All the 1s

Written By: - Date published: 11:11 am, November 11th, 2011 - 34 comments
Categories: Deep stuff - Tags:

Eleven seconds after this goes up, it will be 11:11.11 11/11/11. Arbitrary but still pretty cool I guess. Once in a century event, having all the same numeral. Interesting to reflect on how much has changed since 11:11.11 11/11/1911. And how little. Wonder what it will be like at 11:11.11 11/11/2111. Better – is all we can hope.

34 comments on “All the 1s”

  1. Uturn 1

    Damn, I missed that historic moment. Can’t even remember what I was doing when it happened. People will ask me, where were you when it happened, and I’ll say I was reading The Standard. And they’ll say, Oh, then jump back in their hovercrafts and fly to the space rodeo.

    • fender 1.1

      and they’ll say…oh good on you….they set the standard!

    • Vicky32 1.2

      I will say that I was in a moderation meeting, eating dark almond chocolate bought by the boss, and discussing IELTS scores on written work we all marked after the tests yesterday. Yes, for the past X weeks, I have had a job! (Sadly, it ends next week).

  2. Nick C 2

    “Wonder what it will be like at 11:11.11 11/11/2111. Better – is all we can hope.”

    Wonder how long before ‘afewknowthetruth’ gets here to declare that humanity will be extinct by 2050 and we have no hope of reaching 2111..

    • Colonial Viper 2.1

      2B population is, technically, a long way from being extinct.

    • ianmac 2.2

      Might not be there to say I told you so Nick.

    • Afewknowthetruth 2.3

      Nick.

      Had to get a WOF for the car (even though I’m down to abour 20km use per week) and then there was bridge (got top today). After the lovely after-bridge session (in which I was told I really am quite nice, and my bridge partner confessed he is very worried he won’t be able to sell his house before the crash) I’m back!

      Yes, you’re right. TEOTWAWKI is now and the prospect of any of the fantasies for the tenty-second century that are promoted by maintream culture ever materialising are exactly zero.

      Indeed, many people in Europe and the US are wondering how they will get through the coming winter.

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-08/u-s-underwater-homeowners-increase-to-28-6-zillow-reports.html

      Never mind, NZ won the rugby world cup. And we have clowns in parliament to entertain those who are interested in being entertained by clowns.

      What I find interesting is that increasing numbers of ‘well-off’ thinking people are starting to realise the coming election is a sham and that the majority of candiates are totally unreliable and are liars.

      So that is progress of a sort.

  3. Dan hansen 3

    Random thoughts (indirectly related to world becoming extinct by 2050)

    Two things i dont get about all the concern regarding peak oil and how it will result in mankind reverting to the dark ages are

    1. As we run out of fossil fuels wont greenhouse gas plummet hence (largely) reserving over time the damage done?

    2. The assumption that the loss of fossil fuels has a large impact on the economy / quality of life, is that no alternatives found to fill the gap (ie assumption of static technological advances in energy technologies). This assumption goes against the basic principle of capitalism. Being where there a large financial opportunity there will a massive diversion of human and technical resources to solve it. In other words the company that can find the realistic cost effective alternative to fossil fuels will make billions if not trillions. This ‘prize’ will ensure an alternative found (that will be of a nature we can only dream about now).

    Ironically under socialism we screwed as not the incentive to solve the issue and innovate …so vote National peeps!

    • Colonial Viper 3.1

      This assumption goes against the basic principle of capitalism.

      Capitalism is not a principle of physics. It can and will fail.

      Price signals will not generate the motivation needed to spur new innovation.

      Also, just because people want to find a new cheap energy source, it doesn’t mean that it will be feasible or deployable.

      • Dan hansen 3.1.1

        “Price signals will not generate the motivation needed to spur new innovation.”

        Do you really believe that? The prize to solve it is massive – probably the greatest economic opportunity ever presented. Thats one hell of a price signal

        You rabbit on about the failing of capitalism being that it results in wealth transfer to the 1% ….those “1%” will be very motivated by the opportunity!!!

