There are thousands of self-improvement books in the market, that attempt to show you the path to happiness- but I think in the end, it comes down to two simple principles:
1) Do good work: We can't be happy unless we're productive (or at least we feel like you are). We need to contribute to something bigger, to feel like we're making a difference, and be genuinely proud of our work.
2) Have a good time: We need to surround ourselves with people we genuinely like and can be ourselves with. Is there anything more thrilling than being understood, and being liked for who we are? Too many people try to hang out with people they want to be more like, instead of who they are like.
The key is to stop lying to yourself. Don't pretend that you're working hard when you hate what you're doing. Don't spend time with people you can't stand just because they're well connected.
If you're genuinely doing what you want to do, it shows. People want to help you. Things fall into place. There's nothing stopping us from being happy besides ourselves.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Friday, July 22, 2011
Was Malthus Right?: The Relevance of Carrying Capacity
Will we be able to feed the world’s burgeoning population? The heated debate about whether we will be able to grow enough food to feed the world’s ever-growing population has raged for centuries. There is a large literature on the debate over world agricultural futures, and projections differ broadly based on assumptions of yield growth. Expert opinion is divided into two camps. The survivalists believe the Earth has limits that we are fast approaching. The Prometheans, on the other hand, believe we can produce more than enough food due to technological innovation and continued investment of human capital (Dryzek, 1998).
Environmental problems have famously been cast in terms of the capacity of Earth to support life, human life in particular. In 1798, Thomas Malthus wrote an ‘Essay on the Principle of Population’, stating that the population was held in check by ‘misery, vice and moral restraint’. He maintained that ‘population when unchecked increased in a geometrical ratio, and subsistence for man in an arithmetical ratio’ (Malthus, 1798).
This argument received fresh stimulus in the 1960’s, when the earth was viewed from space for the first time. This image of ‘spaceship Earth’ stressed the finiteness of the planet and our resources (Jacobs, 1991). This image coincided with Ehlrich’s warning of the ‘population bomb’ (1968) that was going to exhaust natural capital stocks. Hardin’s influential essay on ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’ was published in the same year. Both stressed that the growing population and environmental degradation due to rapid economic growth meant that we were going to exceed the global ecosystem’s boundaries. In 1972, ‘Limits to Growth’ which contained a computer generated projections of the global future was published, that projected that we were very close to overshooting these limits. Simply put, this camp argues that exponential growth cannot go on forever in a finite system. This argument rests on the concept of carrying capacity.
In ecology, ‘carrying capacity’ is defined as ‘the maximum number of individuals of a species that an ecosystem can sustain’ (Beeby, 1993). Carrying capacity can also be defined as ‘the maximum population of a given species that can be supported indefinitely in a defined habitat without permanently impairing the productivity of that habitat’ (Rees, 1991). This concept suggests that no living populating can grow forever. The competition between species for space, food and other resources impose a natural limit on the number of individuals of a population that any ecosystem can support. When population biologists turn to human affairs they see identical possibilities (Catton, 1980). According to Hardin (1993; 207), the ecologist’s Eleventh Commandment is ‘though shalt not transgress the carrying capacity’.
It has been argued that the concept of carrying capacity make sense at a global level but not at a regional level, Even if cities vastly exceeded carrying capacity of their local ecosystems they can exploit distant resources and sinks for their pollutants in order to support large and sometimes growing populations (Rees, 1992). According to Rees (1996) ‘ecological locations of human settlements no linger coincide with their geographic location. Since for every material flow there must be a corresponding ecosystem source or sink, the total area of land/water required to sustain these flows of a continuous basis is the true ‘ecological footprint’ of the referent population on earth’. But it has been noted that the supposed increase in carrying capacity as a result of trade is illusory. ‘Trade may release a local population from carrying capacity constraints in its own home territory, but this merely displaces some fraction of that population’s environmental load to distant export regions. The net effect is to create unsustainable dependences on enhanced material flows while reducing long term carrying capacity’ (Rees, 1996). In fact, this may even result in reduced global carrying capacity if access to cheaper food lowers the incentive for people to conserve their own agricultural land, and this leads to the accelerated depletion of natural capital in distinct export regions. Current prices are also not an adequate measure of the value of future shortages of resources and of current and future harm, as we do not know the ecological value of exports and imports. Unfortunately, prevailing economic models of growth and sustainability ‘lack any representation of the materials, energy sources, physical structures and time dependent processes basic to an ecological approach’ (Christensen, 1991). Ecological economists reason that neoclassic economic models cannot properly address this question as they do not take into account ecological structure and function (Costanza, 1994).
As Dryzek (1997) notes, we still do not have a consensus as to how seriously impaired the world ecosystems are, or what the potential for continued development for the growing population is. The good news seems to be that we can feed more than 6.5 billion people. The bad news, however, is that we seriously compromising our life support systems to accomplish this. Feeding a growing world population may be feasible technologically but the economic and environmental costs may prove too great for poor countries. Additionally, a more troublesome question is, is this technological enhancement at acceptable environmental costs? For example, the green revolution during the first 35 years doubled grain production but at a high environmental cost. While the revolution increased per capita food production, increasing the yield per hectare requires abundant quantities of fertilizer and water, and thus this increase was achieved at reasonable cost (Tilman, 1998). Ecologists have warned us that the imprudent of natural resources may irreversibly reduce the carrying capacity of the planet for in the future (Harris, 1994).
