Archive for December, 2008

h1

The Beauty of Mathematics

21/12/2008

1 x 8 + 1 = 9
12 x 8 + 2 = 98
123 x 8 + 3 = 987
1234 x 8 + 4 = 9876
12345 x 8 + 5 = 98765
123456 x 8 + 6 = 987654
1234567 x 8 + 7 = 9876543
12345678 x 8 + 8 = 98765432
123456789 x 8 + 9 = 987654321

1 x 9 + 2 = 11
12 x 9 + 3 = 111
123 x 9 + 4 = 1111
1234 x 9 + 5 = 11111
12345 x 9 + 6 = 111111
123456 x 9 + 7 = 1111111
1234567 x 9 + 8 = 11111111
12345678 x 9 + 9 = 111111111
123456789 x 9 +10= 1111111111

9 x 9 + 7 = 88
98 x 9 + 6 = 888
987 x 9 + 5 = 8888
9876 x 9 + 4 = 88888
98765 x 9 + 3 = 888888
987654 x 9 + 2 = 8888888
9876543 x 9 + 1 = 88888888
98765432 x 9 + 0 = 888888888

Brilliant, isn’t it?

And look at this symmetry:

1 x 1 = 1
11 x 11 = 121
111 x 111 = 12321
1111 x 1111 = 1234321
11111 x 11111 = 123454321
111111 x 111111 = 12345654321
1111111 x 1111111 = 1234567654321
11111111 x 11111111 = 123456787654321
111111111 x 111111111 = 12345678987654321

 Now, take a look at this…

101%

From a strictly mathematical viewpoint:

What Equals 100%?
What does it mean to give MORE than 100%?

Ever wonder about those people who say they are giving more than 100%?

We have all been in situations where someone wants you to
GIVE OVER 100%.

How about ACHIEVING 101%?

What equals 100% in life?

Here’s a little mathematical formula that might help
answer these questions:

If:

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Is represented as:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26.

If:

H-A-R-D-W-O- R- K

8+1+18+4+23+ 15+18+11 = 98%

And:

K-N-O-W-L-E- D-G-E

11+14+15+23+ 12+5+4+7+ 5 = 96%

But:

A-T-T-I-T-U- D-E

1+20+20+9+20+ 21+4+5 = 100%

THEN, look how far the love of God will take you:

L-O-V-E-O-F- G-O-D

12+15+22+5+15+ 6+7+15+4 = 101%

Therefore, one can conclude with mathematical certainty that:

While Hard Work and Knowledge will get you close, and Attitude will
get you there, It’s the Love of God that will put you over the top!

 

Now just remember, God is a verb

;o)

h1

The Little Earth Book – Introduction to Second Edition

12/12/2008

I’ve decided to retype this introduction here because it makes a lot of sense.  The balance between yin and yang – ancient Chinese descriptions for two distinct energetic states – is shifting.  It is through books like this, disseminated via the Internet, that will change the path of our civilisation, bringin balace and harmony where before there was none.

Since The Little Earth Book was first published in October 2000 the damage being inflicted on the planet by humanity has become more apparent.

Britain has been subjected to widespread flooding and government policies have led to an orgy of animal slaughter.  President Bush has relaxed restraints on the emission of greenhouse gas.  The World Trade Organisation has to hold its meetings outside democratic countries.  In the South there has been a widespread collapse of commodity process leading to an epidemic of suicides among farmers.  The obscene level of inequality within and between countries has continued to rise.  And now the stated policy of the US military is ‘full spectrum dominance’- which includes space.

Yet and interesting decade-long social study in America gives some hope.  It finds that their society falls into three main categories.  The US, like Britain and most countries, is still dominated by the ‘moderns’ – those that believe in growth, competition, control, confrontation and all the male yang qualities. A second small category is the ‘traditionals’, those who would like to turn the clock back.  But a third category is emerging: it represents the concerned, caring, co-operative, holistic, female yin qualities.  The study refers to these as çultural creatives’.  They are not a recognisable demographic group, but they now represent 26% of the US adult population.  Let us hope that the planet gives us time to redress the yin-yang balance, allowing world affairs to move towards sanity.