        Though I agree the ‘solution’ may well be one that results in greater wealth transfer but I have no doubt a solution will be found

        • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1

          Wow you really missed the boat here mate.

          Do you really believe that? The prize to solve it is massive – probably the greatest economic opportunity ever presented. Thats one hell of a price signal

          I don’t think you understand what is meant by a price signal. At US$100/oil, there is no incentive to find a true replacement to oil. The price signal is not consistently strong enough yet to act as a strong business case for billions in new investment in risky alternative energy research.

          By the time the price signal is strong enough consistently enough, it will be too late.

          those “1%” will be very motivated by the opportunity!!!

          It doesn’t matter. Most of the 1% have no skill in or concept of energy engineering, and throwing money at a problem guarantees nothing, in terms of deployable results. We’ve had the hydrogen fusion bomb for 50 years, but despite massive investments of time, expertise and money, no commercial fusion reactor has ever entered operation.

          but I have no doubt a solution will be found

          What innovative new grid-ready energy solution has been found in the last 10 years? Fuck all. And given that record how about in the next ten years? (Because thats about all we have left before energy depletion becames very steep).

          Yours is a statement of faith. Commendable from some aspects, but still nothing more than a statement of faith.

          Let me ask you a question. Even if you think its only a 10% or 20% probability, what happens to human civilisation if we dont find an alternative energy source to oil in enough time?

    • Uturn 3.2

      I hope you are right, but capitalism (among other isms) has always been a blunt and barbaric instrument. That being the case…

      “In other words the company that can find the realistic cost effective alternative to fossil fuels will make billions if not trillions.”

      will probably turn into a return to slavery and widescale people trading. At least intially.

      Capitalism: exerting the least amount of effort, for maximum profit, for at least 400 years.

      • Dan hansen 3.2.1

        I tend to agree – i have no doubt a solution will be found. Whether that solution results in greater equality is unlikely!

    • One Anonymous Bloke 3.3

      Dan: 1. There is a lag between CO2 and climate. If CO2 emissions stop today, the climate will take 30-40 years to reach a new equilibrium.
      2. The atmospheric CO2 concentration will last at this level for at least 1,000 years. The natural carbon cycle is slow.

      If we’re going to be saved by a hydrogen (or anti-matter) engine (and neither possibility looks very likely) we will need to invest in more blue skies R&D, the opposite of National’s plan. Oh, and if we want to be able to afford to do it, the evidence (remember – that stuff that courts require no matter how much you can smile and wave) is that Labour run the economy better.

    • Draco T Bastard 3.4

      1. As we run out of fossil fuels wont greenhouse gas plummet hence (largely) reserving over time the damage done?

      Nope.

      he scientists are confident, from the results of equations they used, that some warming would have to occur even if all emissions stopped now.

      This assumption goes against the basic principle of capitalism.

      Physics, AKA reality, trumps capitalism.

      Ironically under socialism we screwed as not the incentive to solve the issue and innovate

      Wrong, the incentive still exists (saving the world from the stupidity of the capitalists) and we won’t have the capitalists preventing it as they do now.

      • Dan hansen 3.4.1

        That makes no sense – you saying there no benefit to the environment from the decline in fossel fuel….if that true why are you so concerned about their increasing use. Major logic fail

        “Wrong, the incentive still exists (saving the world from the stupidity of the capitalists) and we won’t have the capitalists preventing it as they do now”

        Somebody is ignoring reality now – people motivated by money, without a capitalist led research effort the solution will not be found.

        • Draco T Bastard 3.4.1.1

          you saying there no benefit to the environment from the decline in fossel fuel

          Where did I say that? Oh, that’s right, I didn’t. You’re just putting words in my mouth.

          people motivated by money,

          No they aren’t. People are motivated by interest and purpose and so the motivation to find solutions will still exist. Only psychopaths are motivated by money.