Environmental problems have famously been cast in terms of the capacity of Earth to support life, human life in particular. In 1798, Thomas Malthus wrote an ‘Essay on the Principle of Population’, stating that the population was held in check by ‘misery, vice and moral restraint’. He maintained that ‘population when unchecked increased in a geometrical ratio, and subsistence for man in an arithmetical ratio’ (Malthus, 1798).
This argument received fresh stimulus in the 1960’s, when the earth was viewed from space for the first time. This image of ‘spaceship Earth’ stressed the finiteness of the planet and our resources (Jacobs, 1991). This image coincided with Ehlrich’s warning of the ‘population bomb’ (1968) that was going to exhaust natural capital stocks. Hardin’s influential essay on ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’ was published in the same year. Both stressed that the growing population and environmental degradation due to rapid economic growth meant that we were going to exceed the global ecosystem’s boundaries. In 1972, ‘Limits to Growth’ which contained a computer generated projections of the global future was published, that projected that we were very close to overshooting these limits. Simply put, this camp argues that exponential growth cannot go on forever in a finite system. This argument rests on the concept of carrying capacity.
In ecology, ‘carrying capacity’ is defined as ‘the maximum number of individuals of a species that an ecosystem can sustain’ (Beeby, 1993). Carrying capacity can also be defined as ‘the maximum population of a given species that can be supported indefinitely in a defined habitat without permanently impairing the productivity of that habitat’ (Rees, 1991). This concept suggests that no living populating can grow forever. The competition between species for space, food and other resources impose a natural limit on the number of individuals of a population that any ecosystem can support. When population biologists turn to human affairs they see identical possibilities (Catton, 1980). According to Hardin (1993; 207), the ecologist’s Eleventh Commandment is ‘though shalt not transgress the carrying capacity’.
It has been argued that the concept of carrying capacity make sense at a global level but not at a regional level, Even if cities vastly exceeded carrying capacity of their local ecosystems they can exploit distant resources and sinks for their pollutants in order to support large and sometimes growing populations (Rees, 1992). According to Rees (1996) ‘ecological locations of human settlements no linger coincide with their geographic location. Since for every material flow there must be a corresponding ecosystem source or sink, the total area of land/water required to sustain these flows of a continuous basis is the true ‘ecological footprint’ of the referent population on earth’. But it has been noted that the supposed increase in carrying capacity as a result of trade is illusory. ‘Trade may release a local population from carrying capacity constraints in its own home territory, but this merely displaces some fraction of that population’s environmental load to distant export regions. The net effect is to create unsustainable dependences on enhanced material flows while reducing long term carrying capacity’ (Rees, 1996). In fact, this may even result in reduced global carrying capacity if access to cheaper food lowers the incentive for people to conserve their own agricultural land, and this leads to the accelerated depletion of natural capital in distinct export regions. Current prices are also not an adequate measure of the value of future shortages of resources and of current and future harm, as we do not know the ecological value of exports and imports. Unfortunately, prevailing economic models of growth and sustainability ‘lack any representation of the materials, energy sources, physical structures and time dependent processes basic to an ecological approach’ (Christensen, 1991). Ecological economists reason that neoclassic economic models cannot properly address this question as they do not take into account ecological structure and function (Costanza, 1994).
As Dryzek (1997) notes, we still do not have a consensus as to how seriously impaired the world ecosystems are, or what the potential for continued development for the growing population is. The good news seems to be that we can feed more than 6.5 billion people. The bad news, however, is that we seriously compromising our life support systems to accomplish this. Feeding a growing world population may be feasible technologically but the economic and environmental costs may prove too great for poor countries. Additionally, a more troublesome question is, is this technological enhancement at acceptable environmental costs? For example, the green revolution during the first 35 years doubled grain production but at a high environmental cost. While the revolution increased per capita food production, increasing the yield per hectare requires abundant quantities of fertilizer and water, and thus this increase was achieved at reasonable cost (Tilman, 1998). Ecologists have warned us that the imprudent of natural resources may irreversibly reduce the carrying capacity of the planet for in the future (Harris, 1994).
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Sustainable Urban Development?
Repeated alarmist projections portending urban explosion and catastrophe in cities of unimaginable size can be repeatedly found in the literature (Davis, 2007). Megacities can be defined as urban agglomerations of 10 million habitants or more. It is projected that there will be 22 megacities by 2015, 17 of which will be in the global South. However, these megacities are home to only 9% of world’s population, and are growing more slowly than small and medium sized cities (UN, 2008). The rate of urban growth has been slower than predicted in the 1980’s. Despite popular misconceptions, small and middle size urban settlements will continue to absorb the bulk of urban growth in the coming decade (UN, 2006). It is also important to differentiate between urbanization and urban growth. Urbanization refers to a rising proportion of a nation’s population living in urban areas, while urban growth refers to an increase in the absolute size of a nation’s urban population. It is possible to urbanize without urban growth, and vice versa. While rural urban migration is commonly thought to be the case of this growth, it has been argued that a natural increase in urban population plays a major role in contributing to this growth (Beall, 2009).
