In recent years, it is uneasy to define when the summer ends in Hong Kong. Normally the city turns cooler after the Mid-autumn around late September and the winter comes in November until Spring comes in late February or early March in the year next. Owing to the well-known global warming and the greenhouse effect in the city, the heat lingers longer and longer than before. For example, in early October like today, the temperature is around 30 degree celcius. Last winter was the warmest winter recorded.
Nonetheless, when the wind pattern is observed, the wind starts to blow from inland indeed; offshore wind begins to prevail. This means the high pressure area shifts from the southern hemisphere to the northern hemisphere. Affected by monsoon climate, Hong Kong should have been cooled. Apparently it is not the case. In contrast, the offshore wind is not cool and additionally worsens the air pollution in Hong Kong. Pollutants are trapped under the light wind, and the sunny and hot weather conditions favour the photochemical formation of ozone in the region in the afternoon, resulting in elevated ozone levels, according to the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) of HKSAR.
Hong Kong has been famous of its harbour view of both sides, Hong Kong Island and Kowloon Peninsula. When the sky is clear and the visibility is high, the urban landscape shown proudly displays the advance of the city development. The people here enjoyed this experience in this summer for such a long time that could contribute to news headlines. Sadly the beautiful beginning cannot sustain. The EPD reported a record high of pollution. The bewitching harbour disappears; instead smog covers and whitens everywhere. The visibility is terrible. The department has to call that "with an API (Air Pollution Indices) in the very high range, people with heart or respiratory illnesses should reduce physical exertion and outdoor activities, and avoid prolonged stay in roads and streets with heavy traffic."
How terrific it is to live in a polluted envirnoment like Hong Kong. It is, therefore, understandable that a number of foreigners and foreign investment choose not to station in Hong Kong, for the sake of their own health. Hong Kong is well-known to be a diversified city, mixing various cultures together to produce its own spectacular style, but its notorious pollution and the high living density definitely set many people back. I do not have any ideas how the city can maintain its competitiveness if it is scarely habitable.
Meanwhile, the government, which I view as ironic, proposes to build some small incinerators today. It claimed that the construction is to cope with the trash problem, as the trash in Hong Kong is filling the landfills to the full very soon. Indeed pollution puts the government into a very hard situation, as it is almost certain that there is no perfect solution. Thus I do not quite understand how the current Chief Executive could possibly say the city's target pollution is around 9.5 million, rising from the present pollution of 6.92 million.
ps. Probably this is part of the reason why the people living here are not quite understandable, as all this is twisting people's disposition.
Monday, October 08, 2007
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Interesting cycle of destiny
Studying media globalization in Australia brought me the history of various musics, which many of them originated from Africa. Just now I read a piece of news provided by Reuters titled "Skulls confirm we're all out of Africa". In the article, "an analysis of thousands of skulls shows modern humans originated from a single point in Africa and finally lays to rest the idea of multiple origins." How interesting human destiny is. Origins of many different things, including popular culture and even our existence, though not very sure, direct to the most impoverished continent. The most advanced and developed countries are usually located at the areas developed much later. Before reading this news, I was already thinking about this destined thing.
Cite India and China as examples, their history can refer all the way back to thousand years ago. The two massive countries once occupied a glamorous part of ancient history. Despite the once advanced, rich and glorious culture, the two presently represent the less developed countries, or the third world. The countries are now notorious for dirtiness, poverty, corruption and many other bad reputations, even though they also enjoy a leap forward. The reason for such a big contrast between the past and present is ambiguous; and Africa apparently shares similar phenonmeon.
This reminds me once again of the business cycle I learnt from economic class during secondary education. Seemingly the higher level one has reached, the lower level it is pulled down. At this point I consider many economic theories are fasinating and very philosophical, although I do not know the accounts for these theories. There are endless explanations for things in the world, and so I do not believe mankind will break through to the end before the end of the human destiny. What lies on here is just an interest I want to share. I wish this could entertain you.
Cite India and China as examples, their history can refer all the way back to thousand years ago. The two massive countries once occupied a glamorous part of ancient history. Despite the once advanced, rich and glorious culture, the two presently represent the less developed countries, or the third world. The countries are now notorious for dirtiness, poverty, corruption and many other bad reputations, even though they also enjoy a leap forward. The reason for such a big contrast between the past and present is ambiguous; and Africa apparently shares similar phenonmeon.
This reminds me once again of the business cycle I learnt from economic class during secondary education. Seemingly the higher level one has reached, the lower level it is pulled down. At this point I consider many economic theories are fasinating and very philosophical, although I do not know the accounts for these theories. There are endless explanations for things in the world, and so I do not believe mankind will break through to the end before the end of the human destiny. What lies on here is just an interest I want to share. I wish this could entertain you.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
News sharing
Originally I put this somewhere else, but I think it should be placed here. "This week I marked down three pieces of interesting news, which I wish to share them here."
1. Before Big Bang: Light Shed on "Previous Universe"
The National Geographic reported that a new theory of the universe. After reading this I wish I were an excellent scientist to understand everything behind as I find it extremely interesting. The new theory differs from string theory which is said to be more compliated - I share the same feeling when I go through the briefs of the both. The new theory, or I should say Big Bounce, refers to the expansion of the universe and the contraction of the previous universe. In between the theory suggests it is the big bang. Differed from the current universe which is expanding in an increasing speed, the previous universe was contracting to the smallest point before the big bang happened. When it got to the smallest point, the energy came out from bounce and led to the big bang. A new universe, which is where we are in, started to exist and the previous one vanished. In this theory, based on my understanding, there should be many universes across the time as the bounce should happen every time when a cycle of contraction or expansion is completed. However I still have many questions in my mind.
Based on what I can understand in this article about the theory, the previous universe should be contracting like a balloon to a certain point, which was very small but existent. I suppose it should be like a balloon that it is still existent when all the air comes out. If it is existent, I think there will be a boundary, or say an end of the universe that it should be touchable. I assume that the small is an infinite term, so even the theory suggests the "the universe could never shrink down beyond a certain size", the universe still contained a certain space, which I believe something would exist in that space. Therefore I wonder what would be left in the most tiny space.
Another question that instantly jumps in my mind is that to what extent the universe will expand. It is said that the present universe is expanding and thereupon I start to think to where the universe is expanding. Recalling the illustration of balloon, there must be a space for the ballon to blow up. I wonder whether in the end of the expansion, the expected explosion of the universe is due to the used up energy like a dwarf star, or like a balloon which can no longer afford any expansion, or because the space for expansion is filled up completely.
The article compared this big bounce to the string theory, but after reading the brief of the string theory I do not understand in what ways they are comparable. The string theory seems to me that it explains how things work within the universe - in 11 dimensions strings vibrate in a jerky way. It does not tell, according to what the scientist explained in the interview with the National Geographic, how the string theory is related to the life of the universe but the operation in the universe. However as another scientist compared them and said the big bounce is "much cleaner than in string-theory-inspired models", I better conclude myself that I am not knowledgeable at all to say whether they are comparable.
My brain is now full of ideas and questions about this topic, but I am not even a beginner to consider deeply about all of these things. Apparently my parents have not given me a scientific brain to do physics, mathematics and related subjects.
2. Ancient Humans in Asia Survived Super-eruption, Find Suggests
It is hard to switch my mind to a different topic abruptly, although I have gone through the article a while ago. The super-eruption happened in 74,000 years ago, when none of the well-known civilisations had developed. The anthopologists said the human at that time managed to survive, despite a very hard time. To me it was incredible as I cannot imagine how hard it had to be and how they made it. I cannot even think about the consequences if a similar eruption happened today. The eruption was so massive that the find showered all of India with nearly 6 inches (15 centimeters) of volcanic ash, which acts as a marker of age in Earth's strata today. It seems that such a massive volcanic eruption happens only once for hundreds of thousand years, and it did not happen much in human history. After the disaster (I guess it should be more than "disaster" to describe), "ice cores reveal that the world was cooler by 5.4 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit (3 to 5 degrees Celsius) for several centuries following the event." Natural disaster is just so charming and attractive to me, in spite of its mass destructive power. I do not think it is the nature's fury to bring the disaster to earth, but I rather consider it as a rule or a cycle to have this kind of things happened. Not even the cosmo that we do not understand, we have yet to find out the real basic factor for the natural disasters as well. Here I do not mean the explanation of volcanic eruption is just about the platonic movement and magma flow in the lithosphere of the Earth, but the core reason of these movements and flows. The two pieces of news unveils the limitation of mankind power, but I reckon this limitation produces the magic we feel towards the nature and the universe. It would have become very dull if we understood absolutely everything. I don't think we would do before we go extinct.