In this edition we add chapters at the end to show some positive developments.  We have also updated Free Trade and some of the marginal comments.

James Bruges 2001

h1

The Little Earth Book – Introduction to First Edition

11/12/2008

This is the introduction to “The Little Earth Book“, first Edition, written by James Bruges in 2000.

The content in these 167 tiny – only 145 x 135 mm – pages is clear concise.  Recommended reading to understand WHAT CAN BE DONE beyond the disturbing and  circular discussion on what has happening.

Juts before this book went to the printers, at the end of August 2000, the editorial of the New Scientist commenced: “Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are well on the way to those found in the Eocene period when the world was ice-free and England a steaming mangrove forest

Such news makes some of us deeply anxious.  Others will ask what they can do.  This Little Earth Book will, by shedding light on complex issues, help us to respond both constructively and creatively – rather than throw up our hands and leave responsibilities to ‘the experts’.

The book is about new attitudes and a change of direction, not doom and gloom.  And if we say some apparently dramatic things, remember that scientists – in many cases the majority of them – are saying dramatic things too.  They are beseeching us to look at the evidence and DO something.

This year, 2000, the Royal commission on Environmental Pollution advised the [UK] Government that: “The world is now faced with a radical challenge of a totally new kind, which requires an urgent response.  The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is already higher than at any time for millions of years.  There is no precedent to help us understand precisely what consequences will follow. The environmental consequences are potentially catastrophic.

This follows consistent warnings from the scientific community.  Even back in 1992 1,670 scientists, including 110 of the 138 living winners of Nobel prizes in the sciences, issued the famous “World Scientists” Warning to Humanity”. It included these comments:

“We are fast approaching many of the Earth’s limits.  Current economic practices which damage the environment cannot continue.  Our massive tampering could trigger unpredictable collapse of critical biological systems which are only partly understood.  A great change in our stewardship of the Earth and the life on it is required if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated.

In 1999 the chief meteorologists of Britain and the US issued a joint letter to national newspapers in both countries, including: “Ignoring climate change will surely be the most costly of all possible choices, for us and our children.

But politicians, vulnerable as they are to lobby groups, are – crucially – still dragging their heels.  Lawrence Summers, Secretary to the US Treasury and hugely influential in the World Bank, has said: “There are no limits to the carrying capacity of the Earth that could bind any time in the foreseeable future.  The idea that we should put limits on growth because of some natural limit is a profound error.

[Another organisation of scientists, the U.S.-based Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), prepared a lengthy report in 2006 showing that ExxonMobil has funnelled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organisations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science".

"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their products caused lung cancer," said Alden Meyer, UCS director of strategy and policy.  "A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as big tobacco did for over forty years."

Two United States senators, Republican Olympis Snowe from Maine and Democrat Jay Rockefeller from West Virginia, also joined in the growing effort to persuade ExxonMobil to behave ethically.  The two senators said that ExxonMobil's brazen and outrageous effort to spread ignorance and confusion about the climate crisis "has damaged the United States' reputation."  saying that ExxonMobil's ongoing misrepresentation of the science is not honest, they protected "ExxonMobil's extensive funding of an 'echo chamber' of non-peer-reviewed pseudoscience."

ExxonMobil's motive for engaging in this extraordinary and ongoing effort at mass deception is certainly not mysterious. In early 2007, the company announced the largest annual profit for the preceding year, 206, of any corporation in U.S. history.

Excerpt from The Assault on Reason, by Al Gore, pages 201 and 202

The report can be read here: ExxonMobil Report 2007 by UCS]

Throughout this book you will find reference to the World Bank, for it is a giant player on the world stage.  In November 1999 its Chief Economist stunned the world by resigning.  He had been consistently overrules.  “It is not just the creation of a market economy that matters“, he said, “but the establishment of the foundations of sustainable, equitable and democratic institutions.