There is much uncertainty about the scale and pace of future urban growth, and it is worth evaluating current projections critically. As Satterthwaite (2007) has repeatedly pointed out, different countries use different definitions to categorize cities. Of the 228 counties tracked by the UN, 36% use administrative criteria for classification, 25% use population size and 11% have no definitive criteria (UN 2004; 104). In addition, this data homogenizes and masks great regional differences. There is a vast difference in the pattern of urbanization between regions and in the extent and rapidity with which individual cities are growing. Latin America is far more urbanized than Asia and Africa, and thus the rate of urbanization is far more rapid in the latter (Cohen, 2004).
The temptation to borrow from the experiences of developed countries is strong, and indeed it has been pointed out that the Nigeria legislation is very similar to the British 1932 Town and Country Planning Act, and the Malaysian 1976 Town and Country Planning Act is almost identical with the British 1971 Act. However, each developing country needs it own growing pains and debate of planning system, and must take its own social and economic circumstances local cultural norms into account (Satterthwaite, 2001). Indigenous solutions are needed to local planning, For instance, Kampong Improvement Programme (KIP) was initiated in 1969 to improve living conditions in Indonesian cities through upgrading infrastructure, and was reorganized to include local residents in planning and maintenance of facilities. It is considered one of the world’s most outstanding slum improvements programs due to the local enthusiasm with which the project was taken up, and the manner in which responsibility was distributed (UNCHS 1987).
Urban development within developing world was traditionally seen as the responsibility of the government. Over the past couple of decades however, there has been a shift away from a centralized top down decision-making approach. Increasingly, a government’s role is thought to be its creation of an environment that allows urban residents to solve their own problems (Satterthwaite, 2001). The need to involve community in planning and supply of urban service provision, and to developing local solutions to local urban problems is frequent in urban planning literature. Some cities like Porto Alegre in Brazil have grown rapidly, but managed to maintain high quality living environments through a dedication to encouraging citizen participation and greater government accountability (Menergat, 2002). This city has integrated a wider ranging environmental management policy into its participatory budgeting policy, which remains grounded in inclusive regional environmental analysis (Menegat, 2002). Such innovations are driven by local democracies and arise due to the ability of citizen groups to organize effectively. Burra (2003) observes that there is both the need to acknowledge the capabilities of community organizations and adapt structures to promote them.
It must be kept in mind that the relationship between cities and development is complex. The transformation to an urban world has enormous cultural social and political consequences, whose long-term effects are difficult to foresee. In order to promote a more inclusive and redistributive form of urban development, both urban theory and policy need to be re-examined to tackle the diversity of activities and interests in cities (Robinson 2006). To promote urban development in the global South, urban planning must be based on a framework for understanding the city that transcends limitations posed by static conceptualizations of the city. This framework needs to be built explicitly around the principle of urban change, and how we can influence that change. The process of development is a continual process, which must be cast in terms of the ongoing processes of urbanization and social transformation (Read 2010).
There is much uncertainty about the scale and pace of future urban growth, and it is worth evaluating current projections critically. As Satterthwaite (2007) has repeatedly pointed out, different countries use different definitions to categorize cities. Of the 228 counties tracked by the UN, 36% use administrative criteria for classification, 25% use population size and 11% have no definitive criteria (UN 2004; 104). In addition, this data homogenizes and masks great regional differences. There is a vast difference in the pattern of urbanization between regions and in the extent and rapidity with which individual cities are growing. Latin America is far more urbanized than Asia and Africa, and thus the rate of urbanization is far more rapid in the latter (Cohen, 2004).
The temptation to borrow from the experiences of developed countries is strong, and indeed it has been pointed out that the Nigeria legislation is very similar to the British 1932 Town and Country Planning Act, and the Malaysian 1976 Town and Country Planning Act is almost identical with the British 1971 Act. However, each developing country needs it own growing pains and debate of planning system, and must take its own social and economic circumstances local cultural norms into account (Satterthwaite, 2001). Indigenous solutions are needed to local planning, For instance, Kampong Improvement Programme (KIP) was initiated in 1969 to improve living conditions in Indonesian cities through upgrading infrastructure, and was reorganized to include local residents in planning and maintenance of facilities. It is considered one of the world’s most outstanding slum improvements programs due to the local enthusiasm with which the project was taken up, and the manner in which responsibility was distributed (UNCHS 1987).
Urban development within developing world was traditionally seen as the responsibility of the government. Over the past couple of decades however, there has been a shift away from a centralized top down decision-making approach. Increasingly, a government’s role is thought to be its creation of an environment that allows urban residents to solve their own problems (Satterthwaite, 2001). The need to involve community in planning and supply of urban service provision, and to developing local solutions to local urban problems is frequent in urban planning literature. Some cities like Porto Alegre in Brazil have grown rapidly, but managed to maintain high quality living environments through a dedication to encouraging citizen participation and greater government accountability (Menergat, 2002). This city has integrated a wider ranging environmental management policy into its participatory budgeting policy, which remains grounded in inclusive regional environmental analysis (Menegat, 2002). Such innovations are driven by local democracies and arise due to the ability of citizen groups to organize effectively. Burra (2003) observes that there is both the need to acknowledge the capabilities of community organizations and adapt structures to promote them.
