Il"lumen"ating!

The story of the humble light bulb is known the world over - how the inspiration (and perspiration) of the genius inventor Thomas Edison and his team of dedicated researchers created a simple object that had the power to banish darkness, eliminated the need for fire as a source of illumination - and saved entire species of whales that were hunted in their thousands for the valuable fat that was used for the light bulb's predecessor - the candle. From its first application in lower Manhattan, the light bulb spread rapidly around the world, a shining symbol of progress as evidenced by the now ubiquitous NASA photo of the Earth at night. Of course, a lot of places continued to remain "in the dark" - even to this day, over a billion people lack access to electricity, which is why the light bulb is not only a cool invention, but also symbolizes a divide between the haves and have-nots. Governments, private industry and development agencies usually can align on providing electricity to underdeveloped areas - where they differ is on the means of doing so.

The quest for "clean" energy is very well exemplified by electricity and the light bulb. For the former, the main issue is how electricity is generated and distributed - this being an activity that accounts for perhaps a trillion dollars worth of global GDP. For the latter, it translates into the efficiency with which light can be provided - and indeed, whether it needs to be provided at all.

In the days before the light bulb, indeed before man found ways to create light for himself, the sun's path through the sky defined the amount of light that would be available to the inhabitants of this planet. The sun continues to follow roughly the same trajectory today, but its presence is associated more with sunburn and skin cancer, and people go to great lengths to seek shelter from its rays. But it is the sun that holds the answer to both questions posed above.

Distributed solar is by far the most democratic energy solution around - it takes power from the hands of the resource holder (an oil, gas, coal or even biofuel company) and hands it to the user of that energy. As the energy source can no longer be booked as a "reserve" in the accounts of any private corporation, the model is no longer about "exploration" but switches to one of "usage". Yes, the model still requires the energy conversion device i.e. the solar panel to be created, but once that is done, all subsequent "transactions" in the system are between the user and the source - with no middleman except for clouds.

Distributed solar is also the cleanest solution *at the point of use* - this is an important distinction between being the cleanest from cradle to grave, as it does take some amount of energy to create solar panels, the raw materials are fairly exotic and have to be mined from the earth etc. But the act of using that energy is benign, almost beautiful one might argue - it is the closest we can come to photosynthesis.

Having solar panels on every conceivable surface - house roofs, windows, industrial buildings - also does away with NIMBYism which has sadly plagued even renewable energy projects. NIMBYians are opposed to anything that impacts their environment, which usually means a big power plant, refinery, mining operation or even wind turbine located close to them (or, in the case of Cape Wind, twenty miles away!)

Now let's look at the back end of this - the light bulb itself. The industry has done remarkably well in shifting away from incandescent bulbs to CFL and now on to LED in the matter of just a decade - companies like Philips have actually led the way, in stark contrast to their counterparts in other energy sectors. This has of course been helped by legislation which, not unexpectedly, has been opposed by traditionalists who obviously enjoy the amount of heat generated by Edison's bulb and are emotionally traumatized by the few seconds it takes a CFL to reach its full illumination.

One thing that has not changed, however, is the nomenclature used when referring to CFL and LED bulbs - the Watt. One can understand the reason for this - if you want consumers to adopt a different product, you want at least something to remain the same. So you have CFL packages that continue to show that the 10 W CFL you hold is "equivalent" to a 40 W incandescent bulb. What that means is the amount of light provided by both is the same - which makes sense, because you're not buying a bulb for the amount of power it consumes, but the amount of light it gives.

As we move from CFLs to LEDs, there will come a time when a majority of people on this planet will not know what an incandescent bulb is - so the point of reference for CFLs and LEDs will go away. At that time, the true unit of light intensity - the Lumen - needs to be introduced, and consumers need to understand how to interpret that. This will take some amount of education by the light bulb industry, but having achieved something truly remarkable through the switch, they should be well upto the task.

In search of a new Levittown (no more dead end living)

The suburbanization of the United States post WW II is a defining trend that continues to this very day. The sight of a new housing development, with wide boulevards lined with trees all of the same height and width, driveways every few dozen yards leading to cookie cutter houses with a nice front lawn and porch, and a two car garage, sends families from Connecticut to California into raptures at the open space to play, relax and enjoy life. Men start thinking about the riding lawn mower and gas grill that they plan to buy - women about the granite countertop and color of curtains, while the kids fight over who gets the bigger of the two bedrooms. On moving in day, a huge truck shows up and promptly disgorges vast quantities of furniture, clothes and other "essentials" which get crammed into every nook and cranny available. And if there is any space leftover, you can be sure that the giant mall, a convenient 15 minute drive away, will be able to provide plenty of opportunities to shop away the vacuum.