So, the scientific community is saying that we are exceeding the earth’s carrying capacity, and is being heeded by the United Nations.  Th World Bank, the IMF and the World Trade Organisation, on the other hand, are still acting as if the world’s health will improve if we all consume more.

WHO IS RIGHT? Surely we should take scientists seriously when they are almost one voice.  We also have, all of us, the evidence of our own senses.  We smell the increase in pollution, see the countryside being overwhelmed by concrete, listen in vain for the song of once-familiar birds, are aware through our travels of growing inequalities, and know the futility of wealth creation for it’s own sake.

If the scientists are right, we face human misery on an unprecedented scale, much of it caused by the policies of the World Bank and the I.M.F. and the frenzied, headlong rush towards a globalised economy which seeks to make us all into consumers, customers and competitors.  Future generations will see us as guilty of the ultimate crime against humanity: allowing our Earth’s support systems to die while we enjoyed the temporary benefits of an unsustainable lifestyle.

We are NOT just consumers, customers, competitors.  We are, first and last, human beings.  And each one of us has enormous potential to change things.  This book has stirring examples of individuals thinking, acting and dreaming up new ideas.  Some may sound unrealistic but, if the scale of remedial action fails to match the scale of the crises, the crises will overwhelm us.  This book is a clarion call to each of us.  It shows us that there is hope.

h1

Australian Personal Income Taxation Rates

06/12/2008

I am often asked what are the tax rates in Australia.

Here they are in graphical format:

Yes, they are high.

The calculations come from here: Australian Tax Rates

h1

The Modern Curse that Divides Us from Nature

02/12/2008

My views on architecture, the environment and society are underpinned by one unifying idea – the vital need for harmony

The Prince of Wales

We live in an age when technological ease has become so much a part of the accustomed way of life that it seems “natural” to some, even their right. But what does our dependence upon such technology do to our connection with Nature? Does our increasing dependence upon technology make us believe that we, too, and the world about us, are merely part of some enormous mechanical process?

These questions have concerned me for many years, because there is now a worrying imbalance in how we are persuaded to see the world. Our perception of Nature, in particular, has become dangerously limited.

When I have spoken of these things I have been shot at from all sides – the natural consequence, I suppose, of having the temerity to challenge the status quo of scientific Modernist rationalism. But undeterred by the barrage of invective, I would like to explain what lies at the heart of my concern.

A question from a newspaper correspondent in the 1930s drew from Mahatma Gandhi one of his pithiest responses. Asked, during his visit to Britain, what he thought of Western civilisation, he replied: “It would be a very good idea.”

Gandhi realised that humanity has a natural tendency to consume and that, if there are no limits on that tendency, we can become obsessed simply with satisfying our desires. The desire grows ever more potent as we consume ever more, even though we achieve very little of the satisfaction we desire. Is this not so in the Western world today? We hear so many people admitting to feeling deeply dissatisfied. It reminds me of that wise observation about gross national product by Robert Kennedy 40 years ago, that it “measures everything except that which makes life worthwhile”.

I’m sure that many people know it is wrong to plunder the Earth’s treasures as recklessly as we do, but the comprehensive world view persuades us that such destruction is justified because of the freedom it brings us, not to say the profits. Our tendency to consume is legitimised by a world view that puts humanity at the centre of things, with an absolute right over Nature. And that makes it a very dangerous view.

This approach has been adopted in such a wholesale fashion that I feel many do not even realise we have lost something precious – what I might describe as an intuitive sense of our interconnectedness with Nature.

The movement responsible for the imbalance – it is often called “Modernism” – rose to dominance at the start of the 20th century. Now, this movement must not be confused with the great social, economic and political advances of the earlier “modern” age, the many benefits of which endure to this day.

The “Modernism” to which I refer offered us an unrelenting emphasis upon a material and mechanistic view of the world. To quote from the Victoria and Albert Museum’s foreword to its recent exhibition on Modernism: “Modernists had a Utopian desire to create a better world. They believed in technology as the key means to achieve social improvement and in the machine as a symbol of that aspiration.”