In the article, it also mentioned about a question whether the survivals were modern humans or the Neanderthals. Limited to what I was taught at school, this is the first time I have ever heard of this extinct species, so I went to the Wikipedia to have a little study about this. What I find interesting is that they are very similar to modern humans in terms of various ways. For instance, it is said that the neanderthals share 95-99% of identical genes with modern humans, but there's little evidence to prove they had any interbreeding. Some people imitated the possible outfit of the neanderthals, and I find it extremely similar to humans. When I was going through the article of National Geographic, it also said that it is very difficult to distinguish humans from neanderthals. Then I want to know many things about this species. I think I did not know there'll be many human-like species but independent from humans. In this case, I, having no anthoprological knowledge, can never have any clue to tell the differences or the distinctive traits of the neanderthals, even after I went through some information of them. I don't know how modern humans have managed to survive under the jungle law; in fact when I read the other page on Wikipedia about the genus Homo, "all species except Homo sapiens (modern humans) are extinct." There are enormous mysteries underlying here to explain the process of evolution. I wonder why there is only one species of homo left nowadays, but I doubt who can tell the certain answer.
3. Which is the chatty sex? Turns out both are
The Reuters' news (it is covered by the Discovery as well) reported that a study finds both sex can be chatty, which differentiate from the tradition view that men talk less than women. To me the news is more to leisure and entertaining purpose to my knowledge. It said that character of one person determines whether s/he is chatter, rather than the gender. It is interesting to see this big difference between the most and the least talkative: "Just to illustrate the magnitude of difference, among the three most talkative males in the study, one used 47,000 words. The least talkative male spoke just a little more than 500," the expert said. On average, both sex use about 16,000 words per day accordingly, so I am thinking if I can use 16,000 words a day. I thought I was quite talkative, but 16,000 sound too many to me. The researchers put a recorder to the people being tested and counted how many words they talked. It must be very tedious to count every single word they said, and must be so funny to listen to some of the conversation the people had.
One more news after those three were shared -
You can forget the unhappy past: study
The Reuters' news report suggested the possibility of putting out traumatic memory. I instantly recall my favourite film "Eternal Sunshine of Spotless Mind". I don't think I'd like to forget anything, regardless of the emotions brought by the memories. Whether it was sad or happy, it is still part of me which determines my character in some certain degree. I do not want to lose any. Nonetheless I think a number of people will be interested in this idea and probably want to try this in order to forget some tragedies in mind. I'd be sad for them.
1. Before Big Bang: Light Shed on "Previous Universe"
The National Geographic reported that a new theory of the universe. After reading this I wish I were an excellent scientist to understand everything behind as I find it extremely interesting. The new theory differs from string theory which is said to be more compliated - I share the same feeling when I go through the briefs of the both. The new theory, or I should say Big Bounce, refers to the expansion of the universe and the contraction of the previous universe. In between the theory suggests it is the big bang. Differed from the current universe which is expanding in an increasing speed, the previous universe was contracting to the smallest point before the big bang happened. When it got to the smallest point, the energy came out from bounce and led to the big bang. A new universe, which is where we are in, started to exist and the previous one vanished. In this theory, based on my understanding, there should be many universes across the time as the bounce should happen every time when a cycle of contraction or expansion is completed. However I still have many questions in my mind.
Based on what I can understand in this article about the theory, the previous universe should be contracting like a balloon to a certain point, which was very small but existent. I suppose it should be like a balloon that it is still existent when all the air comes out. If it is existent, I think there will be a boundary, or say an end of the universe that it should be touchable. I assume that the small is an infinite term, so even the theory suggests the "the universe could never shrink down beyond a certain size", the universe still contained a certain space, which I believe something would exist in that space. Therefore I wonder what would be left in the most tiny space.
Another question that instantly jumps in my mind is that to what extent the universe will expand. It is said that the present universe is expanding and thereupon I start to think to where the universe is expanding. Recalling the illustration of balloon, there must be a space for the ballon to blow up. I wonder whether in the end of the expansion, the expected explosion of the universe is due to the used up energy like a dwarf star, or like a balloon which can no longer afford any expansion, or because the space for expansion is filled up completely.
The article compared this big bounce to the string theory, but after reading the brief of the string theory I do not understand in what ways they are comparable. The string theory seems to me that it explains how things work within the universe - in 11 dimensions strings vibrate in a jerky way. It does not tell, according to what the scientist explained in the interview with the National Geographic, how the string theory is related to the life of the universe but the operation in the universe. However as another scientist compared them and said the big bounce is "much cleaner than in string-theory-inspired models", I better conclude myself that I am not knowledgeable at all to say whether they are comparable.
My brain is now full of ideas and questions about this topic, but I am not even a beginner to consider deeply about all of these things. Apparently my parents have not given me a scientific brain to do physics, mathematics and related subjects.
2. Ancient Humans in Asia Survived Super-eruption, Find Suggests
It is hard to switch my mind to a different topic abruptly, although I have gone through the article a while ago. The super-eruption happened in 74,000 years ago, when none of the well-known civilisations had developed. The anthopologists said the human at that time managed to survive, despite a very hard time. To me it was incredible as I cannot imagine how hard it had to be and how they made it. I cannot even think about the consequences if a similar eruption happened today. The eruption was so massive that the find showered all of India with nearly 6 inches (15 centimeters) of volcanic ash, which acts as a marker of age in Earth's strata today. It seems that such a massive volcanic eruption happens only once for hundreds of thousand years, and it did not happen much in human history. After the disaster (I guess it should be more than "disaster" to describe), "ice cores reveal that the world was cooler by 5.4 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit (3 to 5 degrees Celsius) for several centuries following the event." Natural disaster is just so charming and attractive to me, in spite of its mass destructive power. I do not think it is the nature's fury to bring the disaster to earth, but I rather consider it as a rule or a cycle to have this kind of things happened. Not even the cosmo that we do not understand, we have yet to find out the real basic factor for the natural disasters as well. Here I do not mean the explanation of volcanic eruption is just about the platonic movement and magma flow in the lithosphere of the Earth, but the core reason of these movements and flows. The two pieces of news unveils the limitation of mankind power, but I reckon this limitation produces the magic we feel towards the nature and the universe. It would have become very dull if we understood absolutely everything. I don't think we would do before we go extinct.
In the article, it also mentioned about a question whether the survivals were modern humans or the Neanderthals. Limited to what I was taught at school, this is the first time I have ever heard of this extinct species, so I went to the Wikipedia to have a little study about this. What I find interesting is that they are very similar to modern humans in terms of various ways. For instance, it is said that the neanderthals share 95-99% of identical genes with modern humans, but there's little evidence to prove they had any interbreeding. Some people imitated the possible outfit of the neanderthals, and I find it extremely similar to humans. When I was going through the article of National Geographic, it also said that it is very difficult to distinguish humans from neanderthals. Then I want to know many things about this species. I think I did not know there'll be many human-like species but independent from humans. In this case, I, having no anthoprological knowledge, can never have any clue to tell the differences or the distinctive traits of the neanderthals, even after I went through some information of them. I don't know how modern humans have managed to survive under the jungle law; in fact when I read the other page on Wikipedia about the genus Homo, "all species except Homo sapiens (modern humans) are extinct." There are enormous mysteries underlying here to explain the process of evolution. I wonder why there is only one species of homo left nowadays, but I doubt who can tell the certain answer.
3. Which is the chatty sex? Turns out both are
The Reuters' news (it is covered by the Discovery as well) reported that a study finds both sex can be chatty, which differentiate from the tradition view that men talk less than women. To me the news is more to leisure and entertaining purpose to my knowledge. It said that character of one person determines whether s/he is chatter, rather than the gender. It is interesting to see this big difference between the most and the least talkative: "Just to illustrate the magnitude of difference, among the three most talkative males in the study, one used 47,000 words. The least talkative male spoke just a little more than 500," the expert said. On average, both sex use about 16,000 words per day accordingly, so I am thinking if I can use 16,000 words a day. I thought I was quite talkative, but 16,000 sound too many to me. The researchers put a recorder to the people being tested and counted how many words they talked. It must be very tedious to count every single word they said, and must be so funny to listen to some of the conversation the people had.
One more news after those three were shared -
You can forget the unhappy past: study
The Reuters' news report suggested the possibility of putting out traumatic memory. I instantly recall my favourite film "Eternal Sunshine of Spotless Mind". I don't think I'd like to forget anything, regardless of the emotions brought by the memories. Whether it was sad or happy, it is still part of me which determines my character in some certain degree. I do not want to lose any. Nonetheless I think a number of people will be interested in this idea and probably want to try this in order to forget some tragedies in mind. I'd be sad for them.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Personal current situation plus book review
I am very glad to get an interview in the Commerical Radio HK. To be honest I think it is an important opportunity to develop my career in boardcast media, and to a person who is interested in almost everything the invitation of an interview is very tempting. Unfortunately a night before I got a call from the Associated Press Television Network that they decide to give me this job offer as a junior producer, so I am sorry to even think about my giving up. However, we never know the future.
So the above is my personal situation at the moment, which is quite trivial here indeed.
Today I finished reading a book, The Conquest of Happiness by Russell Bertrand. As I always say, the writer is my favourite and this book is definitely worth to have a look.
