Front-Door, Back-Door – The Either/Or Mind Sets of Scientist, Engineers and Technologists

Front-door and back-door is a phrase I came across when reading a book about the knowledge era (The Knowledge Society by Marc Luyckx Ghisi). Front-door/back-door is a term that describes a characteristic of the way many scientists, engineers and technologists think. Basically it means that choice is reduced to two options: either we continue forward along the path we have previously followed, making so-called progress (i.e. we go out of the front-door), or we turn back, and resort to some earlier less sophisticated existence (i.e. we go out of the back-door). No thoughts here of walking different paths, just one path to follow, regardless of the consequences. This is social Darwinism at work, and most scientific, engineering and technology types are social Darwinists, and a frightening lot they can be. Truly mad, yet many would dare to say so – something of a modern day heresy to do so. And what one can say about people caught up in dogma, is that for them, heretics are dangerous people, for they sow the seeds of doubt, and raise questions for which the dogma has no convincing answers.

Having worked with scientists, engineers and technologists for most of my professional life, I have encountered this simplistic front-door/back-door belief many, many times, so much so that it has become a recurring theme in my writing (see for example my novel Moments in Time which is due to be published in early 2014).

Back in 2012 I attended a lecture (organised by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers) entitled “Is the World Running out of Energy?”  Of course, this is not so, we are just using too much energy, and of the wrong kind (e.g. fossil fuels). At the end of the lecture, making my way out of the room, I stopped and told the lecturer that the title of her lecture was the wrong question to ask, and what we should be asking is: “Are we using energy that we do not need to use?” The reply, was of course, that this is true, as we are indeed ridiculously inefficient when it comes to energy use. My reply was that this was not my point. What I wanted to communicate to her, was that the way society is structured, organised, and operates creates demands for consumption that can be avoided and which are also unsustainable, which was the underlying reason for my question. What we need to do is to change structure, organisation and modes of operation.

The speaker’s reply was one that could have been predicted: “We cannot put back the clock,” she said, to which I replied “I was proposing to put the clock forward, and leave behind outdated ideas and ways of thinking.”

So, yet again, no thoughts in this person of walking a different path! In fact, no thoughts at all, because such people on the whole do not do much thinking, and this is a serious problem that is leading the world to the edge of doom. This is something that most know is true, but we prefer instead to maintain the collective delusion that all will be well. This is also something that I write about in my stories. Incidentally Voltaire in his novel Candide provides a good definition of this type of blind optimism: “Optimism is a mania for insisting that all is well when all is by no means well.”

The problem with not thinking is that your awareness of this circumstance is virtually non-existent. So, the problem gets ignored; which is why I write. Is anyone taking note, or am I Cassandra?

I once told someone what defines most engineers: “An engineer is someone, who, if you ask him (it is usually a “him”) to build a bridge, he will build you a bridge; an engineer is also someone who, if you ask if a bridge is needed, will still build you a bridge.”

We have as a civilisation reached a point where we need to begin to walk a different path, to reinvent some of the foundational aspects of our societies: religion, science, technology, engineering, free market capitalism, and so forth. Yet you will not find consideration of such matters among the bulk of people who, one can say, are the practitioners in these various domains. What you will find however are a lot of collective delusions (like for example the thought leadership claims of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, and that other engineering institution, the Institution of Engineering and Technology). This is what happens when people become caught up in ideologies, start to believe their own propaganda, engage in hubris, and live the story of the emperor’s new clothes.

This is why I wrote my books Encounter with a Wise Man, A Tale of Two Deserts, and Moments in Time, which highlight the ideological tendencies, delusions, and madness that are creating a world that no sane person would want to be a part of. It is also why I urge people to stand-up now and take peaceful action to bring this madness to an end. We have the means – your vote, your wallet and your lifestyle choices. And people should act soon, as time left to avoid the inevitable consequences of our present path grows short.