If you think this is too stereotypical, it probably is - but there is no denying the fact that this is very much the dominant paradigm in the US today (and, by extension, is somewhat of the benchmark to which developing countries like China and India aspire!) But it wasn't always like this - as little as 70 years ago, there was nothing like a "suburb" anywhere, and cities and towns were compact units that were all built to enable people to walk around. If you venture into the downtown of most US cities (assuming you feel safe enough to go there), you will still see evidence of the high density living that characterized most human settlements from the time of the first cities in Babylon.

The change came about in the late 1940s when Joseph Levitt decided to develop a new "concept" in urban living whose template differed considerably from the model of the day - high density was replaced by low density, people suddenly had more space to "spread out" and thus was born Levittown, on Long Island. The popularity of this concept spread rapidly, likely fueled by the fact that after 6 years of war rationing and deprivation of most conveniences, people were eager to grab onto anything that gave the promise of a better life. Very soon, Levittowns were springing up all across the country, first in the east and then all the way across to the west coast. The movement of people (mostly whites) from the cities to the suburbs started as a trickle and quickly became a deluge - and at the time, it led to the biggest explosion of consumer products as convenience (and, to some extent, luxury) quickly became a base expectation. Almost thirty years later, the once vibrant inner cities had decayed and become synonymous with gang violence, drug addiction and minority occupied ghettos.

The automobile and cheap energy played a crucial role in accelerating this rapid suburbanization - distance was no longer measured in miles, but in the number of minutes it would take you drive from point A to B. Even today, most Americans would probably not be able to tell you the distance to the nearest mall or restaurant - it is more likely to be referred to as a "15 minute drive away". Even the oil shocks of the 1970s did not halt this shift - because the thought of not having all this cheap energy was almost unthinkable, and the minute the oil price collapsed, the collective memory was wiped clean and people went back to business as usual.

But it's a different story today. The prospect of climate change, which was not even on the radar in the early 1980s, is a very real threat, even if no one can seem to agree on how much of it is directly attributed to humans. This is driving new behaviors such as people choosing to shop for local produce, driving smaller, more fuel efficient cars and paying more attention to their overall environmental footprint. Increasingly, the "McMansion" is seen as evidence of wasteful profligacy and less as a sign of "having arrived". Suburban living is increasingly becoming linked to the ubiquitous sign at the entrance to every planned development - a "Dead End".

But rather than despair and wring hands, let's look to the same solution that was implemented in coming up with suburbanization - namely, focus on community development that is more urban in nature. Reduce house sizes, have more pedestrian friendly communities, with less emphasis on creating parking lots and more on tot lots. In short - a new Levittown that embraces all the positive attributes that we want to see from an environmental friendly, low energy consuming lifestyle. In this new Levittown, people would walk distances of upto a mile (15 or so minutes), and this would allow them to access at least 75% of all places they would typically go to - shopping, restaurants, libraries, museums, parks, gyms etc. The remaining 25% could be accessed by mass transit such as buses or trams/light rail. Houses would be energy efficient and harvest rain water - they would incorporate solar panels and LED lighting, water pipes would be insulated. Supplemental energy would come from a biomass or waste to energy plant, and there would be wind turbines a short distance away.

If you're wondering if this is all science fiction, consider this - every image that has ever been drawn of a "future" society looks exactly as how I've described above. All of the elements of a low energy lifestyle are out there - it just takes someone to bring them all together and provide it at a competitive price. The latter will take care of itself when enough people sign up for an want to live in such a community - and why wouldn't they? The former is more difficult - the most likely candidate would be a land developer, or a home builder, but one only has to look at the junk that they design and call a house to recognize that it will be a long time before they come around. Change can only come from the outside - a new firm that is willing to take a chance at changing the world.

Would you like celery sticks with that?

The fast food/beverage industry has made billions, and established itself in just about every corner of the world thanks to its focus on low cost, standardized products which instantly satisfy hunger and thirst. It's another thing altogether that their offerings are not exactly the healthiest choice, with links to obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other "rich country disorders" that are fast overtaking traditional diseases globally. Large corporations that are trying to drive down costs would automatically reject any move to introduce options that deviate from their model. Hence the title of this blog - would McDonald's be willing to sell you celery sticks instead of fries? Perhaps - but they would likely offer it at double the price, thanks to a warped cost model that ends up penalizing those who try to choose what would seem to be inherently easier products to make. Never mind fast foods - there is a disconnect when it comes to basic products like meat and vegetables - how else would you explain why a pound of lettuce costs more than a pound of beef? On a calorie basis, the difference would be almost a hundred fold!