It must be kept in mind that the relationship between cities and development is complex. The transformation to an urban world has enormous cultural social and political consequences, whose long-term effects are difficult to foresee. In order to promote a more inclusive and redistributive form of urban development, both urban theory and policy need to be re-examined to tackle the diversity of activities and interests in cities (Robinson 2006). To promote urban development in the global South, urban planning must be based on a framework for understanding the city that transcends limitations posed by static conceptualizations of the city. This framework needs to be built explicitly around the principle of urban change, and how we can influence that change. The process of development is a continual process, which must be cast in terms of the ongoing processes of urbanization and social transformation (Read 2010).
Urban Growth & the South
For the first time in history more people around the world live in urban areas than in rural ones. The UN (2008) projects that 60 percent of the world’s population will live in cities by 2030. This trend towards an increasingly urban world is driven primarily by urbanization and urban growth in low and middle-income countries, especially in Africa and Africa. From urban development policy and practice this is crucial. Much is made of the rise in urban poverty, overurbanization, the rise of mega cities and unprecedented growth in the South, fuelling fears about negative social and political impact of urban growth (Gugler, 1997). The dramatic difference in the timing and rate of demographic transition in the North and South (Livi-Bacci, 2001), along with the decoupling of the historical relationship between urbanization and industrialization has caused much alarm.
It seems clear that we live in a world that is fundamentally different to the world we have known over the history of mankind. However predicting either development or urban growth is notoriously difficult, and predicting both together is a task fraught with uncertainty. Both are dynamic processes that are continual and ever varying. However, through effective governance and policy structures, we have the power to affect the way the story of the city goes forward. While rapid urban growth has resulted in pressing developmental issues that need urgent attention, some myths must be dispelled in order to think clearly about the future of cities in the global South. We need to reframe urban policy and practice to steer progress in a sustainable, equitable direction.
It seems clear that we live in a world that is fundamentally different to the world we have known over the history of mankind. However predicting either development or urban growth is notoriously difficult, and predicting both together is a task fraught with uncertainty. Both are dynamic processes that are continual and ever varying. However, through effective governance and policy structures, we have the power to affect the way the story of the city goes forward. While rapid urban growth has resulted in pressing developmental issues that need urgent attention, some myths must be dispelled in order to think clearly about the future of cities in the global South. We need to reframe urban policy and practice to steer progress in a sustainable, equitable direction.
Environmental Policy & the Public
It has grown commonplace to assert that the public should be engaged in discussions concerning environmental policy. It is usually taken for granted that `the public' in this case includes everyone apart from policymakers, or everyone except experts (Owens, 2005). However, as delineating the public into `expert' and ‘lay’ populations can be deceptive, Blake (1999) advocates that ‘the `public' is best defined in terms of alienation from dominant political or knowledge regimes in a particular context’. Dewey, on the other hand, has noted that the existence of a public is by no means self-evident. Publics only form themselves around particular problems if the conditions are beneficial (Marres, 2007).
The governance of environmental problems has evolved to include a wider range of publics and given way to more open and deliberative policy making forums (Bulkeley and Mol, 2003) over the past two decades. We must move beyond conventional political processes to deal with the unique nature of emerging environmental problems and include more deliberative and inclusive forms of democracy. However, there is no guarantee that more democratic processes lead to sustainable, green policies. While public deliberation is an important tool, it must be wielded carefully and in the correct context.
It is important to note that participation includes not just representing people, but also the ideas and values they carry. Critically, as Owens (2001) points out, we must shift our focus from the degree of participation to the crucial issues of ‘what kind of participation, by whom, and to which purposes’ (Owens 2005). The current discourse on environmental politics is plagued by the fact that it has been alienated from the cultural dimension of environmental politics. Given that environmental discourse emerged in large part as a cultural critique of modern society, this is more than a little ironic(Guha et al., 1997). How we comprehend and frame environmental problems is inextricably connected to the methods by which we choose to tackle them (Jasanoff, 1998). Hence, it is important to note the particularity of the way societies relate to the natural environment in environmental politics and to study particular approaches to environmental policy (Jasanoff and Martello, 2004).
Young ( 2000) points out that exclusions produced by the current model for critical deliberation fails to recognize cultural specificity and other hegemonic baggage in the assumption of disengaged reason as the basis of the deliberative process’ in the public domain. Different voices and styles of communication must be recognized, as an increasingly diverse set of actors is being engaged in debate, with new coalitions and alliances being built, which transcend conventional boundaries.
The governance of environmental problems has evolved to include a wider range of publics and given way to more open and deliberative policy making forums (Bulkeley and Mol, 2003) over the past two decades. We must move beyond conventional political processes to deal with the unique nature of emerging environmental problems and include more deliberative and inclusive forms of democracy. However, there is no guarantee that more democratic processes lead to sustainable, green policies. While public deliberation is an important tool, it must be wielded carefully and in the correct context.