          …without a capitalist led research effort the solution will not be found.

          A solution is more likely to be found without the capitalists as they tend to stand in the way and soak up all the wealth preventing R&D. If what you say worked then NActs tax cuts for the rich would have resulted in $1.1b per year investment in R&D – this didn’t, and won’t, happen.

          • Dan hansen 3.4.1.1.1

            You said “Nope” in response to my hypothese that the future decline in fossil fuels will lead to an improvement in the environemnt…..do you have a different meaning for the word “Nope”?

            “No they aren’t. People are motivated by interest and purpose and so the motivation to find solutions will still exist. Only psychopaths are motivated by money.”

            In an ideal fluffy, let all hold hands and hug trees world you would be right. In the real world where the capital for investment and innovation is controlled by corporates, then you need corporates motivated by wealth and profit to invest to solve the problem. You may dislike it but thats the world we live in

            • One Anonymous Bloke 3.4.1.1.1.1

              The future decline in fossil fuel emissions will not result in a natural reduction in atmospheric CO2 concentration (and consequent reduction in global average temperatures) for around 1,000 years. I don’t know how this can be made any clearer.

              Someone may figure out a way to scrub the excess CO2 out of the atmosphere, but don’t hold your breath.

              • Dan hansen

                I understand that, but presumably it will slow the growth in climate change related side effects?

                In other words if we stopped today we in a better position than if we stop in 50 years time?

                • Afewknowthetruth

                  Dan

                  Reduced economic activity would reduce the rate at which the CO2 content of the atmosphere is rising but would not stop it rising. Zero economic activity [based on fossil fuels use] may.

                  However, do not forget the Global Dimming factor. Less economic activity = less pollution in the atmospshere = less Global Dimming = a surge in temperatures.

                  Also, positive feedbacks have already been triggered, so even if were stopped adding CO2 to the atmospshere tomorrow the level would continue to rise.

                  The time to address this dilemma was before it reached the crisis point -say 30 years ago.

                • lprent

                  Basically once you put extra CO2 into the atmosphere through whatever means, then it is there for thousands of years affecting climate. Effectively it is irreversible because the resource cost of scrubbing gigatonnes of CO2 out of the atmosphere and oceans is too high to be achievable.

                  All that is feasible to do now is to reduce how high the end consequences to something that human civilisation can survive are by reducing how much more green house gas gets added. Reduce (and eventually eliminate) our dependence on burning fossil carbon, and stop increasing the expansion of shorter period/ higher impact greenhouse gases like methane.

                  The reason for doing the latter is to reduce the risk of inducing a rapid runaway feedback that causes a rapid chnge in climate resulting in a fast dieback. For instance like the climate induced mass extinction at the start of the Eocene. That was probably from a runaway release of methane from methane clathrates after volcanoes slowly raised CO2. Of course that happened over tens of thousands of years to do what we have done in a century or two – so it doesn’t really apply as a example. Our own terraforming is likely to be faster and nastier.

                  Like anyone who did earth sciences in the early 80’s when the causes of paleo climate shifts was becoming widely known in te field, I am mostly fascinated with just how bad and fast the effects will be. And I’ve been expecting them to start kicking in over these decades (as they are) and getting worse rapidly.

                  What we are looking at now is how close we are going to push people in the latter part of this century and the next to a mass extinction of humans as our farming industry gets destroyed by ever more extreme weather.

            • Draco T Bastard 3.4.1.1.1.2

              in response to my hypothese that the future decline in fossil fuels will lead to an improvement in the environemnt

              No you didn’t. Here’s what you said:

              As we run out of fossil fuels wont greenhouse gas plummet hence (largely) reserving over time the damage done?

              Which I said “Nope” to because, if you’d read the link, you would have learned that GHG in the atmosphere won’t plummet and so decreasing fossil fuels won’t stop the damage increasing. Sure, after 1000 years or more, the decrease of GHG in the atmosphere will allow the temperature to come down again but by then the damage would already have been done.