The master of philosophy divided the book into two parts to analyse the causes of unhappiness and happiness. I think the main point of this book is to remind people of human being very trivial in the universe and thereafter we should not be self-centred. There are many ways to build up our happiness, and the most important thing to do is to develop as many interests and hobbies as possible. This is easy to understand as the more interests we have, the easier we get the way to zest. When we are in troubles that cannot be solved instantly, Bertrand suggested we should put them aside and do some other stuff before we go back. His supporting is that our subconsious will do the job. If we concentrate at a thing for too long the efficiency will decline. Thus we should let it go for a while before we pick it up again. We may even get a better result afterwards, and certainly we will not make ourselves overstressed.
I may not agree with everything in the book, as it was written many decades ago. For instance, the role of woman in the society is vastly different from Bertrand's time, so some of the analyses are not quite appropriate in my point of view. However some of the words he spoke of deserve to put into consideration, and here are something I really want to share:
For the last quote I put, I would say I also expect grief. However sometimes I choose to feel its flow upon my heart softly as I know I'll be fine very soon. It is not only about the very most effort we should put to minimise the grief, but we have to forgive ourselves and feel how this emotion interacts with our own impersonally. I believe it helps to understand ourselves and strengthen ourselves. However I am not to criticise anything and as I always say I always admire the way Bertrand wrote and thought. This is just the personal preference to make a conquest of happiness.
So the above is my personal situation at the moment, which is quite trivial here indeed.
Today I finished reading a book, The Conquest of Happiness by Russell Bertrand. As I always say, the writer is my favourite and this book is definitely worth to have a look.
The master of philosophy divided the book into two parts to analyse the causes of unhappiness and happiness. I think the main point of this book is to remind people of human being very trivial in the universe and thereafter we should not be self-centred. There are many ways to build up our happiness, and the most important thing to do is to develop as many interests and hobbies as possible. This is easy to understand as the more interests we have, the easier we get the way to zest. When we are in troubles that cannot be solved instantly, Bertrand suggested we should put them aside and do some other stuff before we go back. His supporting is that our subconsious will do the job. If we concentrate at a thing for too long the efficiency will decline. Thus we should let it go for a while before we pick it up again. We may even get a better result afterwards, and certainly we will not make ourselves overstressed.
I may not agree with everything in the book, as it was written many decades ago. For instance, the role of woman in the society is vastly different from Bertrand's time, so some of the analyses are not quite appropriate in my point of view. However some of the words he spoke of deserve to put into consideration, and here are something I really want to share:
"Whatever we may wish to think, we are creatures of Earth; our life is part of the life of the Earth, and we draw our nourishment from it just as the plants and animals do."
"Our doings are not so important as we naturally suppose; our successes and failures do not after all matter very much. Even great sorrows can be survived; troubles which seem as if they must put an end to happiness for life fade with the lapse of time until it becomes almost impossible to remember their poignancy. But over and above these self-centred considerations is the fact that one's ego is no very large part of the world."
"The world is vast and our own powers are limited. If all our happiness is bound up entirely in our personal circumstances it is difficult not to demand of life more than it has to give."Personally I enjoy most of the happinesses mentioned in the book. For some reason I do not want to say it is because of my intelligence or some sort of cool reasons. Instead I would say I am lucky enough to be born in this world to experience all I have gone through which gives my current dispositions. Thanks to my previous institutions and my parents, I have the pleasures to learn how to enjoy what I possess.
"Perhaps when biochemistry has made further advances we shall be able to take tablets that will ensure our feeling an interest in everything, but until that day comes we are compelled to depend upon common-sense observation of life to judge what are the causes that enable some men to take an interest in everything, while compelling others to take an interest in nothing."
"I should seek to make young people vividly aware of the past, vividly realising that the future of man will in all likelihood be immeasurably longer than his past, profoundly conscious of the minuteness of the planet upon which we live and of the fact that life on this planet is only a temporary incident;..."
"The man capable of greatness of soul will open wide the windows of his mind, letting the winds blow freely upon it from every portion of the universe. He will see himself and life and the world as truly as our human limitations will permit; realising the brevity and minuteness of human life, he will realise also that in individual minds is concentrated whatever of value the known universe contains. And he will see that the man whose mind mirrors the world becomes in a sense as great as the world. In emancipation from the fears that beset the slave of circumstance he will experience a profound joy, and through all the vicissitudes of his outward life he will remain in the depths of his being a happy man."
"Grief is unavoidable and must be expected, but everything that can be done should be done to minimise it."
For the last quote I put, I would say I also expect grief. However sometimes I choose to feel its flow upon my heart softly as I know I'll be fine very soon. It is not only about the very most effort we should put to minimise the grief, but we have to forgive ourselves and feel how this emotion interacts with our own impersonally. I believe it helps to understand ourselves and strengthen ourselves. However I am not to criticise anything and as I always say I always admire the way Bertrand wrote and thought. This is just the personal preference to make a conquest of happiness.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
10 Years of Handover (Chinese)
我最近見了一兩份工，見工時都不約而同地被問及關於十年回歸的意見；早上出門前看路透社新聞，其中一篇是關於香港回歸十年的專題；今晚回到家裡，電視機播著有關十年回歸下的小市民課題。一下子，這個話題便在我的腦海裡游走。
人在洗澡時便特別想得多，除了在見工時提及在政治上的轉變外，我在想，還有甚麼？
1. 唱國歌：十年前，我只有十二歲，對回歸沒有特別感覺，但潛意識就是不高興：我不喜歡共產黨, 不喜歡中國。那時剛升上中學，我特別記得音樂課時，老師教我們唱中國國歌的情境：沒有人喜歡唱，大家在敷衍、玩鬧，假扮愛國地抬起一隻手臂，胡亂地唱；到了今天，我以前補習的小朋友會在上課時無聊地自唱自娛。他說：「我覺得很好聽！」我只能說，這顯然是回歸後教育的影響！
2. 遊行：回歸後，遊行特別多。剛剛公仔箱內曾蔭權接受翡翠台訪問，他說：回歸後人們較主動表達意見，於是較回歸前佳。我不是不認同特首先生的意見，只是在另一邊廂我又會想：為甚麼人們要遊行呢？除了覺得是自己地方，於是應該發表自己的聲音外，是不是其實也暗示這個政府做事很難令人滿意？不要說眾多大部份市民，就以自己為例，去遊行也不下三四次，為的就是希望政府能接收到自己的聲音；我的家人也一樣，他們起初也不去遊行，到了廿三條立法那天，父親說我們一家人都必須去遊行！他說：「政府實在不可以這樣下去了！」即使父親是一個很愛國的人，他也會走上街抗議政府。
從來，遊行與愛國並不互相抵觸。相反地，就是因為愛國，才更加熱愛表達自己的意見；只是，這個政府聽到了多少？
3. 光怪陸離：回歸十年，怪事多蘿蘿。十年前，我們覺得奇怪的只是董建華；十年後的今天，我們有巴士阿叔。香港發生的事情一天比一天離奇；這個都市甚麼都好像會發生，然後得到大眾討論，從而成為報章頭條。除了巴士阿叔外，我們還會討論港女港男，把所有人都概括化，即stereotype，好像用幾個膚淺的字眼就能把一個城市、兩種性別的人概括而論。究竟是甚麼原因導致我們的話題變得那麼奇怪？奇怪至一個地步是，我們都已經不再覺得奇怪了。所謂的港女港男，其實地球各地都會有這兩類人，所謂天下的烏鴉一樣黑，要如此對自己城市裡的人，或者套用內地的用語「同胞」，作出如此狠毒的批評，恐怕只有香港這麼一個地方了。
4. 污染：香港污染有多嚴重？十年前，我剛剛搬到西貢邊緣，鄰近馬鞍山。當時一片山青綠水，每晚回家時天空總有很多星星；十年後今天，我同樣每晚回家，抬頭看上去只有飛機的訊號燈，星星出現的次數少之又少。假若人們要說港英政府因為不是正式的英國領土便不理會這些環境問題，那麼屬於我們自己的特區政府又做到了多少？香港的污染已是國際知名，相信真正成了全球金融中心後，除了金融發展知名外，污染的惡名也緊接而來。尤記得去年在柬埔寨實習時，電視機裡CNN頻道播放著的節目便是揭露香港空氣的污染。過去十年，香港被霧霞覆蓋的日子，由九天內一天，變成每三天便有一天如此。這是回歸十年的禮物嗎？
除了以上這些，還有更多更多，又豈是翏翏數百字能言盡？