It is important to note that participation includes not just representing people, but also the ideas and values they carry. Critically, as Owens (2001) points out, we must shift our focus from the degree of participation to the crucial issues of ‘what kind of participation, by whom, and to which purposes’ (Owens 2005). The current discourse on environmental politics is plagued by the fact that it has been alienated from the cultural dimension of environmental politics. Given that environmental discourse emerged in large part as a cultural critique of modern society, this is more than a little ironic(Guha et al., 1997). How we comprehend and frame environmental problems is inextricably connected to the methods by which we choose to tackle them (Jasanoff, 1998). Hence, it is important to note the particularity of the way societies relate to the natural environment in environmental politics and to study particular approaches to environmental policy (Jasanoff and Martello, 2004).
Young ( 2000) points out that exclusions produced by the current model for critical deliberation fails to recognize cultural specificity and other hegemonic baggage in the assumption of disengaged reason as the basis of the deliberative process’ in the public domain. Different voices and styles of communication must be recognized, as an increasingly diverse set of actors is being engaged in debate, with new coalitions and alliances being built, which transcend conventional boundaries.
Garbage to Gold
Mumbai faces the critical problem of solid waste management. Mumbai produces around 6,000 tonnes of garbage every day. Although the BMC has employed 25,000 workers to collect and dump garbage, and spends Rs.400 crores annually on garbage collection, the staff strength is not sufficient to meet the city's needs.
Moreover, like any other municipality in a developing country, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai does not do any recycling on its own. The corporation still views solid waste management from the traditional perspective of waste collection, transport and disposal.
With waste quantity rising and landfills shrinking, recycling and reuse may be the only solution. Smart businesses could find gold in this garbage. At present, the waste-market industry, potentially worth billions, is still at the embryonic stage.
Before recycling and reuse, our basic problem is decentralizing waste management and getting households to learn to separate dry waste from wet waste and not having the Bombay Municipal Corp garbage trucks mix both together.
To overcome this problem of solid waste management, we came up with the idea of introducing segregated trash compactors that allow recycling of organic wastes and plastics across the city.
These trash compactors will be segregated into PET (polyethylene terepthalate) plastic, non PET plastic and biodegradable waste. These collected wastes can then be converted into reusable material and energy. Mumbai has no large scale method for segregating wet waste and plastic-this will be the first model of its type.
The obvious advantages of this idea is that it will increase awareness about recycling, along with reducing pressure on landfills, conserving natural resources and reducing our carbon footprint.
The conversion of these wastes into material and energy has the potential to yield huge profits. Biodegradable waste can be converted to methane to produce electricity, as well as composted to produce fertilizers. It can also be converted into a fuel known as green coal which has a high calorific value. Non PET plastics are toxic and can be converted to diesel by closed loop restrictive distillation. PET plastics, on the other hand, can be converted into fibres and woven into sacks.
This is all very well, but how do we ensure that the majority of the waste the city generates actually reaches these compactors? To motivate citizens and ragpickers to dispose of collected waste in these trash compactors, we plan to introduce a coin dispensing mechanism to dispense Rs 10 for each kilo of trash deposited in these compactors placed at strategic positions around the city.
Mumbai’s waste-pickers are very crucial in keeping Mumbai 'clean and healthy'. The garbage economy of Mumbai offers work to over 20,000-25,000 waste-pickers and scrap collectors, 80 per cent of whom are dalit women. These women are mostly migrants. They search through garbage from public dustbins and salvage scrap from the rubbish, which is later recycled through scrap traders. They earn an average of Rs 50 a day to sustain their whole family.
A network of ragickers from associations such as Stree Mukti Sangathana (SMS) and Forum for Recycling Community & Environment (FORCE) who will greatly benefit from the steady income can be employed to collect segregated trash from homes, who will then empty the rubbish into the trash compactors. These households will be charged a nominal fee of Rs 100 per month.
These women will earn a steady income through this scheme, as well as the income they generate by selling the dry trash collected such as paper, metal and glass to scrap collectors.
The compacted and segregated trash will then be sold to various companies that convert the waste to useful materials and energy.
We also plan to tie up with the BMC and the media to promote awareness about the urgent need -of recycling and spread the message to various housing societies, shopkeepers associations, schools and colleges.
Moreover, like any other municipality in a developing country, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai does not do any recycling on its own. The corporation still views solid waste management from the traditional perspective of waste collection, transport and disposal.
With waste quantity rising and landfills shrinking, recycling and reuse may be the only solution. Smart businesses could find gold in this garbage. At present, the waste-market industry, potentially worth billions, is still at the embryonic stage.
Before recycling and reuse, our basic problem is decentralizing waste management and getting households to learn to separate dry waste from wet waste and not having the Bombay Municipal Corp garbage trucks mix both together.
To overcome this problem of solid waste management, we came up with the idea of introducing segregated trash compactors that allow recycling of organic wastes and plastics across the city.
