In this mini-series of fun facts, we’ve looked at the fuel efficiencies of chickens, liposuction fat, and coffee beans. But what about cow farts and cow manure? I’m sure that topic’s been on everyone’s mind so let me address it. As everyone may or may not know, cows produce a lot of methane gas and many believe they’re a major contributor to global warming (especially since methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide). In fact, cow flatulence produces about 90 kilograms of methane per cow per year (source). Methane has an energy density of about 52.75 MJ per kg (source) so that’s 4,748 MJ of methane per cow per year or 13 MJ of methane per cow per day. One way to convert methane into diesel fuel is a process called Gas-to-Liquid (GTL). That process requires 10.5 GJ of natural gas (mostly methane) to produce 42 gallons (1 barrel) of fuel (source) – so 250 MJ of natural gas for 1 gallon of diesel. If a cow produces 13 MJ of methane per day and 250 MJ are required for 1 gallon of diesel, you can get 0.052 gallons of diesel per cow per day. Assuming a diesel engine has a fuel efficiency of 30 miles per gallon, you’d be able to drive 1.56 miles per day of cow farts. Stats on bovine flatulence frequency are hard to come by but this source would indicate that cows pass gas every 40-90 seconds. Assuming they do that 24 hours a day (btw, humans fart in their sleep so let’s assume cows do too), that would be about 1,329 farts/belches per day so you can drive only 0.0012 miles per cow fart. [As an aside, while the typical person farts about 14 times a day (source), human farts are much lower in methane content and therefore not nearly as useful for producing diesel fuel via GTL]
At this point, you’re probably asking yourself one of two questions: (a) “what about the methane in cow manure?” or (b) “why am I still reading this crap?” (no pun intended). I’ll assume you’re asking yourself the former question and do my best to answer. This press release says that a herd of 150,000 cattle generate a total 2,500 tons of manure a day. One (short ton) is 907.18474 kilograms so 2,500 tons would be 2,267,962 kilograms of manure for the entire herd – or 15.12 kilograms of manure per cow per day. From this page, we find out that cow dung gas is 55-65% methane. The source doesn’t specify but I’ll assume this is by weight and that all the dung can be converted to cow dung gas. So 15.12 kilograms of manure per cow per day would be about 9.1 kilograms of methane per cow per day. Following the same math as above, that would translate into 1.91 gallons of diesel per cow per day. At 30 miles per gallon, that’s a whopping 57.42 miles per day of cow manure. According to this site, cows poop 11 to 12 times each day. So we can get a very respectable 4.8 miles per cow dump.
With that, I think it’s likely time for a new hobby since I’ve probably taken this one as far as I can. =)
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Did you know? Part 3.
I’m sure this post will provoke a couple of “don’t you have better things to do with your time” but, hey, we all need our hobbies and mine appears to be random biodiesel calculations at the moment. =) New fun fact regarding the fuel efficiency of coffee.
There was an announcement last week about a researcher in Brazil working on turning low quality coffee beans into biodiesel. In the press release, it says that “every 100 kilograms of coffee will produce roughly 9 kilograms of oil” and “a liter of biodiesel requires about 15% of a liter of ethanol”. So, what does that mean in terms of fuel efficiency of coffee bean biodiesel? Well, if you consult the always-handy Biodiesel Handbook and the always-handy Google, you find that the fatty acid profiles of coffee bean oil and cottonseed oil are pretty similar (source for coffee bean oil). Using Google again, we find that the density of cottonseed oil is 0.92 g/cm3 or 0.92 g/ml (source). So coffee bean oil has a density of about 7.67 lbs/gallon or 3.49 kg/gal. If 100 kilograms of coffee yields 9 kilograms of oil, that means 100 kilograms of coffee yields 2.58 gallons of coffee oil. And, if ethanol is 15% of the biodiesel by volume, you end up with 3.03 gallons of biodiesel from 100 kilograms of coffee. Now, from before, we know an average diesel engine gets about 30 miles to the gallon but biodiesel has about 10% worse fuel efficiency. So, 3.03 gallons of biodiesel takes you 81.9 miles (3.03 x 27). So, 100 kilograms of coffee gets you 81.9 miles and a diesel engine has a fuel efficiency of 0.82 miles per kilogram of coffee beans or 0.37 miles per pound of coffee beans (about 8x less than liposuction fat).
Now, if we take this one step further, 1 pound of coffee beans yields 10.8 pots of brewed coffee (source). So, another way to think about this is that a diesel engine has a fuel efficiency of 0.034 miles per pot of coffee.
Enjoy … and feel free to make fun of my hobby. =)
There was an announcement last week about a researcher in Brazil working on turning low quality coffee beans into biodiesel. In the press release, it says that “every 100 kilograms of coffee will produce roughly 9 kilograms of oil” and “a liter of biodiesel requires about 15% of a liter of ethanol”. So, what does that mean in terms of fuel efficiency of coffee bean biodiesel? Well, if you consult the always-handy Biodiesel Handbook and the always-handy Google, you find that the fatty acid profiles of coffee bean oil and cottonseed oil are pretty similar (source for coffee bean oil). Using Google again, we find that the density of cottonseed oil is 0.92 g/cm3 or 0.92 g/ml (source). So coffee bean oil has a density of about 7.67 lbs/gallon or 3.49 kg/gal. If 100 kilograms of coffee yields 9 kilograms of oil, that means 100 kilograms of coffee yields 2.58 gallons of coffee oil. And, if ethanol is 15% of the biodiesel by volume, you end up with 3.03 gallons of biodiesel from 100 kilograms of coffee. Now, from before, we know an average diesel engine gets about 30 miles to the gallon but biodiesel has about 10% worse fuel efficiency. So, 3.03 gallons of biodiesel takes you 81.9 miles (3.03 x 27). So, 100 kilograms of coffee gets you 81.9 miles and a diesel engine has a fuel efficiency of 0.82 miles per kilogram of coffee beans or 0.37 miles per pound of coffee beans (about 8x less than liposuction fat).