              In the real world where the capital for investment and innovation is controlled by corporates, then you need corporates motivated by wealth and profit to invest to solve the problem.

              Well, that’s the problem – corporates motivated by greed don’t belong in reality. This is because their psychopathy is bad for society and the Earth.

              • Dan hansen

                I said “over time” – which technically covers a 1000 years 🙂

                “Well, that’s the problem – corporates motivated by greed don’t belong in reality. This is because their psychopathy is bad for society and the Earth.”

                I agree with you on both counts (bad for society and earth)…it doesn’t make it any less true and that the reality we faced with like it or not.

                Capitalism may have caused the issue (and I suspect if given the chance communism would have also)

                But for reasons outlined above, capitalism also the solution. There is a massive profit pool to solve climate change – they will chase this profit pool with unbridled passion and wealth and will ultimately find the solution

                Governments on the other hand will negotiate, talk and have conferences and accords (Kyoto) and ultimately achieve very little

                One thing the government could do is offer a 100% tax break for any climate change and alternative energy research

                • Draco T Bastard

                  I said “over time” – which technically covers a 1000 years

                  Plummet doesn’t 😛

                  …it doesn’t make it any less true and that the reality we faced with like it or not.

                  Society sets the rules – not the corporates.

                  (and I suspect if given the chance communism would have also)

                  In the prevailing mode of the last century which was defined by massively increasing population and living standards, agreed. Now, with how much we know about climate, poverty, limited resources etc etc – probably not.

                  Governments on the other hand…

                  Governments should be the administrative arm of the people. It’s the people with the interest and the purpose to get things done. So, we vote on what needs to be done and how the resources that we have need to be distributed to achieve that and then the administration ensures that it is done.

                  One thing the government could do is offer a 100% tax break for any climate change and alternative energy research

                  There’s no real point in trying to maintain the delusional financial system.

    • Afewknowthetruth 3.5

      Dan.

      ‘1. As we run out of fossil fuels wont greenhouse gas plummet hence (largely) reserving over time the damage done?’

      Answer: The emissions may possibly delcine as induistrial activity declines by ANY emissions add to the total carbon dioxide in the biosphere and add the the greenhouse effect. Only a total cessation of the use of fossil fuels can put humanity on a path ot long term survival (if it’s not already too late).

      ‘2. The assumption that the loss of fossil fuels has a large impact on the economy / quality of life, is that no alternatives found to fill the gap (ie assumption of static technological advances in energy technologies). This assumption goes against the basic principle of capitalism’

      Answer: The basic pronciples of capitalism are totally irrelevant. Capitalism is simply a system for looting resources and converting them into waste using readily available energy sources and money created out of thin air.

      Understanding Energy Return On Energy Invested and understanding [chemical] bond energies help a lot in understanding why so-called alternvies do not stack up and never will.

  4. 11/11/11 @ 11:11 am 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 = 10 and in numerology 10 is broken down to 1 and 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 = 11. 11 is a power number and 1+1 can be broken down to 2.

    Interesting that a 2 comes up in the mix as the year is 2011.

  5. Dan hansen 5

    I didnt know that regarding the lag (thanks for the insight) – though i presume as fossil fuel use declines, the growth in carbon must also decline then, ultimately fall? ie wont get worse!

    I think you missed my point regarding who invests in the innovation….it would be the capitalist private sector, not goverments that invest…..

    • RedLogix 5.1

      No the private sector is only interested in relatively low risk investments that will return a profit in the short-term. That’s why you see private capital invested in corner dairies, real estate agents, car yards and farms.

      Only the public sector has the capacity to sustain long-term investment. This is why it was governments who built schools, hospitals, railways and roads, telephone systems, build water supply and treatment pipes and plants, run public health inspectors, collect rubbish, manage land and biodiversity issues. It’s why governments undertook space exploration, run universities, fund basic science like the CERN accelerator.. and so on.

