Why we shouldn't make Climate Change about Nature

In today's world, there are very few topics which are uncontroversial enough that a person can freely write about. Luckily, climate change and its media coverage seems to be one of them.

When it comes to climate change, media has taken a stance where mitigating the ill effects of human-induced climate change is portrayed as "helping nature." While any attempt to mitigate ill effects is commendable, I feel that portraying climate change in a "digestible" fashion focusing on the narrative rather than the hard truth is trying to manipulate people into doing the "right" thing.

The biggest threats of climate change are shrinkage of land area, worsening of weather phenomenon, changing of crops and crop cycles, and acceleration of carbon absorption. Each of these results reduces the long-term survival chances of human beings. Mitigating these effects must be our primary concern -- whether it's by curbing industries, or planting more trees.

While I may not be well versed or agree with the short-term prediction made by climate science, I think it's overwhelmingly clear that some changes could lead to irreparable effects. To some extent, I do empathise with the challenges faced by the climate scientists, who have to work with unreliable data and unrealistic models to predict a relentlessly chaotic phenomenon. It may be that the current predictions turn out to be wrong, but historic evidence and potential irreversibility of a few phenomena urge us to be cautious.

Most general public cannot fathom the idea that the smartest of the people, the scientists, actually make progress stumbling over at every step, just like babies learn to walk. To the general public, scientists cannot be wrong; and if the scientists are wrong even once, they lose credibility. But this phenomenon is completely at odds with the way scientific progress works. And to explain to the general public that science is mostly wrong but is still worthwhile is a tremendously tough task. So, it is no wonder that most scientists and journalists take shortcuts to avoid burdening the public with "unnecessary details." Such a view has some merits.

However, when it comes to climate change, the media portrayal of the problem currently is so far removed from reality, that today, the general public associates climate change with something completely different. Planting trees, being one with nature, going eco and bio, and carbon taxes are probably beneficial, but these are not what climate change is about. It's about a possible long-term threat to human survival on timescales that are so ridiculously large that no human mind can easily grasp. So much so, that sometimes, simple solutions to climate change can actually have the opposite effect! -- e.g., replacing a plastic bag with a cotton one is a bad idea unless the cotton bag is reused to replace plastic ones for more than about a 1000 times. What such altered media portrayal allows for is the commercial exploitation of general public by appealing to their emotional side about climate change.

Hence, from a long time, I'm a proponent of the idea that climate change should be portrayed to be about long-term survival. It may be difficult to grasp at first, and may not be commercially attractive, but may lead to broad policy decisions that may have a chance to mitigate ill effects, rather than individual decisions driven by commercial propaganda, which likely will have no or the opposite effects.

First draft: 30.08.2020

Minor edits: 05.04.2021, 19.05.2021

A case for no case

It's been a growing trend, or so it seems, to boycott upper case letters -- at least in the context of writing down one's own name -- by celebrities, scientists, politicians, and you-know-who (e.e. cummings, of course). It used to irk me for it exuded insincere modesty, a sin in its own right, I think, or at best pretentiousness. And you know, like all self-important brats, I used to make it clearly known that I hate it.

But of late, yours truly, the guy with the perpendicular pronoun, the infallible, has started writing his initials in all smalls himself. Why you ask? It's a reason that was, in a pure display of dogmatism, simply overlooked earlier -- small letters are easier to type and look harmonious at the end of an e-mail. *Now, there's gonna be hoards of people who're gonna hate on me for this, just like I did, but hey, at least I still capitalise the I's.

I'm waiting for the day when I'll stop doing that too. Oh boy, who knew one'd slowly give up things one held so dearly -- time and again and again.

ark

* = This sentence is in #modernlingo

Rants on AI and ML - 2

Essay: One Example Where Intuitive Learning Does Not Work And What It Might Mean

Since last year, Google AlphaZero's clone chess engine, the Leela Chess Zero (Lc0) has held a consistent spot in the top ten positions of Top Chess Engine Championship (TCEC). Strangely, Lc0 is a neural network (NN) based chess engine which DID NOT make use of the human knowledgebank of chess. Since early 2019, SugarNN, based on Lc0, has held the top spot in TCEC defeating traditial (commercial) engines like Komodo and Houdini, which draw heavily from human chess knowledge and experience.

When one learns chess, he's taught many "strategic rules": bishops are best placed on long diagonals, pawn pushes have to be carefully planned (they cannot be taken back), and intuitions: queen is strong in the endgame, two minor pieces roughly equal a rook and a pawn, etc. Furthermore, there's a consistent story running in the mind of a chess player consisting of events, plans, and tactics. Every move has a "meaning." This is why chess commentators can present a good overview of the possible thoughts on a player's mind -- a story for the game.