The same skewed economics exists in the energy industry, where the dominant paradigm of fossil fuels has made the development of alternatives next to impossible without large subsidies (which are immediately decried for being not consistent with the principles of a free market). The cost of delivering those fuels to a convenient location down the street - from the military presence in "sensitive" locations around the world, to the environmental pollution resulting from use of the fuels - is not paid for by the consumer, but ends up being paid for by society in general. The option to use a different source of energy is either not available, or is so costly and inconvenient that one automatically defaults to what is provided.

As millions of inhabitants of developing countries cross into the realm of the middle class, they will begin to use more and more energy to maintain their newly attained lifestyles. But it would be wishful thinking to believe that they have exercised any kind of informed choice. One would get a very different outcome if the person consuming that energy could pick and choose from a menu of available options - rather like a meal. After all, if we stress the importance of a balanced diet on healthy living, why not the importance of balanced energy choices?

Whose resource is it anyway?

The development of solar and wind power is touted by environmentalists as the cure-all for the pollution and destruction caused by the use of fossil fuels. After all, what could be cleaner than an array of solar panels angled up towards the sun, just sitting there? Or a row of shining wind turbines, all rotating in unison, catching the wind in their blades and generating electric power for free? Yes, there are downsides that we are reminded of - the sun sets every night (except above the Arctic circle for a few months every summer!) and the wind does occasionally die down - but other than those inconveniences, both are relatively benign.

The technologies for both are very well developed and safe to implement - this is not like nuclear where the threat of a leak is only a tsunami away (I jest of course - that was a freak incident - but the truth is that the consequences of a nuclear reactor accident will always be enormous, no matter how small the probability). I've never heard of a solar panel falling off a roof and killing someone - likewise, bird deaths caused by wind turbines often tend to be exaggerated.

The biggest challenge with the widespread implementation of solar and wind, however, is the nature of the resource itself - it does not have an owner. The sun and the wind are the most democratic of energy sources, because they are ubiquitous - other than the fact that the rays of the sun are differently angled, and that wind in some areas is stronger than others. But unlike deposits of oil, coal, gas, uranium, lithium - in fact, just about any other natural resource that we depend on - there is no question of claiming "ownership" over solar and wind.

And that's the inherent problem - because the modern fossil fuel industry is based on the concept of companies and countries counting barrels or tons of reserves that impacts the global economics of energy production, distribution and consumption. Every oil company has to show that it can replace its reserves year on year or risk getting punished in the stock market - similarly, a country that can suddenly "double" its quantity of reserves becomes the darling of the international aid organizations.

Solar and wind, however, are meant to immediate consumption - or, at best, immediate generation of electricity which can then be stored for later usage. If it is sunny today, it might be cloudy for the next give - so you can't talk about the reserve of sunshine (or wind speed) as it is instantaneous. Again, that is not necessarily a negative - but it definitely impacts the ability of an organization to be willing to go into business in the same way it currently does business for fossil fuels.

Smart home, Dumb people

The focus of the electronics and consumer goods industry has been on the development of "smart" devices or appliances that are able to provide or exchange information and, as a result, have capabilities far greater than their analog predecessors. Take the lowly thermostat for example - in its primitive form, it came with two settings - on and off. This resulted in either a lot of wasted energy if the device was left on the whole day, or uncomfortable surroundings if it was left off. The emergence of the programmable thermostat changed this and allowed homeowners to set timings for the device to turn on and off.

The "smart" thermostat takes this to an entirely new level - it allows you to remotely access and control the thermostat and make adjustments all while checking to see how much energy is being consumed in the house. Is this really necessary? How much additional efficiency can one realize from such a device? Or are people paying for the "convenience" of being able to have this control, even if they use it only once in their lifetime?

The smart fridge is an even bigger white elephant. It's one thing to have  fridge that can control the temperature to reduce energy usage - but why would you need a fridge that keeps track of what items are in it and automatically generates a list of what to buy on the next trip to the grocery store? Since when have humans become incapable of opening the fridge door and doing a 10 second scan of the contents?

The reality is that the consumer goods industry, having become a victim of its own success in rolling out more efficient and longer lasting products, now has to contend with falling sales. So their only option is to invent new "needs" and try and satisfy them with icing and cherries. Every industry faces this at some point in time, and because the mantra is "keep manufacturing no matter what", the obsession with novelty is perpetuated.

