Telling the future, from the past

is what Jared Diamond aims to do, in his books 'Guns, Germs and Steel' and Collapse'. The first, describes the ways that human societies have been shaped - the way their environment has changed them, made some more competitive in the modern world, and others weaker. The other details the broad reasons why societies may collapse : environmental, failure to adapt, failure to predict the future and prepare for it.

These books are particularly interesting, because they look at small societies, and the ways events played out in them, and adapts the pattern to the larger world. Its a very scientific way of doing things- a small pilot test, and apply the results to a broader framework. However, especially with the environmental arguments there seem to be many caveats that one could apply. For example, there are various small societies desscribed, such as the settlers of Greenland at one time, who failed to adapt their lifestyles to the changing environment, and therefore collapsed, and this could lead one to speculate on the results of us failing to adapt - or prevent- global warming (for example), and yet I find it hard to believe that barring alien invasion, our collapse would be as complete or impossible to recover from.

In Guns, Germs and Steel also, he raises the idea of agriculture being the base on which all society is built- and how in places where agriculture was impossible - or not as productive - societies- villages, towns, cities, trade, commerce, large scale government etc. did not grow. But I find some of his arguments a little difficult to believe. It may be true that many of the current food crops that we use had their origins in a particular part of the world. But they have taken many millenia to reach their current form, and wild wheat, and rice and barley are not nearly as productive. It is the result of generations of human farming and genetic selection that has made them so. If agriculture had started elsewhere, we might be praising some other crop for its incredible bounty - and crediting it for being the base of human civilizations. You could make similar arguments with regards the point about horses and others.

In general, he presents a very politically correct view of the world, which is leaves me a little skeptical.

Having said that, they're both excellently written books. They bring up (at least for me) a new dimension of looking at the world. The books prove that it is not true that the problems we face today are like none faced ever before. Strip away the specifics, and you can see that the same causes that led some societies to fail, and some to succeed are still true today.

I also went on to read a third book of his, 'The Third Chimpanzee'. It wasn't as compelling as the others - but close to the premiere of the new Planet of the Apes movie, it seemed like a good idea. Again, a very well written book. It describes man as maybe aliens would see us - a slightly evolved ape - and compares us with our closest animal cousins. It draws comparisons between the social structures of apes and humans. One of the most interesting chapters was the one on human sexuality, but other very interesting topics covered were the fact that technology is not the only cause of environmental damage and prehistoric humans had a role in the environmental catastrophes of their time as well - this point is one that comes up in all three books - which should put an end to the wistful looking back on civilizations that lived at one with nature - apparently, there were none.

Freakiness

I did a marathon through SuperFreakonomics yesterday, and took it to work and showed it off to the interest of my coworkers today. Well, it may not be the ideal coffee table book, but it does provide food for over coffee conversations.

The Freakonomics guys as always, tackle the strangest of ideas and come up with the strangest of conclusions. While I take issue with several of their conclusions, I can't argue that they've made the dryest subject in the world just a little more interesting.

One of their results I object to, is the one that they have proving that among doctor's there's not a whole lot of difference between the best and the worst in a given hospital. The whole story is a long and involved one, and one that I'm definitely going to use in my MBA interviews, as an example of early technology properly applied being a boon to operations management.... but my point is... these conclusions they drew- it works for the sample set they had, but I don't see that you can apply it to every set. It would depend for example, on the principles on which hiring of doctors was based, for example.

Then, there's the global warming thing which has already generated much contreversy read here , and here.... well ... lets say I've overcome my (natural) aversion to deliberate largescale geo-engineering, but there are so many untested consequences. What is suggested is that Sulphur di-oxide be released into the atmosphere in imitation of vocanic eruptions that create global cooling (to counter global warming obviously)... well what happens to the SO2? Does it then sink down from the stratosphere producing more acid rain? Does it undergo chemical change in the stratosphere over a period of time maybe depleting the ozone layer?

There's a similar quick fix solution to hurricanes in Florida, which deals with preventing the build up of hot water that generates energy for these hurricanes cyclically... but what happens to that hot water? Are there any currents that maybe bear away some of that water to affect the weather somewhere else?

Where it didn't touch on pure science, the results were more convincing. I enjoyed the chapter on altruism and apathy with the experiments of List... the behaviour of terrorists explained and an analysis of seatbelts and booster seats... the effect of television in rural India (though there's not enough cause and consequence there for me... there could be other contributing factors for both...)

Anyway, its a thinking book definitely, not one you can just passively read, and though its conclusions may be incomplete, its methods are definitely interesting.