But when it comes to games by Lc0, most commentators are just dumbfolded and struggle to explain the rationale behind its moves. It is as though the game has no story -- it seems completely random. Yet, miraculously, Lc0 always manages to win! (Of course there's a predictable algorithm behind Lc0, but it's perhaps too complex to be woven into a story.)

This might shed some light on the human quest for knowledge. Even in a concrete field like engineering (my field), we do not operate in the "real world." Instead, all our research, theories, and explanations are in an "idealised world" with "good properties." In this idealised world, a piece of theory is like a story -- it builds on existing stories and extends them in a meaningful and intuitive way. Luckily, when applied to the real world, the idealised theories work well. But they're mere approximations -- they're only roughly correct.

Similar to chessplay by Lc0, things in the real world appear random and haphazard to us. When we try to weave a story behind them, it turns out to be a non-story because it's so convoluted. Hence, it is not surprising that "learning based systems" such a NNs, with no intuition and biases and no need for stories, perform much better than our techniques based on our idealised theories. Nevertheless, presently, when we build NNs, we incorporate our biases into them -- in the form of structure and data. Today, without them, NNs don't work well. But, one might intuit, risking failure, that the haphazard approach of NNs is probably better suited to handle the complexity of the real world than organized storytelling offered by idealised theories.

Could it be that we are better off designing systems that lack intuition (because of their complexity) but work in the real world? Such systems, presently based on NNs, have no stories to them. But objectively, they seem to work well compared to the systems that are built based on idealised theories. If so, perhaps in the future this gives us very little room for consistent stories and a lot of room for trial and error and data-crunching based research.

Rants on AI and ML - 1

Essay: Are we right in requiring neural network explanations?

One day many centuries ago, a man looked up at the sky and thought to himself -- "what if" the stars, sun, and the moon didn't control his life and fate (horoscopes)... what if stars and planets were beings with their own laws and lifecycle independent of humankind. This person, ladies and gentlemen, brought about a revolution in thinking -- he wanted to "know" the world he is living in. He wanted to "understand" it. And not merely be a part of it.

It is not surprising that a famous scientists when asked "Imagine the whole human civilization collapses and you could only transmit ONE message into the future, what would this message be?" said the message would be "The Universe is knowable," meaning that Universal laws can be found. That Universe does not run on magic.

Human curiosity and the hunger for knowledge is of immense importance in the saga of humankind. Scientific "explanations" have been a driving force behind engineering and sciences.

But, does it seem like our pet topic -- machine learning -- betrays explanations? At first, it seems so. It seems as though something "magical" is happening within these "black boxes" of neural networks (NNs). But imagine this -- if there were an algorithm which chose a "best-fit function," from an arbitrary list of functions, between inputs and outputs, would we ask this algorithm to explain its choice? No. We know how it works. Surprisingly, this is the case for NN as well.

However, the problem, it seems, is that we associate very personally with NNs. We think of NNs as a model of our brains rather than mathematical entities. Therefore, we require "explanations" from them as we would desire from our fellow human beings. In fact, NNs emerged from brain research and initial NN models were heavily inspired from brain structure. Hence, it is not strange that we associate personally so with them.

Furthermore, it is not even clear why such explanations for the operation of NNs, which are made to solve problems that are extremely complex to be solved using our current thinking tools, should even be possible.

I feel our energies are better spent in understanding NNs rather than require them to behave like us. Perhaps by asking for explanations we fall into the same trap as our ancestors did -- associating special meanings to stars and constellations rather than seeking to understand them.

Perhaps we do justice to our human endeavour by trying to understand these crucial aspects rather than trying to make NNs behave like human beings.

Medley - 5

This post reflects the progression of my thoughts from a teenager to an adult. As a teenager, one is confident, sure, and invincible -- but in retrospect ignorant of the complexities of real life. As one faces more of reality, the ground beneath is shaken and everything held sacrosanct and written-in-stone is up for question.

(Y: Answer by young me; A: Answer by adult me.)

Q: Why are there laws?
Y: Laws exist to ensure fairness and justice towards citizens of a nation.
A: To save the common folk from the common folk. To save rich folk from the common folk.

Q: Is the Universe just my imagination?
(That is, nothing really exists except me and my imagination.)
Y:  Certainly not. The world around us is so rich with detail -- nature, other people, stars and planets in the heaven. This definitely is more intense than anybody's imagination.
A: Agnostic. Conscious imagination could just be a rudimentary by-product of subconscious imagination.