Let's focus on applying smart technologies where it really makes sense - where humans are not physically or mentally capable of undertaking the same task in the same amount of time. For example, controlling the flow of traffic in a city is beyond the reach of any single human, and unless one is willing to hire hundreds of traffic police, the only solution is to implement an intelligent controller that ensures the major roadways are moving and any bottlenecks are quickly resolved. You don't need a car that somehow senses the level of sunlight is too high and automatically changes the window tint to reduce the glare.

The joy of getting things done

There are some of us for whom curling up with a good book under a blanket represents the ultimate bliss - still others would venture out to a pub and spend several hours with friends drinking into the early hours of the morning. Me - I like assembling furniture and planting bulbs. Why, you ask? Because the joy you get at the completion of the task is worth all the effort that goes into it.

Take this morning - with snow coming down hard, and the office closed, I decided to tackle the latest Ikea purchase sitting in my basement - a TV stand. No ordinary stand this, it was a real beast weighing close to a hundred pounds. But once the box was opened, and the individual pieces separated, it looked decidedly simply. About 15 minutes work, I thought, then I can get some breakfast.

About 45 minutes later, as I was still grappling with the last piece, I realized to my horror that one of them had gone in backwards. Now if you've ever assembled Ikea furniture before, you know that the only reason that something doesn't turn out the way it should is because the person doing the assembly has goofed up - I have yet to see a set of instructions that is incorrect (same with the correct number of screws and dowels in each order!) I went back to step 1 and started all over again and realized that I had been looking at the  instructions upside down - so much for my theory that men are great at spatially challenging tasks! Luckily it was a simple fix and i was soon staring at a perfectly functioning well assembled table.

Gardening has its own challenges - you have to imagine a layout and then proceed to plant your bulbs so that you can have waves of different colors throughout the year. Unlike furniture, where the results are seen almost immediately, gardening requires a fair amount of patience as it will take anywhere from 3-6 months to witness the miracle of how soil, air and water act together. The thrill one gets when you see the first tiny green shoot poking its head out of the ground is worth the wait!

Technology gone wild

Sir James Dyson is a world famous inventor/engineer, whose iconic products such as a bagless vacuum cleaner and "air blade" (to be found in most airports and hotels worldwide) combine the best of solid engineering and creative design. He has also campaigned vigorously for guiding young minds into engineering, which is also admirable.

But I think its time to take a step back and think about his latest invention - the "tap cum hand dryer", which will not only wash your hands, but also dry them, to avoid leaving, as he states, "a trail of drops on the floor".

Talk about using a sledgehammer to go after a mosquito! I fear that Sir James has gone a bit too far on this one, and is trying to find just another outlet for his expertise in channeling huge amounts of hot air (something that was usually reserved for politicians). And while his invention will certainly reduce the amount of paper towels that are being used worldwide (provided, of course, that the option is not provided in the first place - we are so conditioned to look for a paper towel  that we will walk the entire length of a restroom, bypassing all the fancy hand dryers, just to grab a stack!), there are other ways in which the same objective could be achieved.

In the old days, everyone used to carry around a handkerchief (the "hanky") which could be used for various purposes including wiping ones hands. The beauty of this was that after about 10 minutes, the hanky was dry once again, as the water would have evaporated. In fact, if you vigorously shake your hands after washing them, about 80% of the water goes off anyway, and it doesn't take that much longer for the rest to dry off.

Even now, fancy hotels will keep regular small cotton towels on hand that people can use, and then throw into a bin for them to be washed and returned. Certainly a lot more eco friendly than paper towels, but also less energy intensive than an automated hand dryer. Think about your own home - would you use paper towels to dry your hands, or clean up a mess? Most of us have cotton towels that we use and reuse and reuse and reuse and ....you get the point.

By trying to force technology into an issue which is more behavioural in nature, we lead people to believe that they should not be using their common sense. This explains the emergence of all the "smart" devices including phones, TVs, appliances etc. Let's not succumb to a new technology simply because it seems "cool". Let's instead examine whether it is really required, or if there is another low-tech way of achieving the same objective.

Find your p's and q's

Walk down the aisles of your local supermarket, and pay attention to the sizes of the containers for milk, juice, soft drinks and other liquids. Chances are that other than kid size containers meant for little lunchboxes, the average size of these containers will be about a half gallon or close to 2 liters. The "supersizing" of food has been going on for some time now, and several documentaries and news reports have commented on how this has led to an increasing obesity level amongst the general population. But the effect is not just on our waistlines, but also on the size of the most central of domestic appliances - the refrigerator.

From a simple ice box over a century ago, the fridge today has become a virtual house unto itself, with all kinds of "smart" features being built in to detect if food has spoilt (what happened to the age old "smell test"?), ordering stuff that is about to run out directly from the store (the end of shopping lists for husbands) and - of course - providing a drink of cool water, eliminating the need to ever stick a glass under the tap on the kitchen sink.