十年人事幾番新，更何況是一個城市。這十年是我的青春期，我剛剛在昨天更新了個人網頁，在上面總結了自己讀書的時光。剛開始時我還想以九七作起點，因為九七年正是我剛踏入中一的時候，只是想了又想後便放棄了這個主意。因為我在想，這個城市十年來並沒有顯著地變得更好，我便沒意思為此感到光榮。看著美國外交人員和英國前首相戴卓爾夫人用著一貫外交口吻說香港回歸十年依舊繁榮安定，也不免覺得好笑和無奈。對我來說，今天的香港是一個比商業化更商業化的城市，這樣片面的繁榮安定是否為大眾真心接受，大家也心裡有數；所以回歸十年的七一，大家更加應該遊行，以另一方法表現自己的愛國愛港。
[註：遊行的時候，香港人應想想：到底自己是否真的了解遊行的意義和自己參加的原因？]
人在洗澡時便特別想得多，除了在見工時提及在政治上的轉變外，我在想，還有甚麼？
1. 唱國歌：十年前，我只有十二歲，對回歸沒有特別感覺，但潛意識就是不高興：我不喜歡共產黨, 不喜歡中國。那時剛升上中學，我特別記得音樂課時，老師教我們唱中國國歌的情境：沒有人喜歡唱，大家在敷衍、玩鬧，假扮愛國地抬起一隻手臂，胡亂地唱；到了今天，我以前補習的小朋友會在上課時無聊地自唱自娛。他說：「我覺得很好聽！」我只能說，這顯然是回歸後教育的影響！
2. 遊行：回歸後，遊行特別多。剛剛公仔箱內曾蔭權接受翡翠台訪問，他說：回歸後人們較主動表達意見，於是較回歸前佳。我不是不認同特首先生的意見，只是在另一邊廂我又會想：為甚麼人們要遊行呢？除了覺得是自己地方，於是應該發表自己的聲音外，是不是其實也暗示這個政府做事很難令人滿意？不要說眾多大部份市民，就以自己為例，去遊行也不下三四次，為的就是希望政府能接收到自己的聲音；我的家人也一樣，他們起初也不去遊行，到了廿三條立法那天，父親說我們一家人都必須去遊行！他說：「政府實在不可以這樣下去了！」即使父親是一個很愛國的人，他也會走上街抗議政府。
從來，遊行與愛國並不互相抵觸。相反地，就是因為愛國，才更加熱愛表達自己的意見；只是，這個政府聽到了多少？
3. 光怪陸離：回歸十年，怪事多蘿蘿。十年前，我們覺得奇怪的只是董建華；十年後的今天，我們有巴士阿叔。香港發生的事情一天比一天離奇；這個都市甚麼都好像會發生，然後得到大眾討論，從而成為報章頭條。除了巴士阿叔外，我們還會討論港女港男，把所有人都概括化，即stereotype，好像用幾個膚淺的字眼就能把一個城市、兩種性別的人概括而論。究竟是甚麼原因導致我們的話題變得那麼奇怪？奇怪至一個地步是，我們都已經不再覺得奇怪了。所謂的港女港男，其實地球各地都會有這兩類人，所謂天下的烏鴉一樣黑，要如此對自己城市裡的人，或者套用內地的用語「同胞」，作出如此狠毒的批評，恐怕只有香港這麼一個地方了。
4. 污染：香港污染有多嚴重？十年前，我剛剛搬到西貢邊緣，鄰近馬鞍山。當時一片山青綠水，每晚回家時天空總有很多星星；十年後今天，我同樣每晚回家，抬頭看上去只有飛機的訊號燈，星星出現的次數少之又少。假若人們要說港英政府因為不是正式的英國領土便不理會這些環境問題，那麼屬於我們自己的特區政府又做到了多少？香港的污染已是國際知名，相信真正成了全球金融中心後，除了金融發展知名外，污染的惡名也緊接而來。尤記得去年在柬埔寨實習時，電視機裡CNN頻道播放著的節目便是揭露香港空氣的污染。過去十年，香港被霧霞覆蓋的日子，由九天內一天，變成每三天便有一天如此。這是回歸十年的禮物嗎？
除了以上這些，還有更多更多，又豈是翏翏數百字能言盡？
十年人事幾番新，更何況是一個城市。這十年是我的青春期，我剛剛在昨天更新了個人網頁，在上面總結了自己讀書的時光。剛開始時我還想以九七作起點，因為九七年正是我剛踏入中一的時候，只是想了又想後便放棄了這個主意。因為我在想，這個城市十年來並沒有顯著地變得更好，我便沒意思為此感到光榮。看著美國外交人員和英國前首相戴卓爾夫人用著一貫外交口吻說香港回歸十年依舊繁榮安定，也不免覺得好笑和無奈。對我來說，今天的香港是一個比商業化更商業化的城市，這樣片面的繁榮安定是否為大眾真心接受，大家也心裡有數；所以回歸十年的七一，大家更加應該遊行，以另一方法表現自己的愛國愛港。
[註：遊行的時候，香港人應想想：到底自己是否真的了解遊行的意義和自己參加的原因？]
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Extinction without creation
Some day when I was in the bus thinking about the book I am currently reading, some considerations about the title poped up randomly. I dropped them down without giving them a conclusion, as I do not think my intelligence is sufficient to provide a satisfactory answer.
In the history of evolution, what was the first life that appeared in the world symbolising the beginning of the process? How did it begin and why? There was quite a long time after the big bang before microorganism appeared. Then the evolution was said to begin and numerous creatures were developed by an unknown power. Let say the theory of evolution is true, there exist some questions that I do not understand, despite the fact that I am not about to criticize this assumption.
If creatures exist or once existed, there must be some sort of starting point for them to exist. How do/did they newly appear? I just read from Wikipedia about evolution and realize it is an controversial issue, as it involves not only science but also religion and philosophy. I shall have some discussion in the later section. This is certainly one thing.
At the mean time, if evolution truly exists as the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation, a questions arises - why can't we discover new species in the current world? According to the theory, life continues to develop and new species should constantly appear through the process of natural selection or genetic drift. Then what is the reason we do not find any new organisms, which have never existed in the history? I am curious about this, as it is hardly convincing to claim the reason is that we are limited to technology when we enters a stage that we have never been so advanced. If this reason is justified, it possibly means our technology has reached a point that breakthrough can hardly be made. If the claim is not reasonable, and we can no longer find any new species, it is once again hard for me to believe the conclusion of this - life is going to disappear from Earth. Is everything only extinct? How about the world? Is its birth only for extinction? One day the sun will burn like a red giant and die. The solar system will collapse and so the Milky Way. Yet after all this, it seems to me that the world would continue without all this. What does the "world" mean? I think the world is not only about the universe we are living, but everything that exists. However, even the world includes everything, I doubt if the world will ever be over one day. Then many questions will come up if the world will be over. I do not think I have to further elaborate.
In our knowledge we are at the centre owing our mental nature. This hinders us from jumping out to an unknown stage. If everything ends, what will be left? Is it something named "emptiness"? I have no clue. Yet if there is emptiness, there must be something to contain this emptiness. When one space exists, how can it not exist? What will remain if one space is closed? This may be one of the reasons religion arises as some people believe this is under the control of the God's hand.
Some people may argue that evolution compells the possible existence of the God, but I think they can co-exist. It can be the decision of the God to create the process of evolution and we are all bound to this rule. Nevertheless the existence of the God is questionable, as up to this moment we have no ways to prove. We have to acknowledge our limit, despite we always test our possibility to go further. This reminds me of something I learnt during the high school -
生有涯而學無涯；
以有涯隨無涯，殆已
Indeed I do not remember the exact wordings, but roughly it means there is an end of our lives but no ends of knowledge; it is harmful to pursue the latter by means of the former. To me the statement is not proactive enough, but it has its implication that we need to understand and forgive our weaknesses.
In the history of evolution, what was the first life that appeared in the world symbolising the beginning of the process? How did it begin and why? There was quite a long time after the big bang before microorganism appeared. Then the evolution was said to begin and numerous creatures were developed by an unknown power. Let say the theory of evolution is true, there exist some questions that I do not understand, despite the fact that I am not about to criticize this assumption.
If creatures exist or once existed, there must be some sort of starting point for them to exist. How do/did they newly appear? I just read from Wikipedia about evolution and realize it is an controversial issue, as it involves not only science but also religion and philosophy. I shall have some discussion in the later section. This is certainly one thing.
At the mean time, if evolution truly exists as the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation, a questions arises - why can't we discover new species in the current world? According to the theory, life continues to develop and new species should constantly appear through the process of natural selection or genetic drift. Then what is the reason we do not find any new organisms, which have never existed in the history? I am curious about this, as it is hardly convincing to claim the reason is that we are limited to technology when we enters a stage that we have never been so advanced. If this reason is justified, it possibly means our technology has reached a point that breakthrough can hardly be made. If the claim is not reasonable, and we can no longer find any new species, it is once again hard for me to believe the conclusion of this - life is going to disappear from Earth. Is everything only extinct? How about the world? Is its birth only for extinction? One day the sun will burn like a red giant and die. The solar system will collapse and so the Milky Way. Yet after all this, it seems to me that the world would continue without all this. What does the "world" mean? I think the world is not only about the universe we are living, but everything that exists. However, even the world includes everything, I doubt if the world will ever be over one day. Then many questions will come up if the world will be over. I do not think I have to further elaborate.