These trash compactors will be segregated into PET (polyethylene terepthalate) plastic, non PET plastic and biodegradable waste. These collected wastes can then be converted into reusable material and energy. Mumbai has no large scale method for segregating wet waste and plastic-this will be the first model of its type.
The obvious advantages of this idea is that it will increase awareness about recycling, along with reducing pressure on landfills, conserving natural resources and reducing our carbon footprint.
The conversion of these wastes into material and energy has the potential to yield huge profits. Biodegradable waste can be converted to methane to produce electricity, as well as composted to produce fertilizers. It can also be converted into a fuel known as green coal which has a high calorific value. Non PET plastics are toxic and can be converted to diesel by closed loop restrictive distillation. PET plastics, on the other hand, can be converted into fibres and woven into sacks.
This is all very well, but how do we ensure that the majority of the waste the city generates actually reaches these compactors? To motivate citizens and ragpickers to dispose of collected waste in these trash compactors, we plan to introduce a coin dispensing mechanism to dispense Rs 10 for each kilo of trash deposited in these compactors placed at strategic positions around the city.
Mumbai’s waste-pickers are very crucial in keeping Mumbai 'clean and healthy'. The garbage economy of Mumbai offers work to over 20,000-25,000 waste-pickers and scrap collectors, 80 per cent of whom are dalit women. These women are mostly migrants. They search through garbage from public dustbins and salvage scrap from the rubbish, which is later recycled through scrap traders. They earn an average of Rs 50 a day to sustain their whole family.
A network of ragickers from associations such as Stree Mukti Sangathana (SMS) and Forum for Recycling Community & Environment (FORCE) who will greatly benefit from the steady income can be employed to collect segregated trash from homes, who will then empty the rubbish into the trash compactors. These households will be charged a nominal fee of Rs 100 per month.
These women will earn a steady income through this scheme, as well as the income they generate by selling the dry trash collected such as paper, metal and glass to scrap collectors.
The compacted and segregated trash will then be sold to various companies that convert the waste to useful materials and energy.
We also plan to tie up with the BMC and the media to promote awareness about the urgent need -of recycling and spread the message to various housing societies, shopkeepers associations, schools and colleges.
Feynman for Indian Villages
"Indian science will be finished in the next five years. Our universities have dried up.” When this grim warning is by C.N. Rao, the Prime Minister's own science advisor, it’s time for India to sit up and take notice.
With an impressive history of scientific discovery spanning over thousands of years and no shortage of manpower, why is the future of Indian science so bleak?
One of the major factors for the decline in science over the past few years is the dismal quality of science education imparted to students. Science textbooks are shockingly outdated. College labs are poorly equipped and experiments are infrequently conducted. As faculties at Indian universities are rarely involved in research work their students have no exposure to scientific methods or thinking.
India undoubtedly does have a few excellent institutions for science & technology such as IISc, TIFR and the famed IIT’s, but these are far too few and selective to lift Indian science out of the doldrums. International systems of schooling such as the IB are replacing Indian boards such as ICSE and CBSE in cities, but most of the Indian population cannot dream of affording these exclusive schools.
The country needs a homegrown solution that reaches out to the masses if it hopes to resurface as a global leader in basic sciences. Of a population of over a billion, 400 million Indians are illiterate. Seventy five percent of them live in rural areas and have no access to basic resources or funds for education. Properly motivated, this staggeringly large 'unexploited brainpower' can be transformed to generate massive economic and social returns for the country.
With an impressive history of scientific discovery spanning over thousands of years and no shortage of manpower, why is the future of Indian science so bleak?
One of the major factors for the decline in science over the past few years is the dismal quality of science education imparted to students. Science textbooks are shockingly outdated. College labs are poorly equipped and experiments are infrequently conducted. As faculties at Indian universities are rarely involved in research work their students have no exposure to scientific methods or thinking.
India undoubtedly does have a few excellent institutions for science & technology such as IISc, TIFR and the famed IIT’s, but these are far too few and selective to lift Indian science out of the doldrums. International systems of schooling such as the IB are replacing Indian boards such as ICSE and CBSE in cities, but most of the Indian population cannot dream of affording these exclusive schools.
The country needs a homegrown solution that reaches out to the masses if it hopes to resurface as a global leader in basic sciences. Of a population of over a billion, 400 million Indians are illiterate. Seventy five percent of them live in rural areas and have no access to basic resources or funds for education. Properly motivated, this staggeringly large 'unexploited brainpower' can be transformed to generate massive economic and social returns for the country.
Igniting Young Minds: Sparking a Science Revolution in India
“Why is the sky blue? Where do babies come from?”
Children are innately interested in how the world works. We all have the makings of a scientist at some age, but our urge to explore and to wonder is slowly killed through rote learning. How can we get students to revive their interest in science and enjoy this essential subject?
An enterprising organization, Agastya International Foundation (AIF) in rural India has some unique answers.
Ramji Raghavan, the founder of AIF, tapped the brains of India’s leading scientists to devise a model to bring resourceful, hands-on methods of teaching science to remote Indian villages. Its mission is to spark creativity in children in rural India. His organization is revolutionizing the way science is taught in the rural South.