Now, if we take this one step further, 1 pound of coffee beans yields 10.8 pots of brewed coffee (source). So, another way to think about this is that a diesel engine has a fuel efficiency of 0.034 miles per pot of coffee.
Enjoy … and feel free to make fun of my hobby. =)
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Praying in Color
It's been awhile since I've read something good on ExploreFaith.org. But this article caught my attention. Here's an excerpt from the beginning of the page:
How do you pray when words become barriers rather than possibilities? When thinking in sentences is too linear to express a rainbow of emotions.
The rest of the article was a bit of a disappointment but I suppose they didn't want to give up too much of the real meat since they want you to buy the book. Regardless, the doodling concept is an interesting one. It's also a good reminder that there are a lot of ways to commune with God beyond formal prayers.
How do you pray when words become barriers rather than possibilities? When thinking in sentences is too linear to express a rainbow of emotions.
The rest of the article was a bit of a disappointment but I suppose they didn't want to give up too much of the real meat since they want you to buy the book. Regardless, the doodling concept is an interesting one. It's also a good reminder that there are a lot of ways to commune with God beyond formal prayers.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Did you know? Part 2.
Last night, I got to use this factoid at a dinner. Upon hearing that diesel vehicles have a fuel efficiency of 1 mile per chicken, people immediately wanted to know what the fuel efficiency is in terms of human fat. Last December, I read that a company in Norway struck a deal with a hospital in Miami to supply it with 3,000 gallons a week of liposuction fat for conversion into biodiesel. In the article, it says that 3,000 gallons of liposuction fat is enough to make 2,600 gallons of biodiesel. The average diesel engine gets about 30 miles to the gallon of #2 diesel. But biodiesel (in pure form) gets 10% lower fuel efficiency relative to traditional diesel fuel (source). So, an average diesel engine will get say 27 miles to the gallon of pure biodiesel. 3,000 gallons of liposuction fat = 2,600 gallons of biodiesel = 70,200 miles driven. So, 23.4 miles per gallon of liposuction fat.
But that's per gallon, not per pound. Body fat has a density of 0.918 grams per cubic centimeter (source). There are 453.59 grams in a pound and there are 3,785.41 cubic centimeters in a gallon. Thus, a gallon of liposuction fat would weigh 7.66 pounds. And 23.4 miles per gallon would translate into 3.05 miles per pound.
As an additional sanity-check here, diesel fuel typically has an energy density of 40.9 MJ/L (source). There are 3.785 liters in a gallon so 40.9 MJ/L equals 154.8 MJ/gal. If a diesel engine gets 30 miles to the gallon, it takes 154.8 MJ to go 30 miles. A pound of human fat contains 3,500 kcal (source). A kcal contains 4.184 kJ of energy so 3,500 kcal would equal 14,644 kJ or 14.644 MJ. If 154.8 MJ goes 30 miles, 14.644 MJ would only get you 9.46% of that distance - or 2.84 miles.
In terms of the difference between 2.84 miles per pound of liposuction fat vs 3.05 miles per pound, one thing to keep in mind is that some of the energy content of biodiesel comes from the alcohol component of its production (typically methanol). So the 2.84 figure is probably more accurate than 3.05.
Regardless, that’s too much detail for casual conversation. The short answer is that the fuel efficiency of a diesel engine is about 1 mile per chicken or 3 miles per pound of liposuction fat. Use that factoid at your next cocktail party and let me know how it goes. =)
If you really want to impress your guests, you could also mention that according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS), 325,000 of liposuction operations were carried out last year to remove fat from various parts of the body - particularly the thighs, abdomen and buttocks – and that the average woman sheds an average of 20 pounds of abdominal fat by liposuction (source). So, 325,000 operations x 20 pounds per operation = 6.5 million pounds of liposuction fat. At 3 miles per pound, 6.5 million pounds of liposuction fat would get you 19.5 million miles. And, at 30 miles per gallon, that would offset 650,000 gallons of diesel fuel. Unfortunately, the US consumes about 64 billion gallons of diesel a year - 100,000x the amount you could get from liposuction fat. But every little bit helps and Americans get fatter by the year so perhaps this will make more of a dent over time. =)
But that's per gallon, not per pound. Body fat has a density of 0.918 grams per cubic centimeter (source). There are 453.59 grams in a pound and there are 3,785.41 cubic centimeters in a gallon. Thus, a gallon of liposuction fat would weigh 7.66 pounds. And 23.4 miles per gallon would translate into 3.05 miles per pound.
As an additional sanity-check here, diesel fuel typically has an energy density of 40.9 MJ/L (source). There are 3.785 liters in a gallon so 40.9 MJ/L equals 154.8 MJ/gal. If a diesel engine gets 30 miles to the gallon, it takes 154.8 MJ to go 30 miles. A pound of human fat contains 3,500 kcal (source). A kcal contains 4.184 kJ of energy so 3,500 kcal would equal 14,644 kJ or 14.644 MJ. If 154.8 MJ goes 30 miles, 14.644 MJ would only get you 9.46% of that distance - or 2.84 miles.