      The private and public components of this system are complements, and totally depend on each other. You have fallen for the neo-liberal fallacy that private = always good and public = always bad.

      Ultimately it will be governments, or more likely a federation of governments, who will eventually be compelled to act on climate change. No other conceivable entity has the capacity to undertake such an enormous, complex and challenging task that spans such deep time periods.

      This is why the problem has proven so intractable; at this stage of our global history we simply do not have the political mechanisms with the global scope and capacity to effectively engage this challenge. And it is why ordinary people like us feel confused and disempowered.

      • Afewknowthetruth 5.1.1

        RL

        It would be well to note that western governments are simply the local agents of global corporations and money-lenders, and are only tolerated if they do the corporations and money-lenders bidding. Hence the mantra of economic-growth-at-any- cost.

        Note that leaders who fall foul of corporations and money-lenders are quickly eliminated, as per presidents Lincoln, Garfield, Kennedy, and dictators Hussein, Gadaffi etc. Leaders who do the bidding of money-lenders and corporations are supported, as per Tony B Liar, the Saudi regime etc.

        If you look to governments for solutions to social and environmental predicaments you will be constantly disappointed. Looking to govenrmentas and district coumcils etc. to implement solutions was the mistake I (and others) made many years ago.

        I (we) now see the light. I (we) now recognise that governments and political parties are friends of coprorations and are enemies of the common people. Governments are also enemies of most living organisms on this planet.They have to be because governments are required to promote prepetual expansion of the industrial econony.

        Hence, we must expect kiwis (the bird variety) to become extinct in the near futrre and kiwis of the human variety to become extinct some time this later century (though there is the possibility of some remnant surviving in the southern region of the south island at the end of the century, depending on the severity of climate change).

        • RedLogix 5.1.1.1

          Whether you are correct or not about the manner in which governments have been captured by corporate/banking interests was not really the point I was making.

          If we are going to suceed in beating our addiction to growth, carbon and materialism we need to talk about what the ingredients of such a success might be. You more than any of us here know how intractable the problem has been, not technically, but politically. Carbon is essentially a global political problem, one that ultimately demands a global political solution.

          At present we do not have that solution, because we lack the means to act universally in the interests of the entire human race, or the planet upon which all creatures depend.

          I want to assume that a solution is possible. After all politics is the art of the possible; it is only man-made rules and conventions, what we have made we can un-make. Once we have the political levers then the technologies of PowerDown and PermaCulture are problems easy by comparison.

          The alternative is to assume we will not find that solution; in which case you are right and we are doomed to mass die-off. But there’s not a lot of point in talking about that.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.2

          This is simply fear of the “other” wrapped up in political jargon. The problem has been created by the “other” (“governments and corporations”) and always seems to be happening to someone else (Kiwis, “the common people”).

          It goes something like this: (evil) corporations created the problem, governments can’t do anything about it, doom on you, doom on you, doom on you ad nauseam.

          Those of us who recognise that governments are the people, together with the corporations who see the issue clearly (like insurance companies for example) have a chance to address this problem before AFKTT’s wet dream becomes real.

          What we are is part of the solution. And if you’re not part of the solution…

    • Afewknowthetruth 5.2

      Dan

      Governments. corporations, capitalism and use of fossil fuels are a short term aberration in the grand scheme of things; they have only existed in combination for approximately 200 out of the past 200,000 years of humanity’s existence. For most of humanitiy’s existence humans never exceeded 10 million in number and lived as just one of a mutlitude of species on Earth withiout severely damaging it.

      Things are in the process of rapidly returning to normal.

      Since ‘Ben’ found this link interesting and informative I’ll resubmit it:

      http://www.publishme.co.nz/shop/theeasyway-p-684.html

  6. Dan hansen 6

    Thanks for all the replies guys – was very informative.

    Dan.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago