PRIAM!

Check out the band Priam at:

http://priam.bandcamp.com/album/priam-ep

This is the first effort from a band that kinda just fell together from a bit of jamming here and there whilst we were all in school.

We are and will continue to be a creative force, check us out!

Going Green: A call for efficient living

Let us suppose that the global warming debate is over, and that it has definitively been proven that greenhouse gas emissions caused by and for the sustenance of humans are not contributing to any catastrophic climate change.

Should we, then, continue living life as usual?

The logical answer is a resounding no.

Here's why:

If the above proposition is accepted as true, let us look at the other effects of the activities that produce greenhouse gasses.

Pollution --

Regardless of climate, there is no denying that burning things in general, be it through internal combustion engines, coal fired power plants, smelters, and even fireplaces releases pollutants and irritants into the air.

Chemicals released when certain substances are burned have been/can be linked to cancer, but again, even if this proposition is found to be false, the exhaust from cars and factories does make our air harder to breathe, and that is a huge detriment.

L.A. is covered by its notorious smog cloud, and incidents of asthma and other breathing related disorders are on the rise almost universally in cities. The number one cause of the increase in the incidence of these disorders is pollution from the aforementioned factors.

For us to live in a more productive, healthy society we need to either a) densify so that necessities and amenities are accessible to a great number of people in a small amount of space, thereby eliminating the need for (individually owned) transportation, which is a significant contributor to city air pollution, b) Find fuels that don't pollute our environment so that geographically disproximate places remain accessible without an unnecessary cost to our health, or c) a combination of a and b.

I vote for c. While I love the idea of living in a big house in the burbs with my own lawn, wide roads, and big garage, and loathe the possibility of being cramped into a tiny room in an infinitely large building because someone decided it was for the greater good, I think that through prudent planning, investment, and research we can come to a happy medium that affords both choice and sustainability.

I think we should curb sprawl in low density areas and start building up instead of out--it doesn't have to be extreme, but in areas where there are only endless detached houses, it might be prudent to encourage better use of space. This will preserve fertile farmland (which tends to be bought for housing, and more desirable to live on than saaaay, the Canadian Shield) for food production, as well as create a more vibrant atmosphere in traditionally dull suburbs--not to mention, decrease air pollution in an area (more people in one place = less need to drive further and further distances to houses = less driving = less pollution, and may also lead to more commercial development in an area also resulting in less need to drive out of the suburbs for access to amenities = less pollution).

I believe that even where sprawl is present, it is possible to cut down air pollution by investing in accessible and usable public transit. Ideally zero emission public transit. No I don't mean net zero emission transit where the pollution here is offset by someone planting a tree in New Guinea, I mean actual zero emission transit. I'm talking about 24 hour streetcars and subways powered by electricity from renewable energy sources like wind, hydro, and solar, and busses that run on hydrogen. If public transit is accessible in a timely manner, it will experience increased ridership and pay itself off not only financially (though that may be an eventuality), but through a cleaner environment, a tighter ship of a society, and peace of mind for commuters who won't have to slog through hours of traffic (here's to elevated or subterranean transport) everyday, or worry about how they'll get to and from home if they travel at odd hours.

Berlin is a great example of public transit done right, mostly. You can hop on a tram to just about anywhere in the city at any time of the day. This just evokes a sense of security in an individual, and allows one to choose where they want to live without the financial burden and stress of commuting --a transit pass costs a lot less per month than car payments + insurance payments + gas + annualized basic maintenance costs for a car. The longest you wait in Berlin is 30 minutes between trams, a gap that only exists in the wee hours of the morning. Stockholm exhibits similar characteristics with its underground transit system, yet here in Canada public transit seems to be a bit of a joke.

Let's look at a Canadian case study: Chestermere, Alberta.

Chestermere is a lovely little suburb of Calgary, about 15-20km East of the city on the Trans-Canada highway. It's decidedly a bedroom community for Calgary with little to do, no public transport and miles of maze-like suburban roads.

To live in Chestermere, you need a car. I know you're thinking 'oh, you don't need a car there, you probably just really want a car in Chestermere'. I wish that were the case. There is no transport in or out of the main city, and even getting to the grocery store can involve crossing a major highway and a 3km+ walk.

You need a car in Chestermere.