Agastya runs about 20 science mobile science labs which travel across the south, teaching children science through experiments. The foundation equips its students with scientific knowledge, but more importantly, it teaches them to think independently.
Agastya uses simple, easily available, inexpensive tools which allow students to perform scientific experiments for themselves. In addition, students are taught to demonstrate experiments to other children, and persuaded to ask as well as answer questions. After all, science is as much about asking the right questions as it is about finding answers to them.
“I did not know much science, but through Agastya’s Mobile Lab experiments I have learned about the solar eclipse, lunar eclipse and how days, nights and seasons occur. Before Agastya I had never seen any lab equipment. Now I enjoy the thrill of using the tools of science and explaining things to others.” says Danamma, a 14 year old student from Kuppam, one of the South’s rural districts.
These novel mobile labs provide education at the doorstep of children in rural India who have no access to formal teaching. Each lab reaches 50,000 children per year and has inspired millions of children, instilling in them that spark of ingenuity and scientific observation which is so desperately needed in India today.
Raghavan has the right idea. India needs more such low cost, flexible models which focus on teaching science by “learning through doing “. If these techniques can ignite a science revolution in rural India with such limited resources, what heights can it reach in a city with plenty of innovation and capital such as ours? The country has to unite to foster vision and experimentation in today’s young minds.
Children are innately interested in how the world works. We all have the makings of a scientist at some age, but our urge to explore and to wonder is slowly killed through rote learning. How can we get students to revive their interest in science and enjoy this essential subject?
An enterprising organization, Agastya International Foundation (AIF) in rural India has some unique answers.
Ramji Raghavan, the founder of AIF, tapped the brains of India’s leading scientists to devise a model to bring resourceful, hands-on methods of teaching science to remote Indian villages. Its mission is to spark creativity in children in rural India. His organization is revolutionizing the way science is taught in the rural South.
Agastya runs about 20 science mobile science labs which travel across the south, teaching children science through experiments. The foundation equips its students with scientific knowledge, but more importantly, it teaches them to think independently.
Agastya uses simple, easily available, inexpensive tools which allow students to perform scientific experiments for themselves. In addition, students are taught to demonstrate experiments to other children, and persuaded to ask as well as answer questions. After all, science is as much about asking the right questions as it is about finding answers to them.
“I did not know much science, but through Agastya’s Mobile Lab experiments I have learned about the solar eclipse, lunar eclipse and how days, nights and seasons occur. Before Agastya I had never seen any lab equipment. Now I enjoy the thrill of using the tools of science and explaining things to others.” says Danamma, a 14 year old student from Kuppam, one of the South’s rural districts.
These novel mobile labs provide education at the doorstep of children in rural India who have no access to formal teaching. Each lab reaches 50,000 children per year and has inspired millions of children, instilling in them that spark of ingenuity and scientific observation which is so desperately needed in India today.
Raghavan has the right idea. India needs more such low cost, flexible models which focus on teaching science by “learning through doing “. If these techniques can ignite a science revolution in rural India with such limited resources, what heights can it reach in a city with plenty of innovation and capital such as ours? The country has to unite to foster vision and experimentation in today’s young minds.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Complex Finance?
A lot of us are intimidated by the financial world. They seem to have their own language and code- I didn't understand a word of what people around said during my first internship in the industry, and naturally thought it was because everyone around me was so much smarter.
The more I read and time I spend though, it seems like things are needlessly complicated, and can be explained much more simply.
I think this world has been intentionally complicated by those in it for three fundamental reasons:
1) They need people to hire them- if people figured out how easy it was to read basic financial statements, and didn't hire advisors, they'd be out of a job
2) They don't want competition- if they demystify the markets and everyone invests themselves, they'll be much less well paid; they need to maintain an air of secrecy/confidence
3) They want to make money- they make money from money. A whole field called financial engineering deals with designing complex financial products that are basically 'notional'- contracts to help the finance sector benefit from the markets.
And honestly, who can blame them? Don't lawyers (almost every profession for that matter) do the same thing?
There's nothing wrong with this, as long as you don't get fooled into thinking that you can't handle your own money.
The more I read and time I spend though, it seems like things are needlessly complicated, and can be explained much more simply.
I think this world has been intentionally complicated by those in it for three fundamental reasons:
1) They need people to hire them- if people figured out how easy it was to read basic financial statements, and didn't hire advisors, they'd be out of a job
2) They don't want competition- if they demystify the markets and everyone invests themselves, they'll be much less well paid; they need to maintain an air of secrecy/confidence
3) They want to make money- they make money from money. A whole field called financial engineering deals with designing complex financial products that are basically 'notional'- contracts to help the finance sector benefit from the markets.
And honestly, who can blame them? Don't lawyers (almost every profession for that matter) do the same thing?
There's nothing wrong with this, as long as you don't get fooled into thinking that you can't handle your own money.
Astrology and Market Movement
One of the best financial news websites in India now has an astrology columnn.
This is a professional site, great for tracking your portfolio and crunching numbers-that aims to provide signifcant data to inform people how to best invest their money-what sort of message does this send?