There are choices, and also far better worlds, which, we as individuals have the power to make happen. And if you think this is about socialism then you are indeed a lost soul, caught-up in a world that long ago ceased to be relevant. This, one can also say, is the story of progress; somehow finding a way of handling all those people that for reasons of fear, lack of vision and imagination, ideology, and vested interest, will try to stop an evolution towards this better world. And about how to do this, I have said a few words in my book, A Tale of Two Deserts, and I will say much more in due course in future blogs. Self evidently, one cannot build a better world by resorting to the traditional methods for dealing with opposition used in the world one is trying to replace.

The Case of the Engineer who could not Move beyond Science and being Meticulous

This might seem like a rather weird blog entry as I am going to write about baking – yes, I am referring to cakes, biscuits, pies and so forth!

Specifically I am referring to a cookery programme – a rather innovative one – broadcast on BBC1 on Tuesday September 17^th 2013. It is called the Great British Bake Off – a baking competition run over several weeks where competitors are judged on the tasks set for them and each week one contestant is awarded the accolade of star baker, and another one is expelled from the programme.

Now to the matter of The Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE)! What, you ask, has this to do with baking?

In a previous blog I have mentioned the IMechE’s tabloid-style magazine that drops through my letter box every month. The September 2013 issue was full of its usual hubris, and one item in particular: The case of the engineer who could not move beyond science and being meticulous. If you look into this issue, you will not find any article referring to this case. What you will see however is proud boasting (in the column entitled Engineering Eye) about an engineer appearing as a contestant in the Great British Bake Off.

What one reads about is an engineer, “wowing the judges with his precisely engineered baking” and how he “stayed cool (under pressure) and relied on science.” In Tuesday’s programme, the engineer was the one to be expelled, and one of the judges’ comments was very telling: “he started off a proper scientist, very meticulous, but that’s really where he stayed.” This, it can be said, well illustrates the problem with modern engineers and engineering. Put another way – unable to move beyond the past and no longer fit for purpose.

I am an amateur cook and baker myself and I know that it is not just about recipes, the science involved in cooking, and being meticulous (sometimes necessary but not always). One also has to have a passion for baking, to engage with the ingredients at an emotional level, and understand how textures and tastes can be used to create an emotional experience, both for the baker and for those that eat the end result, and also to experience that moment of joy together with the people one is baking for. There is also an ingredient in home baked produce that you will not find in any shop bought produce: a little bit of love! And this is the image of engineering that I would like to see developed, not a cold, soulless and mechanistic perspective, which is sadly what I saw when watching the Great British Bake Off.

Yes, we need people who can focus on the low level issues and who can bring precision to bear, and I have no doubt that the engineer in question is very good at his job, but we should understand well the dangers inherent in a perspective that values these attributes in an occupation, for they lead to great troubles, as the predicament of the modern world well illustrates.

Life’s precious moments and experiences are most definitely not about “faster, better, cheaper”. The tendency of the modern world to reduce the most valuable moments in our lives to something to be done more efficiently, which is a core value of engineering, should be deplored, not celebrated. We should not be seeking to promote as a role model the mechanistic worldview that is part of science and engineering, and we should most definitely discourage young people from working in an outdated, backward looking occupation such as engineering, lacking in vision, unable to provide thought leadership, and notably unable to engage in self questioning and criticism – this is the problem with hubris, as there is no room at all for doubt, hence one never is able to engage in thought leadership, and one must then create the delusion of such (as the IMechE and the IET do).

Throughout my writings you will find criticism of contemporary science, engineering and technology. This is done for a purpose. I am edging towards considering how these aspects of our civilisation can be changed. I started this blog back in July 2013, with a first entry which was entitled “This is the journey …” And indeed, coming to the realisation that science, engineering and technology are seriously flawed and no longer fit for purpose, is a journey – one of self discovery and learning, leading, in a very gradual way, towards the point where people begin to understand that a new path is needed. If you want to know more about this, then you will have to make the journey. This is the journey …

Social Reform Back on the Agenda – The Archbishop of Canterbury and Payday Loan Companies

Back in June 2013, the new Archbishop of Canterbury (Justin Welby) announced that he intends to put payday loan companies out of business. It is very pleasing to see, once again, an established church taking an active role in building a better world, instead of just talking about this better world. An when I say building a better world, I am not referring to the many good things that individuals and local churches do in the community, but addressing the big issues that can make a major difference in the lives of the poor and the vulnerable in society.