I refer to the fridge as the most central appliance because it is the only one to consume energy 24x7 - unless the power goes off. Day or night, no matter the external conditions, the fridge continues to hum away, expelling heat while keeping all your perishables nice and cold (at least they got rid of the freon, so you're not harming the ozone layer at the same time). And as the size of fridges has gone up, so has their energy consumption, notwithstanding attempts to make them more energy efficient (which is a slightly more sophisticated version of making a diet cola).

While living in the UK, however, I realized that there is a way around this, which is to simply reduce the size of containers available in supermarkets. So the humble pints and quarts were back, and I would regularly buy small containers of milk and juice and put them in a fridge which was about half my height. with a smaller fridge, the temptation to hoard items was no longer present - you only bought what you wanted, which in turn led to less wastage. So a simple switch to a small container has a profound multiplier effect (in this case, a divisor effect!) Smaller container = smaller fridge = less energy consumed = less wastage = less obesity.

Now let's try convincing the food and packaging manufacturers to get on board with this idea. It sounds too simple, but that's because it is. Prior to the consumer revolution (post WW II, where the advancements in manufacturing from the industrial revolution found a ready outlet), we didn't have giant containers, and most people did just fine. Remember - all good things come in small packages. What's true for diamonds applies just as well to other aspects of our lives.

Leave our gas alone!

Imagine you have a water well in your backyard. It's a modest sized well and provides enough to meet your basic needs. The trouble is - your needs continue to grow, and your own well cannot satisfy your demand. So you reach out to neighbors, many of whom have far bigger wells, or at least have a lower demand for the same sized well. You convince them (and yourself) that those wells are best utilized to serve you, and talk about all the water from those wells being part of a single "pool".

Now imagine one day when you discover that your well suddenly has a lot more water than you had originally - and you are actually supplied beyond your needs! Once you are over the initial surprise, and excitement, you contact your neighbors to tell them the good news - and promptly inform them that you intend to keep this water for yourself, because it is too precious to put into the pool or give to others who might now need more of it.

Such is the irony that the shale gas boom has created in the US - and if it does end up with restrictions on the ability to export the surplus to level out the price in the marketplace, will severely dent the US' ability to dictate terms to energy and resource suppliers in the future. Of course, one could argue that such hypocrisy is perhaps well known, and in any case, the matter is far from resolved.

But the fact that such a restriction was even considered highlights the deep fear in the US of the dependence on "foreign oil", a phrase that has become as common as "monday morning quarterbacking" in the American lexicon. Energy security is desirable, but it does not come from closing down the borders - the same way that political security cannot be achieved (in the long run) by restricting free speech or emigration. 

Reverse engineering

For some years now, the US and other western countries have been marching down the path of encouraging the development of technical resources (the "STEM" - science, technology, engineering and mathematics - curriculum) as a way to retain the dominance of their societies in the face of increasing numbers of trained people from China and India entering the global marketplace. With the loss of manufacturing jobs, and influence of Wall Street in the American psyche, many youngsters today prefer to take up careers in business or law, rather than hardcore technical sectors. As a result, Silicon Valley, Detroit and the energy companies tend to do a lot of recruiting from international arenas - either from the pool of immigrants studying at US universities, or directly from colleges and schools abroad. The prospect of a six figure starting salary, in dollars, is now very realistic for a youngster in Shanghai or Chennai.

The rigorous curriculum in these countries is also something that the US is trying hard to emulate. Studies point to the long hours spent by students in the Asian tiger economies, and their eventual success, as an indicator of what an American kid should be aiming for. The documentary "2 million minutes" tracks the lives of 4 students in different countries, showing how different (and perhaps easy) the US high school life is compared to someone who is slogging 8 hrs a day for two years to compete with a hundred other candidates for a seat at a good university.

So it might come as a bit of a surprise to read that Chinese parents are paying upwards of $ 50,000 a year to get their children into elite preparatory schools in the US as a stepping stone to a US university education! Some of the students commented that they wanted to experience the US education over the rote learning and hardship of the classrooms back home. As their societies develop and more service sectors open up, young Indians and Chinese are likely to realize that one can have a good life without being restricted to the few career choices. After all, there are enough and more engineers to go around even if half the students opt for another choice! Perhaps the US needs to do this in reverse - send its technically inclined students to go through the meat grinder of an Indian education and have them come out committed to being an engineer for life.