In our knowledge we are at the centre owing our mental nature. This hinders us from jumping out to an unknown stage. If everything ends, what will be left? Is it something named "emptiness"? I have no clue. Yet if there is emptiness, there must be something to contain this emptiness. When one space exists, how can it not exist? What will remain if one space is closed? This may be one of the reasons religion arises as some people believe this is under the control of the God's hand.
Some people may argue that evolution compells the possible existence of the God, but I think they can co-exist. It can be the decision of the God to create the process of evolution and we are all bound to this rule. Nevertheless the existence of the God is questionable, as up to this moment we have no ways to prove. We have to acknowledge our limit, despite we always test our possibility to go further. This reminds me of something I learnt during the high school -
生有涯而學無涯；
以有涯隨無涯，殆已
Indeed I do not remember the exact wordings, but roughly it means there is an end of our lives but no ends of knowledge; it is harmful to pursue the latter by means of the former. To me the statement is not proactive enough, but it has its implication that we need to understand and forgive our weaknesses.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Smoking ban
[Note: Haven't post any entries for a month, and suddenly I have two. Interesting.]
I am not a smoker, so I was happy with the enforcement of smoking ban in Hong Kong. Nevertheless I was disappointed and suprised by a lot of exemptions in bars. Owing to the opposition the government allowed some bar places to be exempted for a period. I thought it had to be a strong enforcement, but apparently it rules leniently. Like usual, the government makes concession when many business parties does not give any support.
Reading BBC's news I know that North Ireland also put smoke ban in force. Australia had this regulation in force last year. It is a trend that smoke-free legislation will be found in many countries. I know that a lot of them rule it out strictly, so I do not understand why my government always does such silly thing - they execute a new legislation, but always with exemption and concession. The government always claims it takes time to be like this or that, but for something it wants to do it always takes action quickly without mercy. I know the government is hopeless, yet I am still always disappointed. The clubs or bars I often go are all exempted. What's the point of having such legislation? Money speaks everything in this tiny city almost doubtlessly.
I cannot tell how sad the city is without mercy, without memory, without culture but only about business, profit and money. To be concrete, this city has culture, but the culture of profit. We are at the extreme of capitalism and consumerism.
Nevertheless a point I wrote before has to be highlighted once again - we talk about free city and freedom of people. Smoking ban seems to be good for people, yet at the same time it restricts our freedom. I am not a smoker, but a lot of people are. I cannot judge whether the law is really for the sake of our health and non-smokers or it actually exploits our rights to smoke. It is two faces on the same coin. One may say our health is on top of these things, but who knows some people may not even want to be healthy as they choose to smoke - in this way their rights to be unhealthy seems to be exploited, despite the strange logic. Hopefully as a reader you would understand what I am trying to explain here. (Have never had a feedback!)
I am not a smoker, so I was happy with the enforcement of smoking ban in Hong Kong. Nevertheless I was disappointed and suprised by a lot of exemptions in bars. Owing to the opposition the government allowed some bar places to be exempted for a period. I thought it had to be a strong enforcement, but apparently it rules leniently. Like usual, the government makes concession when many business parties does not give any support.
Reading BBC's news I know that North Ireland also put smoke ban in force. Australia had this regulation in force last year. It is a trend that smoke-free legislation will be found in many countries. I know that a lot of them rule it out strictly, so I do not understand why my government always does such silly thing - they execute a new legislation, but always with exemption and concession. The government always claims it takes time to be like this or that, but for something it wants to do it always takes action quickly without mercy. I know the government is hopeless, yet I am still always disappointed. The clubs or bars I often go are all exempted. What's the point of having such legislation? Money speaks everything in this tiny city almost doubtlessly.
I cannot tell how sad the city is without mercy, without memory, without culture but only about business, profit and money. To be concrete, this city has culture, but the culture of profit. We are at the extreme of capitalism and consumerism.
Nevertheless a point I wrote before has to be highlighted once again - we talk about free city and freedom of people. Smoking ban seems to be good for people, yet at the same time it restricts our freedom. I am not a smoker, but a lot of people are. I cannot judge whether the law is really for the sake of our health and non-smokers or it actually exploits our rights to smoke. It is two faces on the same coin. One may say our health is on top of these things, but who knows some people may not even want to be healthy as they choose to smoke - in this way their rights to be unhealthy seems to be exploited, despite the strange logic. Hopefully as a reader you would understand what I am trying to explain here. (Have never had a feedback!)
Cocoa
http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/11659/1102/
Chocolate's cocoa can be replaced by trans fat and partially hydrogenated oils, particularly when the price of cocoa increases because of the bad harvest in Ivory Coast and Ghana, the two largest producers of cocoa beans in the world.
The suggestion is certainly criticized as trans fat, an unsaturated fat unnecessary for our health, is gradually abandoned by many countries. Yet the cost of adopting the new composition is one third of the original cocoa, despite cocoa is healthier, especially in terms of our cardiovascular system.
The bad harvest was due to a dry weather. I guess global warming is inevitably one of the reasons for the weather. That means it is possible to see the extinction of cocoa because of the continuing bad weather.
I am no longer a big fan of chocolate; still I find it quite unacceptable in my sense that cocoa will disappear from our life one day. We have so much chocolate in our daily life - chocolate bars, chocolate cakes, chocolate ice-cream and so on. Even though someone now says there is a substitution of the same taste, it can never be the same without cocoa. Chocolate, the name itself is already come from cocoa. Can you link chocolate and cocoa together? Probably not; I cannot imagine.
Nevertheless I remember I read one Chinese fiction before about a woman from the future suddenly went back to the past and met a chocolate factory owner. It is an amour but in the story chocolate was extinct in the future world. No one in the future knew the taste. It was one of the most touching stories I have ever read, possibly because I was very young when I read it. Will it become real, let say 50 years later? I feel sad for this.
This morning I read some environmental news provided by the Reuters RSS feed. Everyday there are many pieces of bad news, telling everybody how dangerous the current situation is and how urgent we have to take action for life sustainability. Someday glaciers will be gone, like the news about the melting of glacier in Germany since the beginning of industrialization. Rivers will be dried out or polluted irreversibly, like Yangtze River. Aquatic life is ruined owing to over fishing - can you imagine tuna fish will disappear from our diet completely because of extinction?
The bad news overwhelms the good.
When an increasing number of people gather to fight for our living environment to be livable, wars and human conflicts continuedly devastate our established civilization. It is always easier to destroy than to construct. It takes 30 seconds to knock down a building with a bomb after it took maybe a year to have it built up. People in the war surely understands but they seemingly won't think about it. These people are the most powerful to save the world from deteriorating, yet they apparently choose to create damage rather than aids. It is hardly convincing to be optimistic.
Still, we have to work on it. Otherwise we wouldn't have any single opportunity to survive.
Chocolate's cocoa can be replaced by trans fat and partially hydrogenated oils, particularly when the price of cocoa increases because of the bad harvest in Ivory Coast and Ghana, the two largest producers of cocoa beans in the world.
The suggestion is certainly criticized as trans fat, an unsaturated fat unnecessary for our health, is gradually abandoned by many countries. Yet the cost of adopting the new composition is one third of the original cocoa, despite cocoa is healthier, especially in terms of our cardiovascular system.
The bad harvest was due to a dry weather. I guess global warming is inevitably one of the reasons for the weather. That means it is possible to see the extinction of cocoa because of the continuing bad weather.
I am no longer a big fan of chocolate; still I find it quite unacceptable in my sense that cocoa will disappear from our life one day. We have so much chocolate in our daily life - chocolate bars, chocolate cakes, chocolate ice-cream and so on. Even though someone now says there is a substitution of the same taste, it can never be the same without cocoa. Chocolate, the name itself is already come from cocoa. Can you link chocolate and cocoa together? Probably not; I cannot imagine.
Nevertheless I remember I read one Chinese fiction before about a woman from the future suddenly went back to the past and met a chocolate factory owner. It is an amour but in the story chocolate was extinct in the future world. No one in the future knew the taste. It was one of the most touching stories I have ever read, possibly because I was very young when I read it. Will it become real, let say 50 years later? I feel sad for this.
This morning I read some environmental news provided by the Reuters RSS feed. Everyday there are many pieces of bad news, telling everybody how dangerous the current situation is and how urgent we have to take action for life sustainability. Someday glaciers will be gone, like the news about the melting of glacier in Germany since the beginning of industrialization. Rivers will be dried out or polluted irreversibly, like Yangtze River. Aquatic life is ruined owing to over fishing - can you imagine tuna fish will disappear from our diet completely because of extinction?
The bad news overwhelms the good.
When an increasing number of people gather to fight for our living environment to be livable, wars and human conflicts continuedly devastate our established civilization. It is always easier to destroy than to construct. It takes 30 seconds to knock down a building with a bomb after it took maybe a year to have it built up. People in the war surely understands but they seemingly won't think about it. These people are the most powerful to save the world from deteriorating, yet they apparently choose to create damage rather than aids. It is hardly convincing to be optimistic.