ARK

Essays on Policymaking: Rationality and Superstition

It is widely regarded that superstition, an excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural (OED, 1*), is bad, especially when alternatives exist. However, superstition in the society is not diminishing despite this widespread knowledge. On the contrary, education and scientific knowledge, which are the biggest opposition to superstitious beliefs, have had minimal effect in eradicating superstition in the society. In this short write-up I explore possible reasons for such a trend without being judgmental about correctness or benefits of superstitious beliefs themselves.

Let's begin by looking at a world without superstition. When we take away the special meaning we attribute to our world, via traditions, rituals, and superstitions, we are left with a scientifically amenable world but one which is dry and inconsiderate -- a completely rational universe. In a rational universe, a human is negligible and purposeless.

Hope
 

However, no human would be satisfied in such a world. Each one of us wants there to be more -- a God, a watchful eye, a spiritual being who connects the dots and ensures fair play. In short, each of us wishes for something magical beyond the rational universe. It is with the hope of something magical that we engage in superstitious behaviour. And once we start start to entertain unexplainable magic, we are down a slippery slope -- one where we have no choice but to entertain more magic, thereby increasing and reinforcing our superstitious behaviour.

Especially vulnerable are those who are going through hard times. These would like to cling-on to the smallest possibility of upliftment. They would rather take a chance on magic than face a cruel rational world -- to be fair, not just them but all of us would make the same choice.

But why would rational people want to even entertain the notion of unexplainable magic? One could not have summarised the answer better than late Prof. Marvin Minsky who speculated that we do this in an attempt to fill a void from our childhood when we had a God-like figure -- a parent, caretaker, or a nurse. The need is so strong that it causes us to see patterns where none exist and attribute these pseudo-patterns to unexplainable or divine magic.

Hence, in summary, hope sets up the stage in our mind. And once we start believing in one irrationality, we are led to believe in many.

Complexity

Let's consider a person who has managed to avoid the pitfalls of hope. Is he immune to irrational and superstitious behaviour? Unfortunately, the enormous complexity of the world eventually causes even the most steadfast to submit.

I would like to believe that we evolved irrationality -- in the form of emotions -- in order to tackle the overwhelming complexity of the world around us. Emotions are very useful in situations where "no decision" is far worse than "a decision." It's a way we humans navigate insurmountable and incalculable complexity.

Even things we take for granted -- relationships (complex interactions amongst independent entities), life (environmental interaction, procreation, etc.) -- even the trivial ones -- recognizing faces, predicting movement -- are so complex that our current conceptual tools fall short in a bid to understand them. Global warming and weather prediction have been controversial mainly because of the complexity involved.

Hence, in summary, even the most rational amongst us are eventually overwhelmed by the complexity of nature. They have no choice but to turn to irrationality in order to make decisions. And once they start embracing irrationality, they're down the slippery slope again.

THIS BRINGS us to two important realizations: First, that it might not be possible to eradicate superstitions and irrational behaviours after all! And second, that even if we do so, we might not like living in such a rational world!

So, instead of focusing on eliminating superstitions completely, we must rather focus on removing only those that are detrimental to our current values -- those that deny us a dignified life. Are superstition and irrationality on a diminishing trend? I don't know. But I'd wager that they will never go away. They're a part of being a human. It might be better to evaluate our current beliefs and practices and make tiny corrections than aiming for a complete overhaul.

ARK

 (1*) OED: Oxford English Dictionary.

Book Review: Digital Fortress

Book Review: Digital Fortress
Author: Dan Brown, in 1998
Verdict: 2/5, predictable ending, slow development, unworldly coincidences, and incompetent characters.

It might seem rather unfair to critique a book about technology written 20 years ago in a modern setting. But, one thing I seek out for and cherish, in stories, is timelessness. Many reviewers have criticised the portrayal (rather misunderstanding) of technology in the book, but these misrepresentations do not bother me at all. In my opinion, portrayal of technology in a book need not reflect reality at all. Why should it?

My first issue with the book is that it is a boring read. Even when the ending of a plot is obvious, the story is developed excruciatingly slowly. For example, a story line in which a killer is hunting down the protagonist of the book, which the protagonist predictably survives, spans over 50 pages(!) and that too with an aura of suspense! Rest of the story lines, which run in parallel, run at "normal pace" and seem rather out of place.

The story depends on a lot of coincidences to survive. Now, a good story only comes about due to coincidences. But, when the coincidences overrule the story line, something surely seems off to a reader. Furthermore, the story gives us an impression that the characters, in powerful and influential positions, are somehow incompetent. That is, when a reader places himself in the situation of character, it "seems" to him that he could have done better! Now, how could one take such a story seriously?

