Paris 2015

Paris is in the news again. In the run up to the climate summit, National Geographic dedicated its November issue entirely to the climate challenge. The November issue contains a rather complete overview of all consequences of our booming activities on this planet. Why is it so difficult to tackle this problem?

On the individual level, it is clear that the climate issue will force us to live differently. People don’t easily adopt a behaviour where the cost is on the individual and the benefit is on the community. We always do the opposite: we maximise our individual benefits and put the burden as much as possible on the community’s shoulders.

At the political level, we face two problems. The first is that climate issues have time horizons of 10 to 50 to 100 years. Politicians are elected for a period of 4 years. Long term policies are not as well rewarded as short term policies. Another problem is that our politicians are elected by the national states. Therefore they represent the interests of the national states, they don’t represent the planet Earth. And as we have seen in a previous blog, groups and states tend to behave in a very selfish way.

Sooner or later the national states will need to delegate power to a supranational authority where the delegates are no longer chosen by national member states, but by a planetary council. Also remember that the issue is urgent. Until now, we haven’t created emergency exits on our planet. Of course, prevention is better. But the urgency is now so high that we have to do both: we have to do prevention and we have to build emergency exits anyway. How this can be done is described in my blog Biosphere 2, I refer to my earlier "sustainability" blogs in English and in Dutch.

The categorical imperative at work

The categorical imperative is a philosophical idea from Immanuel Kant. Kant had been wondering whether one could come up with ethical standards that would be based on pure reason, not on religious beliefs. He discovered that behaviour can be ethical if it is also generally applicable among all members of a (your) category. It is unethical if general application to all members of a category would not be considered possible or acceptable. For a street kid in Rio, stealing a bread from a rich man could still be ethical, in case you consider the rich man as belonging to a different category. Stealing a bread from another street kid however, would be unethical.

The categorical imperative is a difficult term to refer to the golden rule: don’t do to others (of the same category) what you would not like that is being done to yourself.

The question is now whether the categorical imperative is also applicable in a business context. Is there also a categorical imperative for commercial companies, or for business men who act on behalf of them? Many people will immediately say: no, because there is no mercy in business. Competition is too demanding. Applying the categorical imperative in a business context would lead to the end of the own organisation or of the person who applies it. What does religion say about the business world? The answer is simple: religions generally don't make a distinction between the personal world and the commercial world: "Respect the commandments".

If we look at the commercial world, the categorical imperative is not doing well, although companies generally try to keep a good reputation. The business world is considered as a jungle where the survival of the strongest is the only rule. Nobel Prize winner Robert Shiller claimed that companies who don’t deceive, don’t survive. The argument is often: if I don’t do it (=the evil), my competitor will do it. It is also remarkable how primitive war language is often used to describe the outcome of business meetings (battle, bloodshed, "chopped their heads off.. ").

This is the reasoning that has eventually led to the Volkswagen scandal. The same reasoning has also led to the banking crisis. We also find this reasoning in sports where athletes and cyclists have been doped to win the battle. And it is true, if we look at history, the survival logic has always been dominant where a lot was at stake in a highly uncertain (not well regulated) environment. But companies often forget the long term damage. Perhaps the categorical imperative will do better when the company environment stabilises a little and when the rules of the game get defined, imposed and accepted more widely. Until then, we will see more of these scandals.

I also refer to my earlier blog "Anständig wirtschaften".

The Magic of Places

My eldest daughter challenges her parents daily with a poster on her door that carries 101 pictures of world-famous places. The title is: "101 Places you need to see before you die". The poster is supposed to encourage our family to go and visit all these places as soon as possible. These exceptional places have become even more attractive now that we can catch our significant moments in a selfie and post them on a social web site. Some of these social web sites even show a map of where you have been.

Places are much more than latitude - longitude combinations. In combination with time, they can obtain a special meaning in life. For the ancient Greeks, Delphi was a special place. If you had any decision authority as an ancient Greek, you would want to go there to ask advice to the oracle and your life would have become more meaningful after your visit. In the Middle Ages, you would go to Jerusalem or to Santiago de Compostela to walk in the steps of Jesus or Saint James. As a Muslim, you were expected to go to Mekka once in your life. All these destinations are now visited more than ever in history.

In the romantic era, artists like Lord Byron would go to Greece and Italy and describe the most beautiful places in the nicest words and colours. In the 19th century English aristocracy started to travel for health or for pleasure. All the marvels around the Mediterranean Sea became popular destinations and gradually, the myth of the open-minded traveller was born. Travelling was a way to acquire culture - people who stayed at home knew nothing about the real world and remained narrow-sighted peasants.