London 150

In today's rapidly changing world, where a product is rendered obsolete five minutes after it's bought, the relative permanence of some things is worth appreciating. This past week, the world famous London underground, the world's first subway/metro system, an institution that has grown with the city and made it one of the top destinations in the world for tourists and its residents, celebrated 150 years of existence. From its humble beginnings as a single line running a few miles, with steam locomotives belching smoke and perhaps causing several premature deaths for its original set of passengers, the network has literally created the greater London metropolitan area by providing people an option to live beyond the city center but still have access to it. It is also, by default, the mother of all other transit systems, the benchmark not just for design but also style (the iconic tube map is perhaps one of the most recognized images in the world, quite remarkable given that it does not feature a face or logo for a company).

The longevity of the tube has not come for free, of course - millions of pounds are invested every year to keep it running smoothly, and fares continue to rise, much to the anger of commuters. But it would be a brave person who advocated doing away with the system, or at least questioning whether it met a benefit to cost hurdle, which every public (and private) investment needs to do in today's cash strapped world, where there is money to throw away on nonsensical products, but not on projects for social good.  What is even more remarkable is the foresight of the individuals, who saw a future where the city degenerated without a properly designed transport system, and drove through the implementation in the face of what was likely widespread criticism.

It is somewhat fortuitous that the system, and those of most European cities thereafter, arose at a time when the modern auto industry did not exist, or was in its infancy. The outcome might well have been different if you considered 1963 instead of 1863 - the solution might have been to build wide highways with thousands of cars instead of narrow tunnels with hundreds of people jammed into a long metal tube. Most US cities that did have trains or trams found those quickly ripped up and replaced by roads - a conspiracy of the auto companies that does little to support the assertion of providing a level playing field to competition.

The developing world, unfortunately, will not enjoy the benefits of this foresight - systems being installed in India are coming at a time when population has crossed the 10 million mark in cities like Delhi and Mumbai, and well over 5 million in some others. Using (or avoiding) mass transit is as much a statement of class as it is of cost and convenience - the dream of car ownership trumps the desire to stand alongside fellow travellers, no matter that the choked roads are no match for the empty tracks. In London, in contrast, the tube is used by all classes of society, from the football hooligan to the banker, the NHS nurse to the thousands of immigrants who flood the city every year in search of a better life. Perhaps the fact that the tubes, in addition to providing a path for trains, also gave safe haven to Londoners from falling Nazi bombs, where both rich and poor alike perished, has resulted in it being regarded as an essential service. And with that comes the will to support it in the coming 150 years.

The effluent society

On a recent visit to India, I ended up on a 7 hr train journey from Chennai to Mysore. The minute the train left the platform, I was at my customary spot by the doorway, gazing out on the passing landscape, with the warm breeze of the early morning blowing through my hair. The tightly packed houses and traffic of the city gave way to the somewhat quieter suburbs and then open fields with palm trees lined up as far as the eye could see. People going about their business, the farmer getting his bullocks or tractor ready for some ploughing, cyclists meandering down dirt roads and children at play, turning towards the tracks as the train passed by, yelling and waving with a big smile on each face.

The one thing that didn't change during the entire journey, however, was the vast amount of detritus along the tracks. Paper cups, newspapers, food waste, little supari packets - everything that could be found in a shopping mall was strewn across the ballast, the whites and colors contrasting starkly with the dull grey. I might be accused of misguided nostalgia if I were to say that back when I was growing up, things were not so bad - but to some extent, we must recognize that with India becoming a more affluent society, the corresponding waste generation that goes hand in hand with development simply cannot be ignored. I recall an article some years ago in a magazine that compared the trash from a city dwelling family, which was tends of kilograms a week, to one that lived in a village, which was an order of magnitude lower. I would bet that since then, both numbers have gone up, perhaps disproportionately in favor of the village dweller, who now has access to more "stuff".

Even the often cited Indian tendency to reuse materials because of a scarcity of resources is coming under attack - the ease with which things can be thrown away makes it that much more difficult to make a case to recycle or conserve. The same problem hit the west after the second world war, a time when most families were being encouraged to be thrifty and not squander any precious raw materials. Old tin cans were being recycled by the millions so that the military could have enough to win the war. In a time of peace, the threat of environmental pollution and general wastage is clearly not a strong driving force.

The problem in India is made worse by the fact that proper waste disposal rarely exists, but even so when it does, people are somehow unwilling to use it. The millennia old taboo against waste handling is yet to disappear, and people would much rather not have to deal with the problem than confront it head on. Unlike the US, we don't have the benefit of vast tracts of empty land that can be used to landfill these materials - even if we did, that should not be an excuse to fill them up!