This is not a slight on the place which is picturesque, complete with lake and golf course, and generally populated with hard working, nice folks. It is merely an example illustrating the problem with Canadian city planning, or the lack of planning that takes place, which is symptomatic of a greater problem--one of apathy when it comes to genuine concerns for quality of life or transport.

Another lovely Alberta example is the new super-mall 'Cross Iron Mills' just North of Calgary. Again, public transport is minimal, and the mall is situated about 10km north of the city. It's the only thing around for miles. People converge on it like a Mecca on the weekends in their gas-guzzling pickup trucks, and fill up the acres upon acres of flat tarmack parking lot to shop and see films. There's a large mall downtown, which is far more accessible but not as new (though it has been renovated), and it doesn't have a movie theatre.

But I digress.

The fact that these sprawling developments continue to be the flavour of the day speak to an ideology that is less concerned about our collective health, and more concerned about where to get their jeans at a discount.

If we could collectively as a society decide that we demand accessible clean transit and amenities within our cities here in Canada, not only could we clear up the highways at rush hour, we could clear up the air for ourselves and our children.

Finite Energy --

If the source of energy is not renewable it's finite.

That's fact.

If not today, or tomorrow, or next year, someday, someone will have to come up with a source of clean, sustainable (and ideally renewable) power, or we're all going to go the way of the do-do...or at least back to the stone age.

The question is, if we accept the beginning proposition to be true, why not now?

By harnessing the power that is already available in plenty on the planet, we can ensure a higher standard of living for everyone on the planet. Maybe you don't subscribe to acting for the greater good, but hell, even the most selfish person should be able to see it'd be better for themselves!

No longer would your energy bills be tied to hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, or the cost of extracting coal. In an ideal world, each individual household could be cleanly self-sustaining.

Not only would energy purchasing costs be lowered, thereby freeing up household income for other purposes, but think about the freedom that comes from not having to worry about acquiring energy?

As an individual, the results would be more money in our individual pockets (after paying the fixed cost of installation and nominal maintenance charges), but beyond that, consider all the great minds, entrepreneurs, and massive skilled labour that would be freed up for more innovative and industrious pursuits!

Would oil companies be upset or put out of business? Yes--but only if they fail to adapt and change their business to encompass other areas of energy provision (perhaps manufacture and maintenance of clean energy provision equipment) or some other business model entirely. Businesses that fail to adapt should be put out to pasture when the market moves on. The music industry has been learning this lesson the hard way for a number of years.

At the end of the day, sooner or later we're going to need to replace fossil fuels and non-renewables, the sooner the better--not to mention the fact that none of the current renewables don't involve destroying the air we breathe to generate energy.

War --

Following on from the last topic is war. I'm not saying war would be eradicated by going green or anything of the sort. But we could focus our warring energies on bigger problems in the world, ones that would affect a greater number of people positively, instead of simply satisfying our insatiable and unsustainable thirst for various finite energy producing resources. --I'm talking about sorting out the numerous human rights situations in Africa, and elsewhere, which we (read: the global developed community) could ideally peacefully, but with a military presence if necessary.

Utopia (well, I'm not that crazy): A move towards efficiency

Ok, so in my ideal world there's no war and everyone's working towards goals for advancing humanity towards a brighter future. People appreciate things like art, and the search for meaning in their lives through intellectual pursuits. The things that drive us forward as a united human race are the pursuit of greater knowledge and a striving for becoming better at the things we already do, individually and collectively.

I know that this is a very unlikely possibility, but the least we can do is clean up the air for ourselves and future generations. The least we can do is design living spaces so that people can live life with less preventable stress (ie; from worrying about time pressures because driving from A to B to complete a necessary task actually takes double or triple the time of completing the task itself!), and more freedom to do follow happier pursuits with their time and extra cash. The least we can do as a society is begin to start thinking collectively as a race, instead of a people divided so that everyone on the planet can have a better quality of life than they have now, and the wars that are waged are waged only with good reason.

And all that is if you accept that humans are not contributing to climate change, which I personally do not.

p.s. The jury is still out on what the effects of climate change will be.

Stoning (a slightly stream of consciousness take on a serious problem)

Now, before you get the wrong idea, this is not a post about smoking anything, I wish it could have the lighthearted tone that an article about that might have.