All alone now... and wishing I was elsewhere

Since Mum went back to India it's been quiet here. No more dashing off to some mall or the other every evening. I swear, between Mummy and me we ended the recession. That improvement in the stock market you see? That's us!

Anyway, since she left, I've not had a whole lot to do (which isn't to say no shopping was done- I just got a new while top today- you can never have too many white tops).

So, back to the library it was. And I got Bill Bryson's "Notes from a small Island", his hilarious account of his farewell journey arouss Britain. OK, while I do disagree with him on some things - the monarchy, the lords and ladies- come on, can you imagine Britain without them! In a democracy I was born, and I may live in one now, but as far as Britain goes, I remain a royalist at heart. Observe that countries that do not have monarchies do their best to make them up. India has the Gandhi's and the US has its Kennedy's... why go into all that effort to create a monarchy when you've got one ready made?

I've been to the UK all of once, but thanks to Enid Blyton, Jane Austen and Georgette Heyer I'm a total Angophile. And while much of what he talked about- the charms of Britain, the wild moors, the little tea rooms, tea itself! (how can you not love a place that loves tea so much, come on!)- was very familiar. Lots of it- run down old towns gone to seed in a post-indistrial age- was not.

The best part of it is also unfortunately the part that I will most likely not remember. The little pieces of trivia, about trains to nowhere running on tracks of unimaginable cost, eccentric people from long ago- only the feeling that I had when I read about these remains with me, not the actual pieces of fact themselves.

In the end I'm left with a desire to trace Bryson's steps through Britain, to get to know the country as he did, but I suspect all I will ever do is spend a few days in London and its environs, for the rest I will have to return to the book

Marley and Me-

"Marley and Me" by Josh Grogan is an absolute delight for dog lovers. And if you don't love dogs, by the time you're done with it, you will be. Like James Herriot, he sees the humor in both animals and people. Anyone who's ever had a dog will be able to recognize their own pet in Marley- the dog who's always doing the wrong thing at the wrong time- the one who steals food off the kid's plates, who 'does his business' in the wrong places, who chews up everything in sight, and hates being left at home alone.

So much of what Grogan wrote on was incredibly real to me. I was reminded on my own dog, who wants to be with his family all the time, who insists on taking his humans for walks and not the other way round, and always knows when we're going off and leaving him behind.

And as Grogan describes how Marley grows from a yappy pup to a old dogs with aches and pains, but still young inside, I recognize painfully, the changes my own dog is also going through, and the lesson in mortality that all pet owners learn.

Speaking in Tongues

... Or tungs or tongs or any number of different spellings through the years as detailed by Bill Bryson's incredibly funny book 'The Mother tongue' - a history of the Engish Language. It had me nearly in splits with commentary about the change and growth of the language and the people who used it; comments such as "It was an age when sensibilities grep so delicate that one lady was reported to have dressed her goldfish in miniature suits for the sake of propriety and a certain Madame de la Bresse left her fortune to provide clothing for the snowmen of Paris.", when talking about the prudery of the Victorian Age- when words such as 'legs' and 'stomach' were dismissed from polite company.

Besides being amusing the book provides a really interesting insight into how a language once spoken in one small village in Europe was carried over to the island of Britain from where it proceeded to take over the world (cue maniacal laughter).

First the Anglo-Saxons (who conquered the Celts in Britain) after whom the language was named, then the Normans from whose language English gets much of its vocabulary- though Bryson mentions that, curiously, a lot of the most basic words - in, on, at, the etc, in fact, most of the commonly used words remain Anglo-Saxon in origin.

All through, what becomes clear is that it is the openness of English to change, that has allowed it to spread so far. That in allowing people to adapt the language to their local needs(and sometimes adding words from their native tongues that are now used globally), it has become a global language.

There is something to be thankful for then, in that all those who tried to standardize the language- and there are some famous names here- such as Samuel Johnson (who was not successful) and some not so famous ones Robert Lowth (who, sadly for us was successful- it seems some of the more ridiculous laws of grammar that we follow can me attributed to him).

I most enjoyed though the chapters that dealt with the differences in American, British and occasionally, Australian English, as well as the regional dialects in each. Also very amusing were the chapters on British (and American) names, and on Swearing.

While people have criticized the book for its inaccuracies- such as perpetuating the myth that there are fifty different words for snow in Eskimo- I think its sort of like criticizinf Wikipedia for not being an accurate source of information. It isn't to be used as a primary source (which I think would be fairly obvious), but is meant as a starting point for interested people, and it certainly provides enough references for those who wish to dig deeper into the subject.