Thus the ground was laid for the arrival of those straight, efficient lines of Modernism with the aim of simplifying and standardising the world, making things as efficient and as convenient as possible. This is why the curved streets of towns became straight matrices and why we have so many buildings grouped into single- use zones, including those for living – most noxious of all, those high- rise blocks of flats that, throughout the 1960s and 70s, became the living quarters for thousands of people in every city across Europe and the US.

Removed from their communities, people were accommodated in brand- new, convenient, concrete cul-de-sacs in the sky, and when their newness faded, those areas all decayed into violent, soul-destroying ghettos with no capacity to nurture community. Guess what is happening now in the new cities springing up in China and India? As they doggedly follow the Western pattern of 40 years ago people are again compelled to leave their farms to live like factory-farmed chickens in mechanical boxes. Thus are millions more condemned to the same toxic future.

The imposition of that simplistic geometry drastically reduces the richness of complexity. Those who drove this 20th-century ideology did not understand (or simply ignored) what biology and microbiology declare loud and clear – that complexity is key to life. The diversity that made up this complexity was bulldozed in the pursuit of simplicity and convenience, creating an appeal that continues to fuel the conspicuous consumption and throwaway societies we see everywhere. Just what Gandhi most feared and predicted…

How has this come to be? I would suggest it is the net result of two seismic shifts in our perception.

Modernism fuelled a fundamental disconnection from Nature – from the organic order of things that Nature discloses; from the structure and cyclical process of Nature and from its laws that impose those natural limits which Gandhi was at such pains for us to recognise.

As a result, our perception of what we are and where we fit within the scheme of things is fractured. This is why I consider our problems today not just to be an environmental crisis, nor just a financial crisis. They all stem from this fundamental crisis in our perception. By positioning ourselves outside Nature, we have abstracted life altogether to the extent that our urbanised mentality is out of tune with the key principles underpinning the health of any economy and of all life on Earth. And those principles make up what is known as “Harmony”.

Biology shows that in all living things there is a natural tendency towards Harmony. Organisms organise themselves into an order that is remarkably similar at every level, from the molecules in your little finger to vast eco-systems such as the rainforests. Life seeks balance. Every organism works together to produce a harmonic whole. When it is in balance, when there is harmony, the organism is healthy.

This is why I have been so outspoken about how industrialised agriculture sees Nature simply as a mechanical process. When you consider that in one pinch of soil there are more microbes than there are people on the planet, you have to ask what irreversible damage do we do to that delicate ecosystem – the six inches of top soil that sustains all life on Earth? The soil’s health is our health. Yet we have eroded it and poisoned it and failed to replace lost nutrients to such a degree that a recent UN survey found that in just 50 years we have lost a third of the world’s farmable soil. That is hardly a sustainable rate of exploitation.

Also implicit in “Modernism” was the notion that we could somehow disconnect ourselves from our inner nature; from the accumulated wisdom of the ages. Thus spiritual practice is denigrated by many: seen to be nothing more than outdated superstition. But “super-stition” means something much more profound if you see it as two words that point to a heightened sense of something within. But what? Could it be that animating source of the harmony inherent in all life? Could it be that intuitive element in our human constitution; that “sixth sense”, perhaps?

Each of the great civilisations back to ancient times depicted what might be called the “grammar of harmony” in their mythology and the symbolism of their art and architecture, from the ancient Hindu temples of India to the great Gothic cathedrals of these islands. In cutting ourselves off from Nature we cut ourselves off from what we are; from our inner selves.

You may believe that I have some reactionary obsession with returning to a kind of mock medieval, forelock- tugging past. All I am saying is that we simply cannot contend with the global environmental crises we face by relying on clever technological “fixes” on their own.

The denial of our real relationship with Nature has engendered a dangerous alienation. In denying the invisible “grammar of harmony” we create cacophony and dissonance. If we hope to restore the balance, we must reintegrate the best parts of this ancient understanding of Harmony with the best modern technology and science, not least by developing innovative and more benign forms of technology that work with the grain of Nature rather than against it.

This is an edited version of a speech to the Foreign Press Association. The full version can be read here