So back to the challenge of the trash along the railway line - I'm sure the people who live in the towns and villages are less than pleased with the donations made by passengers who are passing by. If you're willing to take in the view, then spoiling it should be the last thing in your mind.

Science vs Supersitition

The movie "Tenchi - The Samurai Astronomer" is a wonderful story of Japan's equivalent to Galileo and Copernicus - a young man whose fascination with mathematics, and eventually astronomy, leads him to a decades long struggle to reform the Japanese calendar. Along the way, he faces rejection at every step by the Imperial court, who view any interference with the calendar as a challenge to their divine right, as ordinary men are not expected to be able to understand the complex workings of the heavens. He also wins the heart of a woman who ends up working alongside him on his experiments, standing in heat and rain and snow to make observations of the stars and help him predict, amongst other things, when the next solar eclipse is likely to take place. In the end, he is able to convince the deepest of skeptics and the Japanese calendar is finally modified.

There are a few key learnings from the movie that are worth discussing. The first is the realization of how difficult the scientific method really is. All that we take for granted today is the result of the hard work, and occasional genius, of people who had a gift for observation and rational analysis, and used it to improve our understanding of the world around us. Take Archimedes, who first observed the relationship between weight and volume displacement - every school kid knows the famous story of how he jumped out of his bathtub and ran naked through the streets of Syracuse when he realized the enormity of what he had discovered. The contribution from other ancient Greeks like Pythagoras, Euclid, Aristarchus and Democritus cannot be valued (the fact that Greece today is in such dire straits is truly heartbreaking when you look at the contribution from their civilization to all of mankind). And let's not leave out other civilizations like the Egyptians and Mesopotamians, all of whom have in some small way built up the disciplines of mathematics, natural sciences and astronomy. In all cases, the methods have been painstaking - tools have had to be developed from scratch where none existed previously, theories have been invented to explain the unexplainable - and there have been constant challenges to frustrate even the most dedicated scholar.

The second learning is that the establishment (in most cases, monarchs with absolute, or divine, power, and their associated lackeys) have typically been reluctant to accept the findings from scientists when it clashes with their "view" of the world. The persecution of Copernicus and later Galileo by the Catholic Church is known to everyone - in fact, the Church did not officially accept that the earth moved around the sun till sometime in the 20th century! Evolution is still up for debate - perhaps it will be a few more centuries before they finally come around.

Of all the fields of learning, astronomy has typically being the most contentious, because it deals with objects and concepts that are "not of this world" - but of the heavens. The movement of the sun and moon, phenomena such as eclipses and shooting stars and supernova, were all used by organized religion and the ruling class as a way to demonstrate their superiority over the masses, who were told that these were omens and signs from God or some supreme being. No religion has been immune from this blindness - an entirely priestly class evolved to be able to interpret these "signs", and elaborate rituals were constructed to propagate various myths. Which is why the thought that the occurence of an eclipse is simply the result of a few simple laws of motion and the alignment of the sun and moon, which can be understood by everyone, was so dangerous an idea.

I mentioned earlier that Tenchi had a passion for mathematics and then got involved in astronomy - in fact, most of the scientists from antiquity were skilled in a diversity of areas including philosophy, poetry, mathematics, medicine and so on. It is only in recent times that the concept of specialization in one single field has become the norm, this would be quite alien to the likes of Newton, Descartes or Faraday, let alone their predecessors from two millennia ago. This cross-discipline knowledge is, however, critical for dealing with problems, as at the base level, all the sciences are fundamentally linked.

Moving forward to the 21st century, the debate over climate change is the modern equivalent of the challenge that Tenchi and others have faced in the past. On the one hand is the established order that posits there is nothing to worry about, while another group has continuously raised the alarm about the potential havoc that might be wreaked on the planet if fossil fuel use is allowed to continue unchecked. The "climategate" emails from a few years ago is balanced by the near total loss of ice cover in the Arctic. And while the methods available to us are infinitely more sophisticated than those that Tenchi used, the deep entrenchment of the establishment is that much more formidable.