Still, we have to work on it. Otherwise we wouldn't have any single opportunity to survive.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Heritage Conservation
Recently I am doing my final year project about heritage conservation in Hong Kong. It is a hot topic since last year when the government determined to remove the Star Ferry pier in Central. Protests broke out to preserve the old pier when I was in Australia, but bulldozers finally started working and the pier with lots of memory was removed.
People talk about collective memory since then.
How much memory do we have in Hong Kong? What is collective memory? The government immediately reacted by putting the term into the heritage grading system, which is used to define whether an architecture should be a heritage. People complained the slow response of the government and its temporization of just putting the term into the system. This is quite confusing since the government tried to do something at once, and then the people criticized the government for doing things so rushed and seemingly without a thorough consideration. The government can hardly play a good game in this issue.
There are many problems in heritage conservation. More than half of the graded heritage are owned by private parties, which makes the situation complicated. The structure of some heritage is in danger that can hardly be approved to be preserved. It involved a huge amount of money to conserve the heritage, which the government does not show an interest to spend the money for that. The government noted that all decisions were up to the public, but sometimes it was said to be misleading as the government does not show the whole picture for people's understanding. The process of assessing the historical buildings is not transparent and accountable.
On the other hand, the public does not look very responsible to me. The government did a number of things to raise the public concern. In 2004, a consultation about heritage conservation was done to collect people's opinions. The feedback was not very enthusiastic, despite some useful and contribute ideas. It is a question that how much attention the public pays to the government and its policty. Surely it is somehow too idealistic to say the government and the public should work together, in the case of Hong Kong; but still I think the people should do some more instead of just waiting for the government making mistakes and thereafter blaming it. As a citizen we have our rights and responsibilities.
It is also interesting to see the government attempted to construct pseudo heritage through imitation in the original or a new site. For instance, long ago the Murray Building was removed from Central to Stanley. The one in Stanley is actually a new building and is not quite related to heritage. I don't quite understand the point of doing it, as it is not attractive enough to be a tourist point. At least it is nothing much so special.
The government also promised to keep the original social network, while it tried to rehabilitate people into different places and put the original site into a different use. In Lee Tung Street in Wan Chai, Urban Renewal Authority purchased nearly all properties and decided to develop it into "residential care home for the elderly, day care centre, refuse collection point and public toilet" (Lee Tung Street/McGregor Street Project). It was originally famous of printing services of invitation cards. In the future it will be a residental care home. Asking someone from the Planning Department yesterday, the government will try to build up something similar to the previous livelihood. Then I don't understand how residential care home can relate to the original printing services' street. The original residents there were accomodated to somewhere and the original social community was already destroyed. I don't see how the government realized their promise. When the government said the buildings' structure is too dangerous to be preserved, as I was told yesterday, it is actually fine to build something new for development. Yet I don't quite understand why the government had to promise something they were not planning to do or they could not do. If the government really tries to preserve the original culture there, I don't know if it means the printing services will be established on the ground floor and the care home will be upstairs. This does not sound quite right to my logical sense.
The government published the list of the graded buildings, which was previously inside the "drawer" staying confidential. Yet the grading is just a guideline for various departments without any power to conserve the heritage. It remains unknown what the government is going to do next, or perhaps it has to await public opinion. I wonder some heritage owned by private parties will be redeveloped or demolished before any decision is made.
It is reasonable to see the people related to the heritage want to preserve them, and they are not satisfied when the government does not disclose the reasons of redevelopment. It is interesting when I was told by the government that they are always open to public while some peoplel blame they are not. Then I'd conclude myself that it is the lack of communication in between. Communication takes so much time and will leave Hong Kong lag behind an assumed progress of conservation. As the dominant role in the society, I think it is the government's responsibility to speed up the discussion process and reach a decision as soon as possible.
People talk about collective memory since then.
How much memory do we have in Hong Kong? What is collective memory? The government immediately reacted by putting the term into the heritage grading system, which is used to define whether an architecture should be a heritage. People complained the slow response of the government and its temporization of just putting the term into the system. This is quite confusing since the government tried to do something at once, and then the people criticized the government for doing things so rushed and seemingly without a thorough consideration. The government can hardly play a good game in this issue.
There are many problems in heritage conservation. More than half of the graded heritage are owned by private parties, which makes the situation complicated. The structure of some heritage is in danger that can hardly be approved to be preserved. It involved a huge amount of money to conserve the heritage, which the government does not show an interest to spend the money for that. The government noted that all decisions were up to the public, but sometimes it was said to be misleading as the government does not show the whole picture for people's understanding. The process of assessing the historical buildings is not transparent and accountable.
On the other hand, the public does not look very responsible to me. The government did a number of things to raise the public concern. In 2004, a consultation about heritage conservation was done to collect people's opinions. The feedback was not very enthusiastic, despite some useful and contribute ideas. It is a question that how much attention the public pays to the government and its policty. Surely it is somehow too idealistic to say the government and the public should work together, in the case of Hong Kong; but still I think the people should do some more instead of just waiting for the government making mistakes and thereafter blaming it. As a citizen we have our rights and responsibilities.
It is also interesting to see the government attempted to construct pseudo heritage through imitation in the original or a new site. For instance, long ago the Murray Building was removed from Central to Stanley. The one in Stanley is actually a new building and is not quite related to heritage. I don't quite understand the point of doing it, as it is not attractive enough to be a tourist point. At least it is nothing much so special.
The government also promised to keep the original social network, while it tried to rehabilitate people into different places and put the original site into a different use. In Lee Tung Street in Wan Chai, Urban Renewal Authority purchased nearly all properties and decided to develop it into "residential care home for the elderly, day care centre, refuse collection point and public toilet" (Lee Tung Street/McGregor Street Project). It was originally famous of printing services of invitation cards. In the future it will be a residental care home. Asking someone from the Planning Department yesterday, the government will try to build up something similar to the previous livelihood. Then I don't understand how residential care home can relate to the original printing services' street. The original residents there were accomodated to somewhere and the original social community was already destroyed. I don't see how the government realized their promise. When the government said the buildings' structure is too dangerous to be preserved, as I was told yesterday, it is actually fine to build something new for development. Yet I don't quite understand why the government had to promise something they were not planning to do or they could not do. If the government really tries to preserve the original culture there, I don't know if it means the printing services will be established on the ground floor and the care home will be upstairs. This does not sound quite right to my logical sense.
The government published the list of the graded buildings, which was previously inside the "drawer" staying confidential. Yet the grading is just a guideline for various departments without any power to conserve the heritage. It remains unknown what the government is going to do next, or perhaps it has to await public opinion. I wonder some heritage owned by private parties will be redeveloped or demolished before any decision is made.
It is reasonable to see the people related to the heritage want to preserve them, and they are not satisfied when the government does not disclose the reasons of redevelopment. It is interesting when I was told by the government that they are always open to public while some peoplel blame they are not. Then I'd conclude myself that it is the lack of communication in between. Communication takes so much time and will leave Hong Kong lag behind an assumed progress of conservation. As the dominant role in the society, I think it is the government's responsibility to speed up the discussion process and reach a decision as soon as possible.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Global Warming
I remember I was excited when I first knew and installed an add-on of the ForecastFox in my FireFox browser. It provides an instant weather information of the city I am living. It even has a meterological map, which is very amazing for me. Today morning when I glanced at the status bar to check the weather, I was shocked by the high temperature - 24-25C. I signed into my Google personalized home thereupon; it told me it was 21-26C today.
I live in Hong Kong, a city located at the sub-tropical region in Northern Hemisphere. It is early February, which is supposed to be deep winter. During the day, the sun was shining recklessly. I was wearing a tank top and pants - I brought my jacket but it was too hot to put it on. Indoor area was much colder than outside. At the moment, my dearest ForecastFox tells me it will be 27C on Saturday; I cannot recall any winter in my life was as warm as this year.
Seriously, I cannot think of any causes other than global warming and greenhouse effect.
I suddenly got an idea during a class in the afternoon. Global warming; or global warning? A coincidence, which is not funny at all, comes into my head that when globalization becomes a very popular phenomenon, warming is a global term as well.
A recent UN report estimated human contributes to 90% of global warming. We are unable to control our gas emission. We are unable to stop ourself from polluting the planet. Anything we can think about the nature is polluted by us. We produce garbage; we burn the forest; we exploit the power resources; we light up the sky; we emit toxic gases; we defile the water. We talk about environmental protection, whereas news reports bring bad news daily. We talk much; we do little.
The International Herald Tribune published on 7 February about "Resistance builds to fight on greenhouse gases". It gave three examples of the resisting force, which were from three of the top 10 countries emiting the most greenhouse gases. Knowing there must be some constraints for these countries to cut down their emission, it is short-sighted to put less focus on the issue than the local economic problems.