No one in the world, not even Buffet can tell you whether a stock is going to go up or down the next day, and constellations in the sky certainly aren't going to hold the answer.
I's sad that these sites are propagating the myth of market prediction, helping contribute to the hysteria around market movement, instead of helping investors judge the quality and value of listed companies.
This is a professional site, great for tracking your portfolio and crunching numbers-that aims to provide signifcant data to inform people how to best invest their money-what sort of message does this send?
No one in the world, not even Buffet can tell you whether a stock is going to go up or down the next day, and constellations in the sky certainly aren't going to hold the answer.
I's sad that these sites are propagating the myth of market prediction, helping contribute to the hysteria around market movement, instead of helping investors judge the quality and value of listed companies.
Market Messiness
All this talk of the debt crisis and contagion in Europe-
The way journalists are reporting the events (even in the FT and Economist) it's easy to panic. There aren't that many actual numbers being reported regularly- sure they tell you how many points the markets fell by, but how many people can tell you what the underlying numbers that lead to the panic are?
And also, of course the markets continue to fall, if they're going to convince anyone that reads the financial news at all that Europe's in grave danger.
It's a vicious cycle- they say the markets going to plummet, people read the news, panic and pull the money out, and markets plummet.
Then even more people are forced to pull their money out whether they believe the situation is unstable or not, because they're losing too much of it, and then this is used as an example of the lack of confidence people have in Europe being able to save itself- leading to further chaos.
I'm not saying that there's no cause to panic- clearly someone somewhere is going to have to pay for the debt eventually, no matter how many times they pass it around and restructure it.
But: the markets aren't magic, all they do is indicate what people think- and it would help if the papers didn't spook the public, helping cause the crisis.
The way journalists are reporting the events (even in the FT and Economist) it's easy to panic. There aren't that many actual numbers being reported regularly- sure they tell you how many points the markets fell by, but how many people can tell you what the underlying numbers that lead to the panic are?
And also, of course the markets continue to fall, if they're going to convince anyone that reads the financial news at all that Europe's in grave danger.
It's a vicious cycle- they say the markets going to plummet, people read the news, panic and pull the money out, and markets plummet.
Then even more people are forced to pull their money out whether they believe the situation is unstable or not, because they're losing too much of it, and then this is used as an example of the lack of confidence people have in Europe being able to save itself- leading to further chaos.
I'm not saying that there's no cause to panic- clearly someone somewhere is going to have to pay for the debt eventually, no matter how many times they pass it around and restructure it.
But: the markets aren't magic, all they do is indicate what people think- and it would help if the papers didn't spook the public, helping cause the crisis.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Sales
I've been reading about marketing, and thinking about the people I've truly enjoyed buying things from.
To get people to part with their money, and do it regularly, you have to truly believe you're selling a good product. Integrity shows.
You need to do your homework, know as much as possible about the product, be able to field questions.
You have to convince the buyer you have their best interest, and they will honestly profit from buying the product.
Also, they have to like you. Be honest, admit the drawbacks, nothing's perfect. Tell them the shortcomings and what you're doi]ho improve, admit when you don't know something. Keep in touch with them, develop a relationship.
Listen to what they're saying and how you can best help them.
The marketing head of a wealth management copmany recently told me (and this is advice worth following) that your loyalty should lie with your clients first, and then your company. If a product isn't worth buying, don't sell it.The relationships you develop should last a lifetime- no matter where you work or live.
To get people to part with their money, and do it regularly, you have to truly believe you're selling a good product. Integrity shows.
You need to do your homework, know as much as possible about the product, be able to field questions.
You have to convince the buyer you have their best interest, and they will honestly profit from buying the product.
Also, they have to like you. Be honest, admit the drawbacks, nothing's perfect. Tell them the shortcomings and what you're doi]ho improve, admit when you don't know something. Keep in touch with them, develop a relationship.
Listen to what they're saying and how you can best help them.
The marketing head of a wealth management copmany recently told me (and this is advice worth following) that your loyalty should lie with your clients first, and then your company. If a product isn't worth buying, don't sell it.The relationships you develop should last a lifetime- no matter where you work or live.
Triple Bottom Line
Three books anyone intahted in sustainable business/social investing must read:
1) Natural Capitalism by Hawken: Strong argument for taking the social and environmental bottom-line into consideration and outlines examples of such innovation.
2) Cradle to Cradle by McDonough: Why 'less bad' is not better than 'bad'; advocates sustainable design, and a new practical approach to environmentalism
3) Biomimicry by Benyus: Outlines ways in which we can use inspiration from nature to build more environmentally friendly products; great examples.
Each has given an inspiring TED talk if you don't enjoy reading.
1) Natural Capitalism by Hawken: Strong argument for taking the social and environmental bottom-line into consideration and outlines examples of such innovation.
2) Cradle to Cradle by McDonough: Why 'less bad' is not better than 'bad'; advocates sustainable design, and a new practical approach to environmentalism
3) Biomimicry by Benyus: Outlines ways in which we can use inspiration from nature to build more environmentally friendly products; great examples.
Each has given an inspiring TED talk if you don't enjoy reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)