The tongue that unites - and divides

I recently watched Sridevi's comeback movie "English Vinglish", which has received a number of favorable reviews. My initial reaction (as usual) was negative, as I was more focused on her nose job and botox that made me feel she was impersonating the actress who was THE box office attraction in the mid 1980s - but once I got past that, the movie itself was quite well done. The story was quite unconventional, focusing on the female lead who is a mother, rather than the usual boy-girl-love formula. Central to the theme is the fact that the mother is not comfortable speaking English as compared with her husband and children, who are somewhat cruel in their mockey of her pronunciation - the children particularly seem embarrassed by their mother's linguistic limitations and want to avoid any interaction between her and the (more sophisticated i.e English speaking) parents of their friends. The one time that she does accompany the daughter for a PTA meeting ends up with the teacher speaking in broken Hindi to be understood by Sridevi, and the daughter wanting to just melt into the floor. Sridevi herself seems to resign herself to her fate, even though it is quite obvious that she is hurt by all the comments from her family. The fact that she is running a fairly successful home catering business, supplying sweets to weddings and other functions, earns her no credit - in fact, her husband (a fairly typical Indian male) uses that fact to typecast her as "being born to make laddoos" and not a whole lot more!

A massive change in her life comes about when she has to fly to the US to help with the wedding of her niece (sister's daughter) - rather than the entire family travelling together, she is sent about 5 weeks ahead of time to help with the advance preparations. While initially hesitant about travelling alone, she finally agrees and lands in New York after a long flight where a suave Amitabh Bachchan (in a guest role) recognizes her plight and gives her some reassurance and advice about enjoying herself. The conversation with the immigration officer is a bit of a disaster despite all her preparation on how to answer the standard questions - what is the purpose of your visit? where will you be staying? for how long?

The first few days in the US are spent at home catching up with her sister and getting over jetlag - then she's prepared to hit Manhattan along with her niece. The youngster tells her wait for her in a coffee shop - and that's where it all falls apart. She is completely clueless in the line, makes a mess of the order, the cashier gets increasingly aggravated and she runs out of the place without her order, dropping someone else's fries in the process. Just at that point, she sees an advertisement for English language classes that changes the direction of the movie - she signs up for lessons, and for the next four weeks painstakingly learns the finer points of the English language to the extent that she is able to give a toast at her niece's wedding, much to the amazement of her family. Along the way, she also rediscovers her Indianness, thanks to a particularly suave Frenchman in her class who woos her without realizing that she is married - she, being the "good Indian wife" resists knowing that she should remain true to her husband, even though he is quite the boor and feels her place is in the kitchen and nowhere else (that's the second theme in this movie, which can occupy an entirely different blog post of its own!)

Whether or not one can actually learn English in 4 weeks is another point altogether - what the movie does highlight is the manner in which English has, for almost two centuries now, been the language that has both united and divided India - and Indians. Much like Europe, where each country has its own language, and English has become the default medium of communication, Indians rejected one of their home grown tongues (Hindi) as a medium of communcation and instead chose to adopt the language of their rulers as their lingua franca. This was not unlike the practice in colonies held by the French and Spanish, with the main difference being that the indigenous languages in most of those countries were totally wiped out in the process (the Native Americans of the US are facing the same problem today, with fewer and fewer speakers of ancient tongues dying out).

With the large population of India, and the diversity of languages already present, English was never going to be adopted en masse, and indeed was never intended to. Lord Macaulay, who (in)famously commented about the penury of Indian literature in comparison to his mother country, specifically wanted to create a class of Indians who were close enough to the British that they could be used as an intermediary to control the vast population. This small group of individuals would, by virtue of speaking the same language as the Brits, be more likely to see themselves as a class apart from their fellow Indians. And succeed that plan did - to this day, speakers of English will always have an advantage in terms of job prospects and career advancements, which explains why even the poorest of poor people will stress that they want their children or grandchildren to get an English education. In the process, the native tongues are somehow accorded second class status, to be kept behind closed doors. Nowhere is this observed more than when two Indians meet abroad - even though they might speak the same Indian language, they will tend to defer to English, as though speaking in the mother tongue demonstrates some kind of backwardness with which they don't want to be associated.

This is quite different from European countries, where two Frenchmen or Germans or Italians would never dream of conversing in English - even if they are in mixed company! In fact, they make it a point of speaking in their native language, as though they regard English as a necessary evil (this is certainly true for the French, who would point out that their language is dominant in over 60 countries, whereas, strictly speaking, English is #1 in only about 5 countries - the UK, US, Australia, NZ and Canada - everyone else is part of the vast "ESL" community!) And it's not as though they are any less competitive in the global marketplace - which is one of the main reasons why Indians clamour so much for English - getting BPO jobs is the stepping stone to a world of plenty.

In the process, though, we lose a small bit of our culture and history. A poem by Wordsworth might be beautiful, but no less beautiful is a sher by Ghalib or doha by Kabir. The Japanese poetry haiku in fact is so popular that there are English haiku competitions - a wonderful case of vernacular form making it across the language divide. If the Sridevi's of the world are to keep their head high and be proud of speaking in their native language, we first need to appreciate and respect it and not send it to the back of the class.