve been very positive about the idea (even those for whom not marrying would be an inconceivable life choice), coo-ed and “aww”-ed in a sweet and only slightly sickening way, and have suggested all kinds of activities and themes for the party itself, some of which we may have adopted. So; thank you all for the surprise.

I’ve had some difficulty working out the addresses of everybody I’d like to send invitations too. In particular, right now, I’m lacking postal addresses for Beth and Pete, and non-termtime addresses for Ele and Andy K. If you’re reading this, could you get an address to me within the next week or so; thanks. An inevitable problem with this time of year is that a lot of our friends – even the ones we had addresses for – have just moved. Such is the risk with having friends who are students or recent graduates.

More to follow, I’m sure.

Claire’s Birthday

It’s Claire‘s birthday on Saturday, and she’s made a plan! Just thought I’d share that news here in case anybody’s given up on reading Claire’s blog (it doesn’t get many updates, to be fair) and wouldn’t otherwise hear about our plan to shop, drink, and watch comedy in Manchester. She’s got the details.

Back At Work

I’m back at work today, after the ‘flu-like illness I had earlier this week. Noticing how much I was still coughing, a co-worker plonked a whisky-heavy hot toddy down on the desk in front of me.

I’m not coughing so much, but my productivity is shot.

Open Fidelity

The other book I got in my recent order from Amazon was Open Fidelity: An A-Z Guide, by Anna Sharman. I bought the book after being made aware of it’s existence by the author on a discussion list on which we’re both members. It’s cheaper to buy direct from her website, and an e-book version is available for just £3, but I had an Amazon voucher that was burning a hole in my pocket, and an order that was only a few pounds from Super Saver delivery!

It’s not in competition with The Ethical Slut (my review), by any stretch of the imagination. At 36 pages long, it’s no good as a paperweight. However, it is good for what I bought it for – providing a five-minute introduction to open relationships to those people who seem to be confused by the concept (“Look, just read this…”).

As you might expect from the name, the book takes each letter of the alphabet and writes a little about it. N… is for Negotiation, J… is for Jealousy, W… is for weddings, and so on. In addition, is if it’s pretending to be some kind of encyclopædia, each page ends with “you might also have meant”-style suggestions, which are sometimes serious but as often tongue-in-cheek: “O is also for… Over – see E for Ending Relationships, and Out – see P for going Public.”

And some bits of it are really good: D (Defending your relationship), L (Love), and M (Monogamy) are all particularly well-written and thought-provoking. Considering that what I thought I was buying was a coffee-table conversation-starter (and it is that!), I ended up taking more from the book than I expected. Other bits are silly, in particular Z (Zzzzz), but never too silly to be useless. There are bits that don’t feel like they have any relevance to me: G (God), R (Rings), and W (Weddings), in particular, and in a 36-page book for £4, I almost feel as if I should get better value for money… those three pages are worth… what… almost 35 pence!

There’s a set of quotes in the middle of the book, and a little before the middle of the alphabet (I’d have thought that Anna would have put it after Q, to save herself a letter, but no, she’d saved that for Queer Relationships, which I’m not entirely sure justified a page of it’s own). They’re okay, but there’s nothing mind-blowingly clever in there.

Anna’s planing to work on three more books. The most obvious one is Open Fidelity: the Complete Guide, which will presumably be a less concise version of this book, with more emphasis on how-tos and stuff, which I’m sure will have value to some, but I doubt there’s anything new to somebody who’s succesfully practiced non-monogamy. The second is Open Fidelity and Bisexuality. This is a book that probably really does need to be written: there are many bisexual people or otherwise bi-inclined people unfulfilled by their monogamous relationships with one or the other gender. There are plenty more who are quite happy with that arrangement, of course, but there’s nonetheless probably a lot less market for a book about how to be a monogamous bisexual.

The third book Anna’s planning is the one that interests me the most, even though it’s the one that applies least to me, and it’s just because it’s a book who’s title you might never expect to see. The title is Open Fidelity: a Quaker Perspective. Yup, you read that right. I’ll be fascinated to see what she comes up with for that.

As usual with the books I review, this’ll be sat around in the living room at The Cottage for some time to come, for anybody who fancies a flick.

Blurgh!

Well, I’m ill. I’ve been awake for eight hours today and I’m exhausted, my nose keeps running, and I’m coughing like I’ve been smoking for fifty years. Hopefully a little bit of vitamin C and a lot of rest will fix me.

Needless to say, I blame Sarah S for this.

Thanks to Claire for insisting that I wasn’t well enough to go to work this morning (turns out she was right) and to Jen for going "aww" every time I coughed this evening as we said goodbye to Jimmy and kicked him out of town. The place won’t be quite the same without him.

Boys On Hills

Helen pointed out that this photo looked like an advertisement for a new boy band.

Now it does even more.

Liz & Sun

Last night, Liz and her new girlfriend Sundeep came over for some variety of Troma Night-like event, and Liz cheated on Sundeep with me. I found it odd that Tom S kept trying to find out what we were up to.

This was a dream, of course. Isn’t it fascinating how Liz and Sundeep’s sudden sexuality gear-shift and their appearance in Aber didn’t ring any alarm bells, but finding Tom’s curiosity odd was enough to make me realise I was dreaming. The brain’s a funny thing.

A few games of Hacker after lunch (and before Troma Night) today, if anybody’s interested.

Influence: Science and Practice

I recently received an Amazon order I’d been looking forward to for some time, and thought I’d share with you my thoughts on one of the two books I’d ordered (and which I’ve just finished reading): Influence: Science and Practice (International Edition) by Robert B. Cialdini, which I’d first heard of when Scott Adams mentioned it.

It’s a remarkably deep and thought-provoking book which I thoroughly enjoyed. It sets out to be valuable as a course text (barely a paragraph goes by without making reference to some study or paper), but succeeds also in appealing to the “living room psychologist” in us all, too. Its informal tone makes it immensely pick-up-and-readable, and it covers all of it’s concepts from the ground up in a witty, friendly style.

The book is about the various means of influence – that is, persuasion, coercion, and control – that can be exerted over people through the subtle use of various techniques. The studies referenced by the author are wide-ranging, and the subjects ubiquitous, and you’ll end up nodding in agreement as you read about tricks of the trade you’ve seen used by advertisers, tele-salespeople, shopkeepers, preachers… even lawyers and politicians. It’s all approachable as pop psychology, but equally it’s backed by hundreds of well-referenced, well-researched studies from the 1940s to the present day.

Did you know that, statistically speaking, when somebody crosses the street in a place where it is illegal to do so, about three times as many people will follow them across, on average, if they are wearing a suit? That in some markets and at certain times, putting prices up will increase sales dramatically? That during the week after a widely-reported news story about a high-profile suicide, the number of people killed in commercial aeroplane crashes averages triple what it does in the previous week? These are the kinds of phenomena that Cialdini investigates, using sackloads of evidence from dozens of studies for each, and applies meaningful and believable theories to. The book’s broken up into chapters each discussing a different “weapon of influence,” and they’re all fascinating, well-researched, and engaging. It fells a little America-centric from time to time, and the ending feels abrupt (a result of the last two chapters being significantly shorter than most of the others), but it’s still a great read.

If you’re selling anything, or if you find it hard to say no to surveyors and salespeople, or if you’re just interested in the elements of social persuasion, I’d recommend the book. As usual, it’ll be lying around on our coffee table for anybody who’s sat around at The Cottage.