In terms of the difference between 2.84 miles per pound of liposuction fat vs 3.05 miles per pound, one thing to keep in mind is that some of the energy content of biodiesel comes from the alcohol component of its production (typically methanol). So the 2.84 figure is probably more accurate than 3.05.
Regardless, that’s too much detail for casual conversation. The short answer is that the fuel efficiency of a diesel engine is about 1 mile per chicken or 3 miles per pound of liposuction fat. Use that factoid at your next cocktail party and let me know how it goes. =)
If you really want to impress your guests, you could also mention that according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS), 325,000 of liposuction operations were carried out last year to remove fat from various parts of the body - particularly the thighs, abdomen and buttocks – and that the average woman sheds an average of 20 pounds of abdominal fat by liposuction (source). So, 325,000 operations x 20 pounds per operation = 6.5 million pounds of liposuction fat. At 3 miles per pound, 6.5 million pounds of liposuction fat would get you 19.5 million miles. And, at 30 miles per gallon, that would offset 650,000 gallons of diesel fuel. Unfortunately, the US consumes about 64 billion gallons of diesel a year - 100,000x the amount you could get from liposuction fat. But every little bit helps and Americans get fatter by the year so perhaps this will make more of a dent over time. =)
Monday, April 16, 2007
Sacrifice
My sister-in-law HG sent me this quote by Joseph Smith regarding sacrifice: “A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation." It's a high standard and it should be. But it's also what keeps me from affiliated myself with a specific belief system and organization - at least for the time-being. There are a variety of mostly little things that I'm just not willing to sacrifice. Taken individually, my objections would likely seem petty but taken together they're currently a big barrier for me to overcome.
Did you know?
Today, ConocoPhillips and Tyson Foods announced a partnership to make "renewable diesel" fuel from animals fats. In a WSJ article about the partnership, it says:
Tyson produces about 300 million gallons of beef, pork and chicken fat each year … Producing one 42-gallon barrel of renewable diesel requires about one barrel of animal fat. And each barrel requires, on average, two steers, or 16 hogs or 1,300 chickens, Tyson officials say.
So, it takes 1,300 chickens to get one barrel of diesel fuel (via their proprietary process). One barrel is 42 gallons. So that’s 31 chickens to generate one gallon. At around 30 mpg fuel efficiency, that’s one chicken per mile.
So, your “did you know” fact of the day is: you can drive one mile on the fat of a chicken. Therefore, diesel vehicles have a fuel efficiency of 1 mpc (1 mile per chicken). Go ahead and use that at your next cocktail party as an icebreaker. =)
Tyson produces about 300 million gallons of beef, pork and chicken fat each year … Producing one 42-gallon barrel of renewable diesel requires about one barrel of animal fat. And each barrel requires, on average, two steers, or 16 hogs or 1,300 chickens, Tyson officials say.
So, it takes 1,300 chickens to get one barrel of diesel fuel (via their proprietary process). One barrel is 42 gallons. So that’s 31 chickens to generate one gallon. At around 30 mpg fuel efficiency, that’s one chicken per mile.
So, your “did you know” fact of the day is: you can drive one mile on the fat of a chicken. Therefore, diesel vehicles have a fuel efficiency of 1 mpc (1 mile per chicken). Go ahead and use that at your next cocktail party as an icebreaker. =)
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Disposable income
My 5-year old JD made his first major purchase recently - a Razor scooter. He spent $30 that he saved up across various birthdays and holidays. It's amazing that he's old enough to start making decisions like this. So far, he hasn't pulled the trigger on the credit card offers he's received in the mail. =)
Friday, March 23, 2007
Fireworks
I'm down in Orlando at the moment for a biotech conference. I'm staying at the Walt Disney Swan and Dolphin Resort over by Epcot. I have a balcony room that faces a man-made lake. As I was getting back from a conference reception, there were fireworks outside my window (see video in 3GP format, taken on my Treo). It was a nice little treat since I'm a fan of fireworks and don't get to see them that often - especially up close. A little piece of Disney magic.
Sky
I'm not really a "stop and smell the roses" kind of a guy. But on my way home from work the other day, I looked up at the sky and stopped to admire its beauty. Might seem like a "so what" occurance for others but it was unique for me.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
The Language of God
I just finished reading an excellent book called The Language of God (also see this interview in the SF Chronicle). The author was the head of the Human Genome Project and attempts in his book to reconcile science and religion. In particular, he focuses mainly on the debate around Darwin's theories of evolution. Collins supports a position called theistic evolution (or what he calls BioLogos). Specifically, a typical version of this worldview rests upon the following premises:
If one accepts these six premises, then an entirely plausible, intellectually satisfying, and logically consistent synthesis emerges: God, who is not limited in space or time, created the universe and established natural laws that govern it. Seeking to populate this otherwise sterile universe with living creatures, God chose the elegant mechanism of evolution to create microbes, plants, and animals of all sorts. Most remarkably, God intentionally chose the same mechanism to give rise to special creatures who would have intelligence, a knowledge of right and wrong, free will, and a desire to seek fellowship with Him. He also knew these creatures would ultimately chose to disobey the Moral Law.