Mankind rely on the environment. We need it to survive. This is an obvious fact, which people still tend to neglect it and live on their own will. If we do not deal with the greenhouse gases, our habitat will be destroyed completely on one day that we can no longer live. The way we hurt the environment is not sustainable at all. When the day comes, what is the point for those states to say they have the more important economic or social difficulties?
Obviously talking about all this is a standing dish. Nevertheless, it is still being critized only because we have yet to do anything. I cannot count how many times I can read per week about the urge by scientists, environmental protectionists and scholars to cope with the problem. It is already late, and people are still standing aside. It is easier said than done apparently, but this is not a reason we do nothing. I was sort of frustrated and annoyed when I was on campus. Every room was colder than outside. I was wondering who needed the coldness in rooms. Unreasonably I had to put on my jacket when I was in any indoor area, when the weather was "nice" outside. If the air-conditioning was not turned on, definitely a lot of money and power could be saved and it would help improve the situation. Very few people do this, despite the job done by the government.
People choose to be ignorant when they have to sacrifice their comfort, but I am also doubtful about how comfortable they are when it is so cold inside and so warm outside.
I live in Hong Kong, a city located at the sub-tropical region in Northern Hemisphere. It is early February, which is supposed to be deep winter. During the day, the sun was shining recklessly. I was wearing a tank top and pants - I brought my jacket but it was too hot to put it on. Indoor area was much colder than outside. At the moment, my dearest ForecastFox tells me it will be 27C on Saturday; I cannot recall any winter in my life was as warm as this year.
Seriously, I cannot think of any causes other than global warming and greenhouse effect.
I suddenly got an idea during a class in the afternoon. Global warming; or global warning? A coincidence, which is not funny at all, comes into my head that when globalization becomes a very popular phenomenon, warming is a global term as well.
A recent UN report estimated human contributes to 90% of global warming. We are unable to control our gas emission. We are unable to stop ourself from polluting the planet. Anything we can think about the nature is polluted by us. We produce garbage; we burn the forest; we exploit the power resources; we light up the sky; we emit toxic gases; we defile the water. We talk about environmental protection, whereas news reports bring bad news daily. We talk much; we do little.
The International Herald Tribune published on 7 February about "Resistance builds to fight on greenhouse gases". It gave three examples of the resisting force, which were from three of the top 10 countries emiting the most greenhouse gases. Knowing there must be some constraints for these countries to cut down their emission, it is short-sighted to put less focus on the issue than the local economic problems.
Mankind rely on the environment. We need it to survive. This is an obvious fact, which people still tend to neglect it and live on their own will. If we do not deal with the greenhouse gases, our habitat will be destroyed completely on one day that we can no longer live. The way we hurt the environment is not sustainable at all. When the day comes, what is the point for those states to say they have the more important economic or social difficulties?
Obviously talking about all this is a standing dish. Nevertheless, it is still being critized only because we have yet to do anything. I cannot count how many times I can read per week about the urge by scientists, environmental protectionists and scholars to cope with the problem. It is already late, and people are still standing aside. It is easier said than done apparently, but this is not a reason we do nothing. I was sort of frustrated and annoyed when I was on campus. Every room was colder than outside. I was wondering who needed the coldness in rooms. Unreasonably I had to put on my jacket when I was in any indoor area, when the weather was "nice" outside. If the air-conditioning was not turned on, definitely a lot of money and power could be saved and it would help improve the situation. Very few people do this, despite the job done by the government.
People choose to be ignorant when they have to sacrifice their comfort, but I am also doubtful about how comfortable they are when it is so cold inside and so warm outside.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Peace (ii)
On the way school, I suddenly remember something I should add on the previous entry. As I think the problem is about the inequality of the current world, it is additionally important not to neglect the background of the inequality. The reason for the importance is that we cannot simply accuse any parties of the responsibility. A global problem is usually complex.
I do not know how long the human history is - I am not a historian. Yet what I think about this is when most factors are interlocked, history contributes a vital part. We used to live near resources. We need food, water, land and so on. When I look at the world map, I do not know whether I am correct, yet I do think the wealthier regions are the first few areas where a more advanced culture was developed due to the accessible and previously abundant resources. The people were thereby able to live under a better environment, which they had more room to develop their intelligence. After a few centuries, their advance is hardly to be competed by the others.
When the Europeans went through the Renaissance, the history of Africa and America was almost blank (at least I have never learnt any). The later the people started, the later they moved forward - different paces of evolution.
It is true that the modern technology and improved education help pushing the general human culture. Nevertheless it does not mean we can demolish the inequality at once. Europe and China has gone through thousands of years to now. North America and Australia are able to grow so quickly because they were somehow "conquered" by the white people in Europe. As far as I know the Aboriginals are still considered as more backward and usually poorer than the white. Most people in the two continents are immigrants, even may it be a few generations earlier. Moreover, during the few millennia, there were countless wars and conflicts in these regions. The deaths and sufferings are never countable. It is not only about the two World Wars, but back to the Ancient Rome and Ancient China, the ancient civilizations. Our history is uneasy to go through.
In this way the current warfare is partly explained. It is a very subtle reason that is easily to be neglected. However we should always keep in mind that knowing the reason is to strengthen our determination to reach peace. Since some regions demonstrate successful examples of keeping peace (despite the comparatively backward and poorer China), there is always a hope and a possibility to stop wars.
*All above is just to speak out my own view. I am not writing for academy, or anything else other than my personal expression. Additionally as I did not read any essays, reports or websites related before writing this, I do not know if I have hurt any copyright. Despite being a trivial blog, it is important to respect the copyright of others, whether I acknowledge this. I would apologize if I have done wrongly.
I do not know how long the human history is - I am not a historian. Yet what I think about this is when most factors are interlocked, history contributes a vital part. We used to live near resources. We need food, water, land and so on. When I look at the world map, I do not know whether I am correct, yet I do think the wealthier regions are the first few areas where a more advanced culture was developed due to the accessible and previously abundant resources. The people were thereby able to live under a better environment, which they had more room to develop their intelligence. After a few centuries, their advance is hardly to be competed by the others.
When the Europeans went through the Renaissance, the history of Africa and America was almost blank (at least I have never learnt any). The later the people started, the later they moved forward - different paces of evolution.
It is true that the modern technology and improved education help pushing the general human culture. Nevertheless it does not mean we can demolish the inequality at once. Europe and China has gone through thousands of years to now. North America and Australia are able to grow so quickly because they were somehow "conquered" by the white people in Europe. As far as I know the Aboriginals are still considered as more backward and usually poorer than the white. Most people in the two continents are immigrants, even may it be a few generations earlier. Moreover, during the few millennia, there were countless wars and conflicts in these regions. The deaths and sufferings are never countable. It is not only about the two World Wars, but back to the Ancient Rome and Ancient China, the ancient civilizations. Our history is uneasy to go through.
In this way the current warfare is partly explained. It is a very subtle reason that is easily to be neglected. However we should always keep in mind that knowing the reason is to strengthen our determination to reach peace. Since some regions demonstrate successful examples of keeping peace (despite the comparatively backward and poorer China), there is always a hope and a possibility to stop wars.
*All above is just to speak out my own view. I am not writing for academy, or anything else other than my personal expression. Additionally as I did not read any essays, reports or websites related before writing this, I do not know if I have hurt any copyright. Despite being a trivial blog, it is important to respect the copyright of others, whether I acknowledge this. I would apologize if I have done wrongly.
Peace
As an anti-war supporter, I am surely upset by the war in Darfur. (Reuters) It is reported that the war has been going on for four years and lots of people fled to refugee camp from their home in the region. The annoying point is that the report pointed out the militants, who want to topple the government, were assumed to be supported by the outsiders.
Outsiders - logically I suppose it is coming from some wealthy countries, likely in the West. I do not understand what the outsiders are thinking. Is it that interesting to see others fighting against each other? After thousands years of civilization we still cannot get over from the desire of power and fighting. Evolution does not help much. As I said, war is the most destructive weapon, the question that why people are keen on fighting is always without answer.
It is somehow special to look at the point a senior U.N. official said - "For peacekeeping, there must be a peace to keep."
So, where's the peace?
After reading Bertrand Russell last year, I agree that man is combative. Nevertheless as he pointed out that some places can keep the peace, I also believe there is such a possibility that people will find a genuine peace. We like to compete, gain power, be prominent and such and such which is all about ambition, but we can settle the desires down in a more peaceful way. War is not necessary. Violence should be prohibited.
Perhaps it is nothing good to just complain, but we should consider the reasons behind. In recent decades after the Second World War, we seldom hear any conflicts which involve Europe (except Britain having cooperation with the U.S. in the Middle East). Very little or even no news somehow means a place to be peaceful. Consider the frequency of hearing anything from countries like Canada, Finland, Sweden or Switzerland, I can hardly remember anything very special happened there.
Wars are found mostly in the Middle East, Africa and some few backward places in the Pacific region. Compared these areas with the countries I mentioned above, they are apparently more backward and impoverished. People living there are usually less educated. It only reveals one point - people have to be well educated, in order to transform the mindset and get the ambition under control.