Lastly, the ending. Throughout the 510 page novel, author tries to build a serious story. However, the ending does not do justice to the buildup. It does not carry the weight of the book. The ending seems more like a hurried effort to wrap up a story that is already overfilling the pages. The twist in the end is surely unexpected, but it is petty. There are no incidents in the past alluding to it. Having completed the novel, a reader is left rather unsatisfied.

ARK

On Today's Homeopathy - Q&A

You're scientific, atheist, etc. Is Homeopathy OK for your parents, relatives, and friends who INSIST on taking them? How do you best safeguard them despite Homeopathy? Read on for my view.

Q1. Does Homeopathy work?

Yes and no. So drop your completely negative attitude. Homeopathy and other non-scientific medicines work on a principle called "placebo" [1] where the change (or effect) is due to body's response to the whole process rather than medicine itself. In some cases, placebo can be beneficial. That being said, it has been demonstrated scientifically that high potency versions of homeopathic medicines (the ones usually prescribed) are nothing but sugar water. Therefore, homeopathic medicine surely does not work, but the whole consultation process might work due to the placebo effect.

Q2. When is it OK to take Homeopathic medicine?

If one insists, homeopathic medicine might not be a problem or might even be beneficial under these circumstances:

1. If one is taking homeopathic medicine alongside modern medicine with knowledge of both the doctor (i.e. MBBS/MD) and the homeopath.

2. When the doctor has not prescribed any medication -- e.g. as in common cold.

3. When the doctor has deferred the medication for later or has advised against it -- e.g. surgery in very young or old people.

In any case, it is best to keep the doctor informed about the homeopathic medicine.

Q3. When is it NOT OK to take Homeopathic medicine?

Clearly, it is NOT OK if the conditions in the answer to question Q2 are not satisfied. Furthermore, it is also NOT OK when the prescribed homeopathic medicine is not truly homeopathic. "True" homeopathic medicines are just sugar water. But some homeopaths (the bad ones) might prescribe other non-homeopathic drugs and other unrelated (baby) products! One has to be careful and check the details of the prescription on the Web before beginning with the medication.

Q4. Is it OK to go to a Doctor with both MBBS/MD and Homeopathy degrees?

No, for two reasons. First, it is unlikely that the doctor prescribes both modern medicine and homeopathic medicine together (see answer to Q2 above). And second, a person truly invested in modern medicine is unlikely to endorse Homeopathy.

Q5. As Homeopathy has placebo benefits, shouldn't it be encouraged?

While it appears to be beneficial to encourage it, this would be the wrong direction. Conducting scientific research into understanding the placebo effect would be far better than cheating one into placebo like how Homeopathy does. So in the long term, Homeopathy does not seem to be a good idea. Hopefully scientific research on placebo catches up before it is too late (for us).

Q6. Should I recommend Homeopathy to others?

Definitely no. The people who lose the most are the ones who are poor and cannot avail or have no access to modern medicine. When assessed that the conditions in the answer to question Q2 cannot be satisfied, recommending Homeopathy is a very bad idea to the extent that it should be (but isn't) considered an offence as it could result in life threatening conditions.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

Being The Reluctant Cook

Some find the experience of cooking "therapeutic." I guess they find getting bitten by a dog "therapeutic" as well. How unfortunate is a life that finds cooking and taking bath in a hot water spring or a cool mountain lake the same. It is only with sorrow and misery that one catches oneself cooking. The stress is unbearable -- watch the stove, don't forget the spices, time the preparation! Sadly eating outside everyday is unhealthy and expensive otherwise cooking would be for restaurants the same way repairing cars is for workshops.

It takes some skill to cook your own food and not fall ill every other week. But don't worry my fellow traveller in the journey of life... this "reluctant" cook has you covered with just a simple mantra:

Wash. Measure. Check. Cook.

Wash: wash your hands and utensils thoroughly before you begin cooking. Don't use that pan with "just a bit" of yesterday's food sticking to it. I know, you came home after a long day, you're tired... but did you begin cooking with the very hands that just touched your shoes? Rabies. You're getting Rabies my friend. Good luck with that!

Measure: measure each ingredient -- wheat flour, rice, whatever. Designate one of the cups lying around as the "measurement cup" and use it everyday. It not only helps control your portions but also helps you get those ratios right -- 2 cups of water to 1 cup of rice and 20 mins of Microwave at 600W. "Nah, my 'eye measure' is good enough" you say? Might as well drink sea-water instead of tasting that soup of yours. Bye.