In the late 20th century, travelling became an industry and nowadays, you can go almost anywhere you like, unless you are forced to travel in the wrong direction like the refugees. Today, every European wants to see these magic places at least once in his life: the Acropolis, the Pyramids of Egypt, the Statue of Liberty, the Taj Mahal, the Chinese Wall, etc…A question we have to ask is: are the big globetrotters of today really more open-minded? And what to think of Immanuel Kant, who stayed his entire life in his home town Königsberg? The man knew everything there was to know about the world: he travelled with his spirit by reading books.

And is it really realistic that we should see all these destinations? Suppose now, all 500 Million Europeans would like to visit them once in their life. Add to that 300 Million Americans, more than a Billion Chinese, and more than a Billion Indians. What if the Africans start travelling for leisure? It is clear that none of these magic places will be able to receive so many tourists in a sustainable way. In many places, the acceptance limit is already exceeded. I don’t have to tell you if you visited Park Guell in Barcelona recently.

Perhaps it is time to take things in perspective a little. Not every place should be equally important to everyone. Maybe your magic place is totally unknown to tourists. Would it not be more fun if not everybody had visited the Taj Mahal? And shouldn’t we keep some places unvisited, so that some longing remains and that we can hear about them from others? Not only our past life, also our future life should contain some exciting moments and some meaningful moments. This is only possible if we remain modest in our ambition to visit magic places. It is the only way to keep them magic.

I also refer to my earlier blog: “Travelling is a privilege”.

Inspiration from "De magie van plekken" written by Gert-Jan Hospers in magazine Karakter, University of Leuven,

Ode to Discipline

Immanuel Kant was known as an erudite gentleman and he became one of the greatest philosophers of all times. This did not happen by coincidence. During his life, Immanuel Kant was also known to be an extremely hard worker - he had an iron discipline. His life was said to be so strictly organised that his neighbours could read the time by watching him pass by during his daily walks in Königsberg.

Why an ode to discipline, rather than e.g. an ode to joy? Discipline has to do with the Latin discere - learning. Discipline is the virtue of the disciple. This virtue is often the engine of long sustained efforts and therefore the basis of success, as the shining example of Immanuel Kant shows. And yet the word discipline became suspicious. One reason is that discipline used to be cultivated in a military context and that is how it got associated with fascism after World War II. This happened unfairly, because discipline is here confused with "blind obedience", which is actually contrary to true self-discipline. During the sixties and the seventies, discipline was further discredited as an element of oppression and an enemy of freedom.

Yet, discipline is one of the most important pillars of our economy. The most successful economies are now the ones who are able to maintain a culture of discipline: pay your taxes, pay your invoices, work your foreseen hours, and limit your debt. Today, discipline is also the most ignored virtue in education. A lot of complaints in education originate from a non-admitted lack of discipline. Also modern plagues like social web addiction can only be cured with a little more discipline.

Nowadays, everybody is focused on performance and passion. This is very fine, but how do you develop performance and passion without a minimum of discipline? A rhetoric question according to Immanuel Kant.

I also refer to my earlier blog: virtues and virtutes. More about Kant in the Book of Life.

Picture: dugwy39 / Shutterstock.com

Death by Black Hole

I bought this book at the best place on Earth where you could buy it: in the souvenir shop of the Natural History Museum in New York City. One hour before, I had enjoyed the museum's "Dark Universe" show and I had still tears in my eyes when I bought this book.

The reason I had tears in my eyes is not because I'm easily touched by spectacular shows. It is because the overwhelmingly beautiful image and sound brought me back to a state of mind I had known at the age of 17, when I watched Carl Sagan's series "Cosmos" for the first time. This year reaching the age of 50, I could relive the same awe and wonder that also directed me to career in the space industry, perhaps still a little closer to Earth than the astronomy profession of my grandfather.

The author Neil deGrasse Tyson brings the area of astrophysics closer to a general audience. He probably has one of the nicest jobs in the universe. In this book, he describes the latest discoveries in astrophysics. The language is easily accessible and the tone of the book is very humorous. I discovered I didn't know that much about thermonuclear reactions. The author also devotes a chapter to what can happen when "the universe turns bad". If only people could be more aware of this, perhaps it would make us all more humble and careful with this planet.

At the end of the book, the author also spends some thoughts on the relation between science and religion. In his own fleet-footed, no-nonsense way, the author points out that religious books have never been very good at predicting the movement of celestial bodies. He also points out that science is not interested in philosophies of ignorance like "intelligent design". These ideas answer our lack of understanding with an idea that just 'packages' this current lack of understanding (these are my own words). Though being a 'religious' person myself, I fully subscribe to the author's view. And I guess most people (with a scientific education) in Europe would subscribe to this view as well. But I could imagine these topics create some controversy in the USA.