One may argue that the war can happen only because they have supports from the wealthier power, as I also doubt the motives of the supports in the very beginning. However, it is important to realize that it is not a one-way matter. People may choose not to accept any so-called "support" to continue the war; instead they can refuse and harmonize the situation. If one on any side changes its mind not to keep fighting, the situation will be completely different. In my opinion, education is one of the few ways out.
Education needs enormous resources, which most of those places lack. That is why there are a lot of aids, funding and sponsorships coming from outside. (I do consider this as somehow irony since it is all about the outsiders, regardless of fighting or peace-keeping.) However, the support seems unlikely to be enough and hardly to be managed properly. Some people help with a mind that they think they're superior. Helping others is just a way to show their superiority. If they think in this way, the problem will be hardly solved. We always have to keep in mind that everyone is equal, in terms of the rights of receiving education and being a human. Despite the fact that I think some people must be more talented, wealthier and more powerful, everyone should be deserved an opportunity to receive a basic, equal education.
Certainly there're many people holding the same thought as mine, and I am surely not the first one to invent all these words. However it is important to have gone through all of the thinking process, which leads us to really understand what is going on and how to cope with it. This is a sort of independent thinking.
Also, although I am pessimistic about curing the matter, which peace is unlikely to exist owing to our nature should not be an excuse. Particularly if we are truly aggressive and more intelligent than the other organisms, I do not see any cue that we cannot live in concord.
This is old-fashioned, but still we have to support keeping peace. Not only mental support, but actual support is needed.
Outsiders - logically I suppose it is coming from some wealthy countries, likely in the West. I do not understand what the outsiders are thinking. Is it that interesting to see others fighting against each other? After thousands years of civilization we still cannot get over from the desire of power and fighting. Evolution does not help much. As I said, war is the most destructive weapon, the question that why people are keen on fighting is always without answer.
It is somehow special to look at the point a senior U.N. official said - "For peacekeeping, there must be a peace to keep."
So, where's the peace?
After reading Bertrand Russell last year, I agree that man is combative. Nevertheless as he pointed out that some places can keep the peace, I also believe there is such a possibility that people will find a genuine peace. We like to compete, gain power, be prominent and such and such which is all about ambition, but we can settle the desires down in a more peaceful way. War is not necessary. Violence should be prohibited.
Perhaps it is nothing good to just complain, but we should consider the reasons behind. In recent decades after the Second World War, we seldom hear any conflicts which involve Europe (except Britain having cooperation with the U.S. in the Middle East). Very little or even no news somehow means a place to be peaceful. Consider the frequency of hearing anything from countries like Canada, Finland, Sweden or Switzerland, I can hardly remember anything very special happened there.
Wars are found mostly in the Middle East, Africa and some few backward places in the Pacific region. Compared these areas with the countries I mentioned above, they are apparently more backward and impoverished. People living there are usually less educated. It only reveals one point - people have to be well educated, in order to transform the mindset and get the ambition under control.
One may argue that the war can happen only because they have supports from the wealthier power, as I also doubt the motives of the supports in the very beginning. However, it is important to realize that it is not a one-way matter. People may choose not to accept any so-called "support" to continue the war; instead they can refuse and harmonize the situation. If one on any side changes its mind not to keep fighting, the situation will be completely different. In my opinion, education is one of the few ways out.
Education needs enormous resources, which most of those places lack. That is why there are a lot of aids, funding and sponsorships coming from outside. (I do consider this as somehow irony since it is all about the outsiders, regardless of fighting or peace-keeping.) However, the support seems unlikely to be enough and hardly to be managed properly. Some people help with a mind that they think they're superior. Helping others is just a way to show their superiority. If they think in this way, the problem will be hardly solved. We always have to keep in mind that everyone is equal, in terms of the rights of receiving education and being a human. Despite the fact that I think some people must be more talented, wealthier and more powerful, everyone should be deserved an opportunity to receive a basic, equal education.
Certainly there're many people holding the same thought as mine, and I am surely not the first one to invent all these words. However it is important to have gone through all of the thinking process, which leads us to really understand what is going on and how to cope with it. This is a sort of independent thinking.
Also, although I am pessimistic about curing the matter, which peace is unlikely to exist owing to our nature should not be an excuse. Particularly if we are truly aggressive and more intelligent than the other organisms, I do not see any cue that we cannot live in concord.
This is old-fashioned, but still we have to support keeping peace. Not only mental support, but actual support is needed.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
2007 predicted weather
Reading a piece of news from Reuters, the British predicted 2007 to be the world's warmest year in history. The combination of global warming and the El Nino effect will possibly reach a new high since 1998.
It is scary to acknowledge this. It becomes well-known that our carbon emissions accelerate the speed of global warming; news are reported everyday. Sitting in front of my computer and read the news online everyday, I am like an outsider watching a disaster film. This is just WRONG. I feel myself too inferior to help the situation. I can use less plastic bags; I can walk more instead of taking the public transport. However this is just useless for the current situation. Global warming involves everyone; it needs all of us to put effort to solve the problem.
However, only one protocol - the Kyoto Protocol was signed as an attempt to tackle the problem. This is an annoying fact that the biggest polluter - the United States refused to commit while some fast-developing nations, such as India and China, are not included. I seriously doubt the usefulness of the protocol, despite its necessity. The treaty, signed 10 years ago, assigned mandatory targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to signatory nations.
It is going to expire in 2012, so it is time for the nations to discuss the renewal. We should urge our nations to actively participate in the discussion of the renewal. We have to support the envirnomental protection and protest against unnecessary toxic gas emissions. We have to speed up our pace to find alternatives of the exhaustible energy and save the energy. We have to promote sustainable development more strongly. There are many measures that we should consider.
This is our habitat. I do not claim the Earth is ours. I believe the Earth would stay alive even if we were all going to die. This is truly for the sake of ourselves. It is very silly to continue warfares and terrorism, which massively destroy our living environment and our lives. It is also not clever enough to keep talking about damaging corporations' interest - if human history ends, what is the meaning of making profit as no one could enjoy it?
It is a long-term fighting. It needs our foresight and wisdom to acknowledge the current danger. We might have talk about its coming in 50 years when it was 10 or 20 years ago, yet it is not the same now. The ice mass in the Poles are spliting from the core and the polar bear may be listed as endangered animal. Insufficient snowing is often found in many European countries. The ice in high-rise mountains are melting, threatening the source of rivers which could bring drought. The rising sea level threatens the coastal cities and their residents. I believe most of us have the intelligence to understand the emergency.
I know I cannot help much despite publishing my view, yet all this is because I would not like to be pessimistic about our future. We have to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, which is the definition of sustainable development. We have to learn how to live within the capacity.
2007 - let's see how warm it will be.
It is scary to acknowledge this. It becomes well-known that our carbon emissions accelerate the speed of global warming; news are reported everyday. Sitting in front of my computer and read the news online everyday, I am like an outsider watching a disaster film. This is just WRONG. I feel myself too inferior to help the situation. I can use less plastic bags; I can walk more instead of taking the public transport. However this is just useless for the current situation. Global warming involves everyone; it needs all of us to put effort to solve the problem.
However, only one protocol - the Kyoto Protocol was signed as an attempt to tackle the problem. This is an annoying fact that the biggest polluter - the United States refused to commit while some fast-developing nations, such as India and China, are not included. I seriously doubt the usefulness of the protocol, despite its necessity. The treaty, signed 10 years ago, assigned mandatory targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to signatory nations.
It is going to expire in 2012, so it is time for the nations to discuss the renewal. We should urge our nations to actively participate in the discussion of the renewal. We have to support the envirnomental protection and protest against unnecessary toxic gas emissions. We have to speed up our pace to find alternatives of the exhaustible energy and save the energy. We have to promote sustainable development more strongly. There are many measures that we should consider.
This is our habitat. I do not claim the Earth is ours. I believe the Earth would stay alive even if we were all going to die. This is truly for the sake of ourselves. It is very silly to continue warfares and terrorism, which massively destroy our living environment and our lives. It is also not clever enough to keep talking about damaging corporations' interest - if human history ends, what is the meaning of making profit as no one could enjoy it?
It is a long-term fighting. It needs our foresight and wisdom to acknowledge the current danger. We might have talk about its coming in 50 years when it was 10 or 20 years ago, yet it is not the same now. The ice mass in the Poles are spliting from the core and the polar bear may be listed as endangered animal. Insufficient snowing is often found in many European countries. The ice in high-rise mountains are melting, threatening the source of rivers which could bring drought. The rising sea level threatens the coastal cities and their residents. I believe most of us have the intelligence to understand the emergency.
I know I cannot help much despite publishing my view, yet all this is because I would not like to be pessimistic about our future. We have to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, which is the definition of sustainable development. We have to learn how to live within the capacity.
2007 - let's see how warm it will be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)