This view is entirely compatible with everything that science teaches us about the natural world. It is also entirely compatible with the great monotheistic religions of the world. The theistic evolution perspective cannot, of course, prove that God is real, as no logical argument can fully achieve that. Belief in God will always require a leap of faith. But this synthesis has provided for legions of scientist-believers a satisfying, consistent, enriching perspective that allows both the scientific and spiritual worldviews to coexist happily within us. This perspective makes it possible for the scientist-believer to be intellectually fulfilled and spiritually alive, both worshipping God and using the tools of science to uncover some of the awesome mysteries of His creation.
In the course of making his case for BioLogos, the author also provides descriptions and counter-arguments to atheism, creationism, and intelligent design. Earlier in the book, he also covers topics like the Big Bang and the origin of the universe.
It would take too much time to summarize all of the author's points here - and I'm probably not doing justice to them with the limited excerpts above. But I found this book really interesting and I would highly recommend it to others who have ever tried to reconcile whether science and religion are compatible with one another. I certainly believe that they are and reading this book helped bring a number of those views into tighter focus.
- The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago.
- Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.
- While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time.
- Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required.
- Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
- But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.
If one accepts these six premises, then an entirely plausible, intellectually satisfying, and logically consistent synthesis emerges: God, who is not limited in space or time, created the universe and established natural laws that govern it. Seeking to populate this otherwise sterile universe with living creatures, God chose the elegant mechanism of evolution to create microbes, plants, and animals of all sorts. Most remarkably, God intentionally chose the same mechanism to give rise to special creatures who would have intelligence, a knowledge of right and wrong, free will, and a desire to seek fellowship with Him. He also knew these creatures would ultimately chose to disobey the Moral Law.
This view is entirely compatible with everything that science teaches us about the natural world. It is also entirely compatible with the great monotheistic religions of the world. The theistic evolution perspective cannot, of course, prove that God is real, as no logical argument can fully achieve that. Belief in God will always require a leap of faith. But this synthesis has provided for legions of scientist-believers a satisfying, consistent, enriching perspective that allows both the scientific and spiritual worldviews to coexist happily within us. This perspective makes it possible for the scientist-believer to be intellectually fulfilled and spiritually alive, both worshipping God and using the tools of science to uncover some of the awesome mysteries of His creation.
In the course of making his case for BioLogos, the author also provides descriptions and counter-arguments to atheism, creationism, and intelligent design. Earlier in the book, he also covers topics like the Big Bang and the origin of the universe.
It would take too much time to summarize all of the author's points here - and I'm probably not doing justice to them with the limited excerpts above. But I found this book really interesting and I would highly recommend it to others who have ever tried to reconcile whether science and religion are compatible with one another. I certainly believe that they are and reading this book helped bring a number of those views into tighter focus.
Conversations with God
Over Christmas and New Years, I stumbled onto a book on my brother-in-law's book shelf called Conversations with God. An ex-girlfriend had given it to him so his wife didn't mind me taking it. =) Anyway, it was a pretty interesting read. The basic premise of the book is that the author was an unemployed homeless man who was looking for answers. One day, he was essentially writing in a journal when God took over his hand/pen and began writing responses to his questions. Thus began an unexpected "conversation" that turned into a best-selling book.
It's interesting to see the range of reactions to this book on Amazon.com. Some people really love the book. Others write off the author as a delusional heretic. I think a lot of your reaction to the book hinges on whether you believe Walsch had a genuine conversation with God or not. On that count, I can't quite decide. I certainly think that such a dialogue is possible. Religions like the Church of Latter-Day Saints believe in modern-day prophets - and I personally find it unlikely that God would speak through Jesus, Muhammad, etc. and then suddenly stop to send other messagers to spread his message. So I don't reject the possibility that Walsch genuinely communicated with God and that his message is inspired in that way. But I also wouldn't go so far as to say that I then automatically accept everything he says in his book as literally the word of God.
At least from the reviews I read, it seems that most people who disliked the book took most issue with the moral relativism that is espouses - there is no absolute right or wrong, no should or should nots, etc. The book also makes the proacative statement that there is no hell and that Hitler is therefore in heaven. If you take a lot of the book at surface-value, it would be easy to take away the message that what we do in this world doesn't matter and therefore we shouldn't go out of our way to do the right things in our lives. But I really don't think that's the message that the author (or God if you believe the responses are genuine) are trying to make. There was a much more subtle message there - but you have to really work to parse through all the philosophical double-talk. What I believe the message was is that all people are born with an innate knowledge of right and wrong along with a desire to do the right thing (what C.S. Lewis would refer to as the Moral Law). So, if people simply listened to their innate sense of right and wrong, there wouldn't be any needs for laws, etc. Unfortunately, many people abdicate their responsibility in this regard and, therefore, civil and moral laws are required.
There are a lot of other things the book discusses but I won't get into them here for lack of time. Interesting book, though. Makes you think - whether you accept the author's ideas or not.
It's interesting to see the range of reactions to this book on Amazon.com. Some people really love the book. Others write off the author as a delusional heretic. I think a lot of your reaction to the book hinges on whether you believe Walsch had a genuine conversation with God or not. On that count, I can't quite decide. I certainly think that such a dialogue is possible. Religions like the Church of Latter-Day Saints believe in modern-day prophets - and I personally find it unlikely that God would speak through Jesus, Muhammad, etc. and then suddenly stop to send other messagers to spread his message. So I don't reject the possibility that Walsch genuinely communicated with God and that his message is inspired in that way. But I also wouldn't go so far as to say that I then automatically accept everything he says in his book as literally the word of God.