This article is actually about an arcane, and frankly, unacceptable practice that somehow still manages to take place in some countries around the world.

This article was inspired by the film 'The Stoning of Soraya M.', which is based on a journalist's actual account of a woman in Iran who was accused and convicted of adultery without empirical evidence in a small town where the punishment for that crime was death by stoning.

I am unaware as to whether the film sensationalized the events to further emphasize the stark contrast between the person and the punishment--but even if Soraya was not as benevolent as she was portrayed, nothing she could have done should have lead to the barbaric punishment she was subjected to.

I'm here to write this short post condemning this cruel form of punishment.

I'm here to write a piece that takes a stance against the double standard in all or most modern societies on men and women.

I'm here to say that women's rights need to be a priority, especially in non-Western countries.

Human rights violations should not be tolerated by the global community...at the same time, we need to think up better response mechanisms because the types of governments and individuals that are willing to commit said violations, are also willing to watch their citizens starve and suffer at the hands of sanctions.

I think that education is a good start.

The more educated we become as a species, the more likely we are to make rational decisions. The more information is available in a digestible form to individuals, the easier it becomes for them to think for themselves. This should not be something that people read and apply only to developing nations, but an idea that I think every individual should seriously consider. There is such ignorance and propaganda within the West, that we must, as individuals, be more active in trying to decipher the truth by filtering information actively, and questioning everything.

I do not purport to judge, but I feel sorry for the person who simply accepts, without questioning, information that they are told, regardless of the source.

In developing nations, developed nations who have influence in the development of said developing nations need to, instead of imposing sanctions on imports of supplies, impose requirements of free movement of information as factors contingent to continued support and trade.

This does not mean spreading the American-Republican style 'freedom and democracy' which may involve violating a nation's sovereignty (ie; through war--my argument is not to replace one ideology with another), but it does mean leveraging certain positions in order to free the minds of those in developing nations who are kept under rule by a lack of access to information, or even basic education (all the written information in the world still does an illiterate person no good).

So how does all of this tie together? With education, literacy, and access to information, people will start to think for themselves, it's only natural. When this happens, they will demand and take the rights that they deserve for themselves. If, when all those means are in place and there is still no progress for women's rights, or human rights in general, one may be able to possibly justify an invasion.

The purpose of such an invasion should not be to 'rid the world of Islam' or any ridiculous goal like that--Islam itself preaches peace, it is only those who pervert it and shape it into an implement for control who use violence and oppression (wrongly) in its name--the goal should simply be to get in, give the people access to information, and get out. It should not be to stick around and 'share' (read: steal) the resources of the invaded land. It should not be to spread a system that the invader thinks is better. The people, once educated, and informationally liberated, are more than capable of making up their own minds as to how they wish to be governed.

The duty of developed nations is simply to give developing nations the opportunity to make that choice.

-N.

Post-Script:

Iran recently went after a lawyer who defended a woman who was stoned after being accused of adultery --Though a full-scale invasion may not yet be the answer, unless some concessions are made to live up to globally accepted (and by this I do mean the Western standard of human rights, and I make no apologies for this) standards of human rights (and particularly for women's rights), then the threat of overthrow should be made apparent.

Post-Post-Script:

This may turn into its own article later, but I take SERIOUS offence to the term 'Islamist' which has been used with increasing frequency in the news media. As far as I can tell, an Islamist is merely someone who believes that Islam is the right path and possibly tells others of that belief. This is a right that individuals should be free to posses, just as Christian Evangelicals preach their belief without major media condemnation in North America.

The idea that the entirety of a religion's followers should be condemned because of a completely separate and minor group claiming affiliation to that religion and committing gross injustice in its name is absolutely preposterous. However due to the negative connotations and the implied synonimity of the terms 'Islamist' and 'Muslim' in the mainstream media, Muslims as a whole are getting a bad rap that they did not earn.

Media outlets should be far more responsible and careful when potentially referring to 1.5 billion people, and moderate Muslims should not be afraid to speak out and condemn barbaric actions undertaken in their good name when they do not support them.

Stay tuned for articles on:

• Why any form of extremism is bad
• Why government regulation is necessary
• Advocation for the separation between religion and the state
• And More...