We have in the UK, and probably also elsewhere in Europe, a rather strange attitude to the making of money, and a willingness to tolerate people doing this in any way they can regardless of the cost in terms of impact on individual’s lives. Thus, when, back in 2011, during what the press called an anti-capitalist sit-in (actually the Occupy London Protest against the damaging antics of the financial sector), I saw the Bishop of London standing on the steps of St Paul’s Cathedral in London, speaking silver-tongued words about the Church having its own way of dealing with financial institutions, I somehow knew that what he was saying was, we have a vested interest in keeping things the way the are. And so it turns out they do, for no sooner had the Archbishop made his announcement about payday loan companies, than the press were revealing that the Church of England, indirectly invests its capital in payday loan companies!

What this tells us is that the established churches should be taking a careful look at where their money is invested, and be engaging in ethical investments. And there are many unethical investments that can be made: tobacco industry, armaments industry (euphemistically called defence industry), gaming and gambling, usury, and so forth, not to mention specific companies in numerous sectors that one would not want to be associated with.

But the same also applies to us as individuals as well. We all need to take a careful look at where we are investing our savings. This does not meaning rushing out to change our investment portfolios – this of course is something that takes time to address. But next time anyone is looking to make investment, they should take a closer look at exactly what they are investing in. And this is an example of how we can use our wallets and spending decisions to change the world, for if people start to boycott certain sectors of the economy, certain companies, then, the journey towards change starts. The more people who think like this, the faster change will come. This is the nature of the world we now live in – for the first time in history ordinary people have significant power to bring about positive change in the world. They should use this power.

I wish the Archbishop success in his endeavour, but I also urge people to build on this initiative in their own lives, by also disowning unethical businesses – if you have a choice do not work for them, do not trade with them, do not buy from them, do not invest in them. Focus on ethical businesses and give them your support, and in doing so, contribute towards bringing spirituality into free market capitalism – something that is much needed.

Interpreting the Meaning of Richard Parker and the Life of Pi

Who and what is Richard Parker? Perhaps you already know that Richard Parker is the name of the 450 lb Royal Bengal tiger that appears in Yann Martel’s book, Life of Pi (and also in the film of the same title). This one might say is a literal answer to the question just posed, but what of the figurative one?

First I will say that, what is written here in this blog entry, is founded on the book and not the film. As with most films based on books, material is often left out, rearranged, and new content added, so I highly recommend a reading of the book if you are intrigued by the messages in Martel’s story.

If you are not familiar with the book, then it has the same structure as the film. Part 1 is Pi growing up in India, Part 2 is the story of what happened with the tiger in the lifeboat in the Pacific, and Part 3 is the interview with the two investigators from the Japanese Ministry of Transport. Intermingled among the story are chapters which present the perspective of the writer, who is researching Pi’s tale. There is also an Author’s Note – a Prologue – at the beginning of the book, where the reader encounters these words: “I have a story that will make you believe in God.”

Before proceeding, I want to explain that I am looking at the Life of Pi from the perspective of an author and writer, and one who engages in allegorical story telling (e.g. see A Tale of Two Deserts). I also mention here that in my stories there is invariably a reference to God. Perhaps you think therefore that I am a religious person? Think again! Over the course of my life I have explored Hebrew, Christian, Islamic and Buddhist theologies, as well as more esoteric and exotic spiritual practices. Why I have done this I will not say, but I will mention that, as result, I can well understand Pi and his comprehension that being a Hindu, a Christian and a Muslim, all at the same time, may well be illogical from the viewpoint of the mind, but is not so from the perspective of the soul!