Check: check every ingredient for spoilage, fungus, dirt. If you find them, clean or discard the ingredient, depending on the case. I'm not a fan of fungus at all -- fungal food poisoning causes unbearable head- and stomach aches. It's not enough to check them just visually, you'll also have to smell them a bit. Not classy, you say? OK. Good luck with that food poisoning.

Cook: cook the food so that EVERY part of it reaches 75C. Only then is the food safe. If it's too hot to eat after 75C (it usually is), let the food cool down before you cram it into your mouth. Heating and a bit of waiting is better than salmonella poisoning or burning the roof of your mouth.

That's it! 4 simple parts -- of 1 simple mantra! Good luck with your cooking -- from one reluctant cook to another. Peace.

Review of The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho

It is a rather difficult feat to be a complete disgrace to the paper on which a book is printed. “The Alchemist” achieves this goal with such relative ease that you stand convinced its author has skills -- albeit the wrong kind. This mindless drivel reads like “Simple English Wikipedia” less the information. Its philosophies have the depth of a rainwater puddle and as one reviewer aptly noted “there is more literary richness on the instructions card of a microwave that this entire book”.

It is rather unbecoming of a man to shower this amount of hatred. But as I shall show you below, my judgement is well founded and perhaps compounded by the fact that this sorry excuse of a book is a bestseller.

It's not that I despise popular books. As a child I was inspired by “The Little Prince.” As a teenager mystified by the “Lord of the Rings,” and enticed by “The Prophet.” As an adult I was awestruck by “The Emigrants” and entertained by the stories of Saki -- all popular literature.

In contrast, this book is about the banal life of a simpleton who contrives a deep meaning in everything he sees. But sadly the book doesn't stop there. Rather, it engages in a pseudo-intellectual didactic session where it validates every neo-age feel-good woo that happens to exist. This is what makes the book cancerous.

This book is classified by many libraries as children’s literature which it is absolutely not. It would be a sad world where children grow up reading books endorsing the concept of fate, destiny, and soul; or the belief in alchemy, omens, and premonitions.

The recurring inconsistencies in the book make it a hard read. For example, a major theme in the book is ‘heart’, but in some paragraphs ‘heart’ is a metaphorical organ that has feelings and direction and in others it is an organ that pumps blood. So when the protagonist wishes for his heart to stand still, we are left wondering whether he longs for calm or for death.

Character development is nearly non-existent and lines of thought rarely extend beyond a few paragraphs. Characters and plot-lines go in-and-out of existence at the mercy of the author. For example, the protagonist conveniently finds a “friend” when he wants to sell his sheep in an otherwise unknown land! This one-shot-friend is never mentioned again.

As though this is not enough, the book is riddled with profound-sounding nonsense. The protagonist could “feel the vibrations of peace” or is given wisdom that “the darkest hour of night is just before dawn” (coldest maybe, but darkest?!) or the famous “when you want something the universe conspires in helping you achieve it” all of which are gibberish and carry no meaning.

When the content fails to deliver, one would expect the style to make up. But the book is prosaic even when describing the romantic plots that run rife through the story. A first love, who is reminisced in every other page in the first part of the book, is instantly forgotten when the protagonist meets the one ‘the Universe conspired him to fall in love with.’

The author's description of romance typically runs as “the boy wanted to take her hand. But Fatima's hands held to the handles of her jug.” Love appears lifeless. Also, for the not-so-spiritual amongst us, proposing marriage before time is rife is a polite way of asking the other person to leave one alone. But for the ‘spiritual’ it seems to be an instant recognition of a connexion!

The book goes out of the way to misinform its readers. A character claims “I know the science of the twigs” now what is the “science” of twigs if not pseudoscience? And yet another says “I learned the science from my grandfather” while referring to alchemy!

The book throws in a few sentences here and there with the sole intention of making the reader feel good. For example, “when you possess great treasures within you, and try to tell others of them, seldom are you believed” reassuring them when others disagree, they’re not the ones usually at fault.

It turns so bad that the author gives up even basics of writing. An oasis “looks like thousand and one nights.” An oasis cannot look like thousand and one nights because “Thousand and One Nights” is a novel not an oasis. Of course, it can look like an oasis that’s described in that novel.

In all, this book is not even worthy of being thrown into a trash can. If you own a copy of this book, do the “Universe” a favour and burn the copy right away lest, god forbid, you be bidden by the devil to lend it to another soul.

Make friends not enemies. Peace.

ARK