At least from the reviews I read, it seems that most people who disliked the book took most issue with the moral relativism that is espouses - there is no absolute right or wrong, no should or should nots, etc. The book also makes the proacative statement that there is no hell and that Hitler is therefore in heaven. If you take a lot of the book at surface-value, it would be easy to take away the message that what we do in this world doesn't matter and therefore we shouldn't go out of our way to do the right things in our lives. But I really don't think that's the message that the author (or God if you believe the responses are genuine) are trying to make. There was a much more subtle message there - but you have to really work to parse through all the philosophical double-talk. What I believe the message was is that all people are born with an innate knowledge of right and wrong along with a desire to do the right thing (what C.S. Lewis would refer to as the Moral Law). So, if people simply listened to their innate sense of right and wrong, there wouldn't be any needs for laws, etc. Unfortunately, many people abdicate their responsibility in this regard and, therefore, civil and moral laws are required.
There are a lot of other things the book discusses but I won't get into them here for lack of time. Interesting book, though. Makes you think - whether you accept the author's ideas or not.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Snap circuits
My son JD just celebrated his fifth birthday. One of his friends (who wasn't able to attend his birthday party last weekend) gave him a present after the fact. It was a Snap Circuits SC-300 set. So cool! It's designed for 8+ year olds to teach them about electricity and circuit design but from JD's reaction (and some of the reviews on Amazon), it seems accessible to younger kids as well. We've made about 6 ot 7 things so far including a working AM radio (displayed on the cover of the box).
As an aside, I remember having a Radio Shack kit like this when I was a kid. This one is so much nicer - especially the snap design. It's so much easier and faster to construct the circuits.
I wouldn't have bought this set for JD. Makes me wonder what else JD (and AJ) would be interested in. All in good time. No rush. I'll leave it to others to buy stuff like this for the time-being. =)
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Religion's Generation Gap
There was an article in the Wall Street Journal this past weekend regarding "Religion's Generation Gap". It was interesting to see that some teens are now "rebelling" by becoming strongly devout (rather than drinking, taking drugs, etc). Apparently it's causing problems in some families - especially if the kids are much more committed to a religion than their parents are. I worry about that a little with my kids (since I'm not active in a religion) but hopefully they can keep an open mind even if they decide to get deeply involved with their religion.
Keeping up with the Joneses
I found out about this image from the Business Explained blog. It does a great job of illustrating the challenge of keeping up with the Joneses. Especially here in Silicon Valley, it's hard not to get caught up in this phenomenon. I think my wife and I are doing a pretty good job of it but I do worry a little about the kids - especially if all their friends have over-the-top toys, houses, cars, etc.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Kind of
We all have our "filler words" - little phrases or words that we fall back on when we're not quite sure what to say but we want to avoid silence. "Umm", "like", "so". My latest is "kind of" although I also use "so" a lot and used to be a heavy user of "like". It's amazing how easily these words enter my speech without me noticing. Periodically, someone like my wife or a co-worker will point it out to me. They're worried about whether others will perceive me as "junior" given these speech patterns. As long as I don't rush (and I pay attention), I'm fine. But if I get a bit flustered, all bets are off. I guess it just takes practice. One more thing to be cognizant of (and worry about).
Adam Smith turns green
I just read an essay in VentureBeat that accurately describes my rationale for moving into the cleantech world. Thought I'd quickly share it in case others are interested.
The Proof of God
I came across a 1955 article from Time magazine the other day entitled "The Proof of God". It said:
No less than 96% of U.S. citizens polled believe in God, according to a survey by George Gallup. Pollsters also asked the 96% what they thought was the most convincing argument for God's existence. The replies, in order of their frequency: 1) The order and majesty of the world around us, 2) There must be a Creator to explain the origin of man and the world, 3) There is proof of God in the Bible (or other church authority), 4) Past experiences in life give me faith that there is a God, 5) Believing in God gives me much comfort...
Outside the world and inside his head, logic ruled. St. Thomas Aquinas formulated his five famed proofs of God's existence with a respect for logic that is not commonly part of modern man's mental furniture. Aquinas rates the proof derived from order last—the other four: 1) motion—the passing from power to act—implies an unmoved Mover; 2) similarly, there must be an uncaused First Cause that possesses in itself the reason for its existence; 3) the existence of beings whose nonexistence is possible implies the existence of a necessary Being; 4) the scale of perfections evident in the universe implies the existence of an absolute standard, a perfect Being.
A friend of mine mentioned the "proof" by St. Thomas Aquinas the day. In the course of looking for it, I came across the Time article.
In my opinion, there is no proof for the existence of God other than personal experience. Logic can be a contributing factor but it can't get you there one way or the other on this topic. In terms of the personal beliefs I've arrived at, see here and here.
No less than 96% of U.S. citizens polled believe in God, according to a survey by George Gallup. Pollsters also asked the 96% what they thought was the most convincing argument for God's existence. The replies, in order of their frequency: 1) The order and majesty of the world around us, 2) There must be a Creator to explain the origin of man and the world, 3) There is proof of God in the Bible (or other church authority), 4) Past experiences in life give me faith that there is a God, 5) Believing in God gives me much comfort...
Outside the world and inside his head, logic ruled. St. Thomas Aquinas formulated his five famed proofs of God's existence with a respect for logic that is not commonly part of modern man's mental furniture. Aquinas rates the proof derived from order last—the other four: 1) motion—the passing from power to act—implies an unmoved Mover; 2) similarly, there must be an uncaused First Cause that possesses in itself the reason for its existence; 3) the existence of beings whose nonexistence is possible implies the existence of a necessary Being; 4) the scale of perfections evident in the universe implies the existence of an absolute standard, a perfect Being.
A friend of mine mentioned the "proof" by St. Thomas Aquinas the day. In the course of looking for it, I came across the Time article.
In my opinion, there is no proof for the existence of God other than personal experience. Logic can be a contributing factor but it can't get you there one way or the other on this topic. In terms of the personal beliefs I've arrived at, see here and here.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
The ride
In response to my post "Facing Darkness", my friend also sent me the following observation by Jenkins Lloyd Jones (as quoted by President Gordon B. Hinckley of the LDS Church):
Anyone who imagines that bliss is normal is going to waste a lot of time running around shouting that he has been robbed.
[The fact is] most putts don’t drop. Most beef is tough. Most children grow up to be just people. Most successful marriages require a high degree of mutual toleration. Most jobs are more often dull than otherwise …
Life is like an old-time rail journey—delays, sidetracks, smoke, dust, cinders and jolts, interspersed only occasionally by beautiful vistas and thrilling bursts of speed.
The trick is to thank the Lord for letting you have the ride.
I sometimes lament the fact that life (or at least my life) isn't more exciting. There is certainly the occasional beautiful vista or thrilling burst of speed, but on a whole they don't occur as frequently as I would like. Perhaps I need to reset my expectations and simply be thankful for the ride.
Anyone who imagines that bliss is normal is going to waste a lot of time running around shouting that he has been robbed.
[The fact is] most putts don’t drop. Most beef is tough. Most children grow up to be just people. Most successful marriages require a high degree of mutual toleration. Most jobs are more often dull than otherwise …
Life is like an old-time rail journey—delays, sidetracks, smoke, dust, cinders and jolts, interspersed only occasionally by beautiful vistas and thrilling bursts of speed.
The trick is to thank the Lord for letting you have the ride.
I sometimes lament the fact that life (or at least my life) isn't more exciting. There is certainly the occasional beautiful vista or thrilling burst of speed, but on a whole they don't occur as frequently as I would like. Perhaps I need to reset my expectations and simply be thankful for the ride.
Not fitting in
In my last post, I made the comment that I've never felt that I fit into this world. In response, a friend of mine sent me a quote from the book Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis:
Most of us find it very difficult to want "Heaven" at all- except in so far as "Heaven" means meeting again our friends who have died. One reason for this difficulty is that we have not been trained: our whole education tends to fix our minds on this world. Another reason is that when the real want for Heaven is present in us, we do not recognise it Most people, if they had really learned to look into their own hearts, would know that they do want, and want acutely, something that cannot be had in this world. There are all sorts of things in this world that offer to give it to you, but they never quite keep their promise. The longings which arise in us when we first fall in love, or first think of some foreign country, or first take up some subject that excites us, are longings which no marriage, no travel, no learning, can really satisfy. I am not now speaking of what would be ordinarily called unsuccessful marriages, or holidays, or learned careers. I am speaking of the best possible ones. There was something we grasped at, in that first moment of longing, which just fades away in the reality. I think everyone knows what I mean. The wife may be a good wife, and the hotels and scenery may have been excellent, and chemistry may be a very interesting job: but something has evaded us. Now there are two wrong ways of dealing with this fact, and one right one.
(1) The Fool's Way.- He puts the blame on the things themselves. He goes on all his life thinking that if only he tried another woman, or went for a more expensive holiday, or whatever it is, then, this time, he really would catch the mysterious something we are all after. Most of the bored, discontented, rich people in the world are of this type. They spend their whole lives trotting from woman to woman (through the divorce courts), from
continent to continent, from hobby to hobby, always thinking that the latest is "the Real Thing" at last, and always disappointed.
(2) The Way of the Disillusioned "Sensible Man."- He soon decides that the whole thing was moonshine. "Of course," he says, "one feels like that when one's young. But by the time you get to my age you've given up chasing the rainbow's end." And so he settles down and learns not to expect too much and represses the part of himself which used, as he would say, "to cry for the moon." This is, of course, a much better way than the first, and makes a man much happier, and less of a nuisance to society. It tends to make him a prig (he is apt to be rather superior towards what he calls "adolescents"), but, on the whole, he rubs along fairly comfortably. It would be the best line we could take if man did not live for ever. But supposing infinite happiness really is there, waiting for us? Supposing one really can reach the rainbow's end? In that case it would be a pity to find out too late (a moment after death) that by our supposed "common sense" we had stifled in ourselves the faculty of enjoying it.
(3) The Christian Way.- The Christian says, "Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it, that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing. If that is so, I must take care, on the one hand, never to despise, or be unthankful for, these earthly blessings, and on the other, never to mistake them for the something else of which they are only a kind of copy, or echo, or mirage. I must keep alive in myself the desire for my true country, which I shall not find till after death; I must never let it get snowed under or turned aside; I must make it the main object of life to press on to that other country and to help others to do the same."
She commented that "I just think I feel like I don't belong because I DON'T. I don't know if this is a comforting thought to you or not, but I really think this life is so temporary and vaporous, and really sub-par compared to the world we experienced before and after this life." I would tend to agree. When I was listening to The Purpose-Driven Life awhile ago, the author said that God doesn't want us to get too attached to this world since it's not our real home. He made the analogy to an ambassador in a foreign land. So perhaps none of us fit into this world and I've just come to that realization fairly early in life. Hard to say.
Most of us find it very difficult to want "Heaven" at all- except in so far as "Heaven" means meeting again our friends who have died. One reason for this difficulty is that we have not been trained: our whole education tends to fix our minds on this world. Another reason is that when the real want for Heaven is present in us, we do not recognise it Most people, if they had really learned to look into their own hearts, would know that they do want, and want acutely, something that cannot be had in this world. There are all sorts of things in this world that offer to give it to you, but they never quite keep their promise. The longings which arise in us when we first fall in love, or first think of some foreign country, or first take up some subject that excites us, are longings which no marriage, no travel, no learning, can really satisfy. I am not now speaking of what would be ordinarily called unsuccessful marriages, or holidays, or learned careers. I am speaking of the best possible ones. There was something we grasped at, in that first moment of longing, which just fades away in the reality. I think everyone knows what I mean. The wife may be a good wife, and the hotels and scenery may have been excellent, and chemistry may be a very interesting job: but something has evaded us. Now there are two wrong ways of dealing with this fact, and one right one.
(1) The Fool's Way.- He puts the blame on the things themselves. He goes on all his life thinking that if only he tried another woman, or went for a more expensive holiday, or whatever it is, then, this time, he really would catch the mysterious something we are all after. Most of the bored, discontented, rich people in the world are of this type. They spend their whole lives trotting from woman to woman (through the divorce courts), from
continent to continent, from hobby to hobby, always thinking that the latest is "the Real Thing" at last, and always disappointed.
(2) The Way of the Disillusioned "Sensible Man."- He soon decides that the whole thing was moonshine. "Of course," he says, "one feels like that when one's young. But by the time you get to my age you've given up chasing the rainbow's end." And so he settles down and learns not to expect too much and represses the part of himself which used, as he would say, "to cry for the moon." This is, of course, a much better way than the first, and makes a man much happier, and less of a nuisance to society. It tends to make him a prig (he is apt to be rather superior towards what he calls "adolescents"), but, on the whole, he rubs along fairly comfortably. It would be the best line we could take if man did not live for ever. But supposing infinite happiness really is there, waiting for us? Supposing one really can reach the rainbow's end? In that case it would be a pity to find out too late (a moment after death) that by our supposed "common sense" we had stifled in ourselves the faculty of enjoying it.
(3) The Christian Way.- The Christian says, "Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it, that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing. If that is so, I must take care, on the one hand, never to despise, or be unthankful for, these earthly blessings, and on the other, never to mistake them for the something else of which they are only a kind of copy, or echo, or mirage. I must keep alive in myself the desire for my true country, which I shall not find till after death; I must never let it get snowed under or turned aside; I must make it the main object of life to press on to that other country and to help others to do the same."
She commented that "I just think I feel like I don't belong because I DON'T. I don't know if this is a comforting thought to you or not, but I really think this life is so temporary and vaporous, and really sub-par compared to the world we experienced before and after this life." I would tend to agree. When I was listening to The Purpose-Driven Life awhile ago, the author said that God doesn't want us to get too attached to this world since it's not our real home. He made the analogy to an ambassador in a foreign land. So perhaps none of us fit into this world and I've just come to that realization fairly early in life. Hard to say.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Facing Darkness
It's interesting to see how certain topics suddenly get popular in the press. In the last week, I've seen two articles on men and depression. The first was in Men's Health, entitled "Exercising Your Demons", and the second was in Newsweek, entitled "Facing Darkness". Both articles pointed out that depression in men has classicly been misdiagnosed and that men are very reluctant to admit to the problem. Rather, men exhibit tendencies towards alcoholism, violence, extreme exercise, hard work, and suicide. Men also tend to fly off the handle about little things like bad service or some other seemingly minor incident.
A couple of excerpts from the Men's Health article:
"It's understandable that women are three times more likely than men to be treated for depression; our culture has put a feminine face on the disease, so women give themselves permission to feel it and to seek help for it. Polluck puts it this way: 'We have in our society a feminized view of depression, coming out of a model of hysteria that dates back to Freud.' Terrance Real, author of I Don't Want to Talk About It, and a marriage and family therapist in Massachusetts, wrote, 'There is a terrible collusion in our society, a cultural cover-up about depression in men.' And part of the cultural influence involves the way men are taught from early childhood to be strong, silent, independent, and resistant to suffering. As Real puts it, 'Men have about a millisecond's tolerance for feeling [this type of] pain, and then they spring into action. A flight from shame into grandiosity lies at the heart of male covert depression.'"
"The social conditioning that leads to men's response to depression begins in infancy. Male babies receive less of every type of nurturing, including speech, touch, and comfort when they cry. And that is only the beginning of what will be, to one degree or another, a brutal upbringing for boys. In the 1960s, the crusading social psychologist Jeanne Block and her colleagues explored how differently parents treat boys and girls. For instance, moms and dads encourage boys to be competitive and to achieve. They don't like them to show their emotions. They encourage them to be less dependent; mothers push them away. They punish them more than they punish girls. And they are unaware that they treat boys and girls differently."
"But there is not much in our cultural definition of what it means to be a man that is inherent to maleness. Children start off surprisingly alike, whether they're boys or girls. If there's a difference, it's the opposite of what the culture seems to expect: Boys are more sensitive. They give expression to their emotions more readily than girls. They affiliate with others in the same way as girls. Then someone tells them it's not okay to be that way. If you act like that, you're a pussy. As Real and others have explained, it is through this process of denial that men are primed for depression. And it is the cultural necessity of carrying out and carrying on this process that makes it so difficult for them to recognize and admit to depression when it comes. They not only don't acknowledge it to themselves, they often don't display the symptoms that psychotherapists use to diagnose depression. The cultural training that lays the groundwork for depression in men and for their denial of it later in life involves social isolation. That means telling people the truth about yourself and trusting that they'll do the same, a concept that seems terrifying to many men."
The Newsweek article has a sidebar called "The Sad Legacy of Depressed Parents". The most interesting excerpt was:
In one recent study at Columbia University, researchers found that rates of anxiety disorders and depression were three times as high among the adult children of depressed parents as they were among people whose parents were not depressed. Adult children of depressed parents also reported about five times the rate of cardiovascular disease—a sign that emotional disorders affect more than mood. Even kids who manage to succeed socially often struggle at home to care for their parents or younger siblings. "Depression has an entire family dynamic," says Myrna Weissman, the lead researcher in the Columbia study.
Both articles had little quizes men could take to determine whether they suffer from depression. I failed (or passed, depending on your perspective) both quizes. But it wasn't a surprise. After an initial period of excitement with my new job, the stress (mostly self-imposed) has really gotten to me over the last three months. I've always had a disposition towards working hard. I've also increasingly been getting really upset (and staying upset) about really minor, stupid stuff. And I've been having trouble getting to sleep and staying asleep - so then I'm tired a lot. It's definitely a viscous cycle I'm in. I've never really felt like I fit in the world. I'm feeling that way now. Perhaps I don't fit; perhaps it's depression; probably the latter. I've also noticed other negative patterns of behavior reemerging so it's time to take action.
Not sure how to break out of this. I've seen a therapist for the last 5 years but I need to work out some issues with my current health insurance before I can see her again. In the meantime, I guess I'll lean on my wife (not that I don't lean on her enough as it is). I should start exercising more regularly as well. Baby steps but positive steps.
A couple of excerpts from the Men's Health article:
"It's understandable that women are three times more likely than men to be treated for depression; our culture has put a feminine face on the disease, so women give themselves permission to feel it and to seek help for it. Polluck puts it this way: 'We have in our society a feminized view of depression, coming out of a model of hysteria that dates back to Freud.' Terrance Real, author of I Don't Want to Talk About It, and a marriage and family therapist in Massachusetts, wrote, 'There is a terrible collusion in our society, a cultural cover-up about depression in men.' And part of the cultural influence involves the way men are taught from early childhood to be strong, silent, independent, and resistant to suffering. As Real puts it, 'Men have about a millisecond's tolerance for feeling [this type of] pain, and then they spring into action. A flight from shame into grandiosity lies at the heart of male covert depression.'"
"The social conditioning that leads to men's response to depression begins in infancy. Male babies receive less of every type of nurturing, including speech, touch, and comfort when they cry. And that is only the beginning of what will be, to one degree or another, a brutal upbringing for boys. In the 1960s, the crusading social psychologist Jeanne Block and her colleagues explored how differently parents treat boys and girls. For instance, moms and dads encourage boys to be competitive and to achieve. They don't like them to show their emotions. They encourage them to be less dependent; mothers push them away. They punish them more than they punish girls. And they are unaware that they treat boys and girls differently."
"But there is not much in our cultural definition of what it means to be a man that is inherent to maleness. Children start off surprisingly alike, whether they're boys or girls. If there's a difference, it's the opposite of what the culture seems to expect: Boys are more sensitive. They give expression to their emotions more readily than girls. They affiliate with others in the same way as girls. Then someone tells them it's not okay to be that way. If you act like that, you're a pussy. As Real and others have explained, it is through this process of denial that men are primed for depression. And it is the cultural necessity of carrying out and carrying on this process that makes it so difficult for them to recognize and admit to depression when it comes. They not only don't acknowledge it to themselves, they often don't display the symptoms that psychotherapists use to diagnose depression. The cultural training that lays the groundwork for depression in men and for their denial of it later in life involves social isolation. That means telling people the truth about yourself and trusting that they'll do the same, a concept that seems terrifying to many men."
The Newsweek article has a sidebar called "The Sad Legacy of Depressed Parents". The most interesting excerpt was:
In one recent study at Columbia University, researchers found that rates of anxiety disorders and depression were three times as high among the adult children of depressed parents as they were among people whose parents were not depressed. Adult children of depressed parents also reported about five times the rate of cardiovascular disease—a sign that emotional disorders affect more than mood. Even kids who manage to succeed socially often struggle at home to care for their parents or younger siblings. "Depression has an entire family dynamic," says Myrna Weissman, the lead researcher in the Columbia study.
Both articles had little quizes men could take to determine whether they suffer from depression. I failed (or passed, depending on your perspective) both quizes. But it wasn't a surprise. After an initial period of excitement with my new job, the stress (mostly self-imposed) has really gotten to me over the last three months. I've always had a disposition towards working hard. I've also increasingly been getting really upset (and staying upset) about really minor, stupid stuff. And I've been having trouble getting to sleep and staying asleep - so then I'm tired a lot. It's definitely a viscous cycle I'm in. I've never really felt like I fit in the world. I'm feeling that way now. Perhaps I don't fit; perhaps it's depression; probably the latter. I've also noticed other negative patterns of behavior reemerging so it's time to take action.
Not sure how to break out of this. I've seen a therapist for the last 5 years but I need to work out some issues with my current health insurance before I can see her again. In the meantime, I guess I'll lean on my wife (not that I don't lean on her enough as it is). I should start exercising more regularly as well. Baby steps but positive steps.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)