Finally, I make an observation about the writing process. No doubt Yann Martel had many conscious themes in mind when he wrote his story. But, writing is not just the act of the conscious mind, but also the sub-conscious as well. Often I have written stories, and then looked at them and realised that they speak of matters that were not at all on my mind. And so it is with the Life of Pi. This is one of the great beauties of the book, as many interpretations are possible, as well as the literal reading. One can say that this is the point of the book – there is no single reality, just different interpretations of reality (some individual, some collective).

So what of the literal reading of this book? One answer is that the story can be seen as a tale of epic endurance and survival, and also self-discovery in the process. One can also see the story in the light of the central character, Pi, explaining in palatable terms, how he survived. At the end of the book, Pi encounters the two Japanese maritime investigators seeking to understand the reasons for the loss of the ship upon which Pi and his family and their zoo animals were being transported from India to Canada. These two people do not believe the story about the tiger and the other animals in the lifeboat, and push Pi for a more believable account, which he duly delivers, not necessarily because the story with the animals is untrue, more because the investigators want something that their rational minds can believe. But this alternative story is a tale of individual survival at any price, with brutality, violence, killing and cannibalism. So in the end, when asked which story they prefer, they chose the one with the animals – most of us would!

Evidently though there is more here than just a choice between two stories, as the opening of the book strongly indicates: “I have a story that will make you believe in God.”

Part I of Life of Pi sets the scene for what follows in Parts II and III. Here, in this scene setting, one can see that the book is about God, spirituality and religion, and the soul and the mind, and also the biological business of surviving, without which the soul would have no human place to reside and there would be no mind. Life of Pi is also a story about animal behaviour and the strange relationships that can exist among animals, particularly that which sometimes happens between a predator and its prey.

Part I places a lot of emphasis on names. The tiger has a full human name (prename and surname) Richard Parker. It is the only non-human animal in the story to have a human name, as all the other animals have pet names (e.g. the orang-utan is called Orange Juice). The giving of names to people is something that is very human, and this suggests that Richard Parker represents some aspect of humanity.

Also encountered in Part I are two people with identical names: Mr Kumar. Both are devout believers that have taken a leap of faith. One is a Muslim, whose act of faith is to believe in God, the other is a scientist whose act of faith is believe that science can explain everything, so belief in God is not necessary. What we can see here is a pointer to something that comes again later in the story: the coexistence in one person of apparently completely different beliefs, which is illogical from the standpoint of the rational mind. The soul however knows differently, that beliefs, often contradictory, can be just different ways of coming to know God, but, I would add, only if spirituality is present.

This issue arises again, when Pi, being a Hindu, discovers Christianity, and then next, Islam. He wants to be a Hindu, a Christian and a Muslim, but is told that he cannot be all three. Yes, there are theological differences, many incompatible, but the soul knows that these religions are just different ways of coming to know God, and Pi quotes Ghandi, who said that all religions are true.

The argument that one cannot at the same time be a follower of three very different religions, is, self-evidently, a reasoning that comes from the mind, and this is vividly displayed when Pi encounters, while out walking with his parents, his three religious guides: the Hindu pandit, the Christian priest, the Muslim imam. All three end up arguing among themselves about the truth of their own beliefs and the nonsense of the others’ beliefs. This one can say is the darker side to religion and earlier there is also reference to this, for when Pi first enters a church he mentions that “it (Christianity) had a reputation for few gods and great violence.” And then later, when first entering a mosque, “Islam had a reputation worse than Christianity – fewer gods, greater violence.” And when explaining Hinduism even earlier in the book, Pi mentions the curse of fundamentalism and literalism, and also recounts the Hindu story of Lord Krishna, who makes himself so abundant he is available in the arms of all the milkmaids with whom he dances, only to vanish as soon as any of the girls becomes possessive and imagines Krishna is her partner alone.

This can be seen later in the figurative tale of the time spent in the Pacific Ocean with the tiger. Pi encounters a mysterious island, which seems to be composed of tubers of algae. The outer parts of these tubers are edible, but the inner cores are inedible, being bitter and salty. Also on the island there is plenty of fresh water, and also, millions of meerkats (one can see these as representing the billions of religious people in the world). So it seems that both Pi and Richard Parker have found a place where they can be refreshed and their lives can be sustained. But, the island, just like religion, is not all that it appears, for it has a dark secret which Pi does not immediately discover.

Choosing only to spend daylight hours on the island and the nocturnal hours on the lifeboat, Pi observes that Richard Parker will not spend the night on the island. Pi only discovers the reason for this when he decides to spend a night sleeping in one of the many trees on the island. Then he learns that the meerkats will not remain on the ground during nocturnal hours, but at dusk, head en-masse, for the trees. And the reason for this? Pi discovers that the island and the fresh water, become at night, acidic, and consume anything that comes into contact with them. And so it goes with religion too, once spirituality is lost, religion consumes people. They become no better than animals. Which one can say is also the same for the fourth religion, science, which, being Godless and soulless, lacks the spiritual understandings of humanity’s uniqueness among life on earth, and the lack of such understandings and respect for human life, inevitably leads to … that which is described in the second story, survival at any price, with great brutality, violence, and killing. This we have seen aplenty in the 20^th century, and here I refer to the godlessness and soullessness of communism and fascism, and their links to rational thinking, social Darwinism, conceptions of people as just being part of a nameless mass, and so forth.

Next day, Pi leaves the island, preferring life in a small boat with a tiger, to that which the island offers.

Now I come to the point in my commentary, which I feel is the most important, and this relates to what Pi and Richard Parker represent.

Here I mention that in Part I there is much made of relationships between predators and prey, and how dangerous animals can be trained and why this is possible: in essence it is a matter of territory and who is the boss. This is knowledge that Pi puts to good use in the Pacific Ocean when he begins to train Richard Parker, so that Pi can stay aboard the lifeboat, and not have to retreat to the makeshift raft that he is forced to construct to keep a safe distance from the tiger.

More now on the matter of names, and Pi, who is, quite oddly, named after a Paris swimming pool: Piscine Molitor. So Pi is, Piscine Molitor Patel, but at school he was called Pissing Patel. Naturally, on starting at a new school Pi was keen to rid himself of this phonetic corruption of his given name, and he introduces himself as Pi, that number from geometry, 3.14, that is the constant which is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. But, the number Pi is not 3.14, but 3.1415…. In other words it is a number without end. Pi in fact is known as a transcendental number. And what aspect of humans is transcendental? It is of course the soul.

Here one has the crux of the story, which is not literally a young man alone with a tiger in a lifeboat adrift in the Pacific Ocean, but a soul, with its curse, the human mind, apparently alone and adrift in the great ocean of life. And the human mind (represented by the tiger) is dangerous, just like Richard Parker is dangerous, for if the mind is allowed to, it will dominate the soul, which, if not sustained, will perish. But in fact, both need each other. The soul needs the mind, for it is this aspect of humanity that is capable of devising the ways that delivers sustenance and also material comforts for the body, but without the soul, the mind is just part of an animal, and if the mind is not trained to respond to the soul, it would on its own, create a Godless and soulless world (as modern science and industrial era capitalism are presently doing). This is also the world that results from religion without spirituality, science without spirituality, and capitalism without spirituality. And the outcome is clear to all, for the madness of the mind can be seen in everyday life across the planet and across history: the horror and brutality than men create comes from the mind, simply because they have lost their souls or their souls are dying.

Out in the Pacific, Pi does battle with the tiger, or figuratively the soul battles the mind. He knows he has to do something about the tiger, but what? Pi runs through five plans to deal with Richard Parker, all of which are unrealistic. Then he hits on plan number six: wage a war of attrition. Time, Pi thinks, is on his side. Without food and water the tiger will weaken and eventually die. Seems like the right way forward, only it is not! Pi quickly comes to realise that hunger and thirst will drive the tiger from the lifeboat, into the sea, to swim the short distance to the raft, where a meal (Pi) is waiting.

Then Richard Parker does something unusual – he makes the prusten sound, which is a communication a tiger makes, indicating non-threatening harmless intention. Then Pi realises that there is plan number seven, which is to keep Richard Parker alive. So he sets about training the tiger, showing it that, Pi is the boss, and that they both have their own territories. This is partly what spiritual development is about.

What this story ultimately says, is that there are many religions, including science, none of which are the sole source of the truth. Just as there are many religions, there are many paths to God. All religions (except science) involve a battle between the soul and the mind, and if the mind wins, hell usually follows in the wake of its victory – here I will just mention one example: The Crusades. With science there is no battle, for the mind dominates and the soul begins to die, and hell will, without doubt, follow – here I will just mention one example: Auschwitz. But it is also possible to move on from religion, and for the soul to engage in this battle on its own and ultimately to come to know God on its own.

And there you have it – my interpretations, which are in fact, I admit, the underlying themes of my own writing. So perhaps what I see in this book is what I want to see, but perhaps not. Who can say?

Fracking – It’s that Prometheus Syndrome Again!

In September 2012 I attended a lecture given by Peter Turner, a founder of Cuadrilla Resources; a lecture organised the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Turner is a geoscientist, and what he said was quite interesting. You might think that, being a geoscientist he would have been able to explain what caused the earth tremors that caused the fracking operations (otherwise known as hydraulic fracturing of shale rock (to release natural gas)) near Blackpool in the UK to be halted. You would be very wrong. Turner admitted during this lecture that he and his company did not know why these tremors had occurred. As I mentioned in a previous blog, scientists and engineers do not know what they are doing, but this will not stop them from doing it. And the reasons for this are?

There are several answers to this question. The first is that they are Prometheans. Their feet and minds are firmly planted in the past, where they are bound by unbreakable chains, and, being blind to the damage that they have caused to the natural world over the centuries, they see the future as the past, only with slightly more advanced technology. That this future also involves more destruction of the ecosystem that we depend upon for life, that it will entail more exploitation of the weak and vulnerable, that it has nothing to offer in dealing with the problems now so numerous that there is a danger that we will be overwhelmed by them … well, these Prometheans have nothing to say about such matters, except that the risks can be managed. And about this phrase I will say more in a future blog.

The other major reason for continuing with fracking is self-evidently that of money, and this is why vested interests (the engineering industry and engineering institutions, and investors) and the British Government are pushing for fracking in the UK to go ahead. It is very clear that there are huge potential tax revenues tempting the UK Government as well as the revenues that will flow from the sale of gas exploration rights. There will also be some job creation (and preservation) as a result of fracking. The UK Government’s policy on re-balancing the economy also means that it favours economic developments based in science, engineering and technology: hence the decision to go ahead with building more nuclear power stations; the recent push to allow the use of GM crops; and the unwillingness to support the EU ban on some neonicotinoids.

Recently the Church of England (CoE) waded into the debate about fracking, offering a surprisingly poorly informed statement on the matter. Quite rightly the CoE pointed out that we should be concerned about those who suffer from fuel poverty. Yet there are other policy interventions that can be made to help such people, which do not involve plundering the earth of its natural resources. The CoE also seem to be implying that exploitation of shale gas resources will result in lower gas prices in the UK. How is this so? We have oil resources in the North Sea, but this does not result in low prices at the petrol pumps in the UK!

I do not have any idea what we will be paying for natural gas in 10 years time, with or without UK shale gas. What I do know is that natural gas is a globally traded commodity, and its price has been historically linked to oil prices, which is partly why we have been paying so much for gas over the past years. I also know that demand for oil is increasing and its price is forecast to continue to increase. So too will gas prices, not just because of the link to oil price, but also because the demand for natural gas is also forecast to grow, and when demand increases, prices tend to rise. And both the UK government and investors in shale gas will want to maximise their revenues. Diesel fuel was at one time much cheaper in the UK, than petrol. This is no longer the case. This is because diesel is an industrial fuel and demand for diesel is increasing in the developing world, which is partly why diesel prices are now so high. Natural Gas is also an industrial fuel. Demand is also increasing. It will increase further as a result of people substituting natural gas for oil and coal. It is likely therefore, that prices will increase!

Evidently, there are many factors at play which will determine future gas prices. When trying to estimate future prices, one has to make assumptions. If the assumptions made are incorrect, or factors change, then so too will be the estimated prices. So, why the CoE has, at this stage, linked fracking with relieving the problem of fuel poverty in the UK, is baffling. The Department for Energy and Climate Change have already commissioned a study on the affect of unconventional gas on UK gas prices. In due course we will closely analyse the resulting report to see just how likely will be, the predicted fall in UK gas prices.

The CoE statement also mentions the potential job creation that will come from fracking. The problem though that these are jobs from the past, from the industrial era, and ones that also just disappear once the gas is gone. What we need in the UK are jobs that are sustainable, that are based on energy sources that have a future, that create products and services that other countries will want to buy, that will provide a platform for further developments, creating employment for future generations.

Those who support fracking argue that natural gas is better than coal in terms of green house gas emissions. This of course is true, but the environmental argument is not based on choosing the lesser of two evils, but about ridding the world of dependence on fossil fuels. This aspect of the debate tends to be overlooked among those keen to support fracking.

We have, as a society, already used more than our fair share of oil and natural gas. The exploitation of shale gas can be seen as the act of a civilisation that is so desperate to get its hands on fossil fuels, that it is resorting to “scrapping the barrel” for the last remnants. What is left does not belong to us. We should leave it where it is so that future generations can use it if they need it. What we should be doing is beginning the process of transitioning away from fossil fuels, and ending our addiction to them. This is something that future generations will thank us for. They will certainly not thank us for a legacy that leaves them no natural resources, which is the inevitable outcome of policies that support fracking. Have a think about how much conflict there will be in a resource depleted world, when those with military might begin to use it to exert control over these resources.

And what of this Royal Academy of Engineering report that the CoE mentions? This you might think is an independent body, so this report can be taken as meaningful. You can believe this if you want to, but such bodies are only as independent as those that serve on the working parties that produce, review, and approve such reports. The report states that members of the working group declared any potential conflicts of interest (CoIs), but does not state if there were any, and what these were. The essence of independence is not having any CoIs as well as not being willing to just produce the expected outcome.

Believe if you want in the independence of the report, but after working for over 30 years with scientists, engineers and technologist, I have never met any that were truly independent, that did not have an agenda, and did not act, in some degree, for their own benefit – this is human. People advise in their own interests, and the dynamics of these so called independent working groups, are mostly such that they deliver the answers that their sponsor is looking for. If you doubt this, you should read the story of the emperor’s new clothes. Collective denial and delusion are everywhere.

I will be undertaking a very close and detailed review of this report in the future, and will deliver my final “professional” opinion on it in due course. My preliminary assessment is that it is not demonstrated in the report, that it is independent. Readers will have to decide for themselves, but should note that truly independent people are like eagles – you find them one at a time, and they do not flock.

Fracking will most likely happen. Let us not however pretend that this will be so because it is best for the people of the UK, for it will go ahead because it is best for certain vested interests: the UK Government, investors, engineering companies, engineers, engineering bodies, researchers and consultants, experts, and the like. And people should use their vote and their right to peacefully protest to show their objections to this. And, if we can discover who has commercial links with companies who will be involved in fracking, then perhaps also commercial boycotts of these companies and organisations might help. We all have wallets and purses and a right to decide whose products and services we purchase. These are the means by which we can peacefully bring about a better world.

See my later entry: See-through Engineering and Fracking