See also my blog on SETI. Below you see the entrance hall of the Natural History Museum in NYC.

The digital divide

The political world recognises that Internet connectivity has become an essential utility like water, electricity, fuel or gas. Every household, rich or poor, should have the possibility to watch what is going on in the world (television) and should be able to retrieve the information he requires and interact with others (internet).

You can argue that many people don't use the internet in an appropriate way, but that doesn't matter here. Everyone should have access to content that may be enriching and useful to him and this access to information content is an essential precondition for personal development, welfare and well-being.

It appears that 60% of the world's population doesn't have broadband access to the internet yet. There can be many reasons, but very often these people live in remote and underdeveloped regions. In many cases, these regions don't have the required tele-communications equipment and cabling in place. In that case, satellites combined with satellite ground terminals are the fastest and easiest way to open broadband connections to the rest of the world.

SES and O3B networks ("the Other 3 Billion people") are organisations that are working on bridging this digital divide.

A nice example can be found on the SES blog: Satellite TV in the highest village of Europe.

See also my blog: "Africa, something has changed".

Satellite ADS-B takes off

ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast) is a technology for surveillance and tracking of air planes. The purpose is comparable to radar. The difference with radar is that with ADS-B, the air plane itself is broadcasting its position, velocity and direction to the air traffic controllers through an L-band signal. This is possible through the combination of a GNSS (GPS) receiver and a low-L-band transmitter on board of the air plane,

When the plane flies over land, terrestrial antennas can pick up the signal and inform the air traffic controller. But what do you do when the plane is flying over an ocean or an extremely remote area like a desert, a rain forest or a mountainous area? We have heard about the difficulty in locating crashed planes in case they get lost above such isolated places.

In that case satellite based ADS-B receivers can pick up the weak L-band signals in space and redirect them to the home base. This should allow tracking aircraft to any place on earth - as long as the ADS-B system remains fully operational.

I'm proud my company is a European pioneer in satellite based ADS-B. You can read the full story on the SES blog below.

Satellite ADS-B takes off with SES Techcom Services and DLR

I also refer to my earlier blogs: Satellite navigation can save your life (3) - SAR and Satellite navigation can save your life (4) - High Integrity

Science saves us from our anthropocentrism

Man has a natural tendency to construct a world view that puts himself in the middle. This is logical. If we look at the observable world, we are in the middle. However, science has already taught us a few lessons and these lessons may lead to modesty.

We used to think we lived on a flat Earth, and Europe (Rome) was in the middle, until we learned the Earth was a sphere, and a sphere doesn't have a middle on the habitable surface. We used to think the Sun circled the Earth until the great "liar" Copernicus told us the Earth circled the Sun. We learned the sun is not in the middle of our galaxy, but at the edge. We used to think the galaxies are moving away from us until we realised the other galaxies see exactly the same from their point of view.

In biology, the same is happening. We already know that we are just one recent branch of a larger collection of humanoids that happened to survive. In biological history, we are not in the middle, we are rather newcomers in life on Earth.

As science also progresses in neurobiology, a new awareness is seizing us: we may not be the only ones who have "consciousness". We have a natural tendency to think we are the only ones, because we can't communicate with other species very well. Moreover, our failure to recognise the consciousness of animals helps us in worrying less about treating them badly or slaughtering them.

Why would an animal not have a consciousness? I think even insects have some sort of consciousness. I learned this while chasing mosquitoes at home. But an even more challenging idea came from a former colleague of mine: how can we be sure an atom doesn't have consciousness? Basically, we are not sure. It is possible. In fact, it is even a great idea...although not verifiable today and therefore it can also be classified as a "flying teapot" idea (Bertrand Russell).

There is an important general caveat with this blog: the title is merely an observation. I don't mean to say that science releases us from our anthropocentrism - on purpose - like if some kind of deity wanted to make us more humble. (Some deities have tried this in the past - it didn't work very well :-))

I also refer to my blog SETI and to my dutch blog Ziel en Lichaam.

Disaster relief management

Disasters occur more than ever. This is reality and perception at the same time. It is reality, because climate change is a reality. People also settle at more places on earth, and expose themselves to additional risks. But it is also perception, because we are better informed about what happens on this globe.

Our communication needs have grown considerably in recent years. When then a disaster occurs, the communication needs for the affected region explode. On the one hand, the traditional communication means, telephone, cable TV and fibre networks may be damaged. On the other hand, the population calls for help, the civil protection services need to communicate to a crisis centre, the press needs to transmit images and hospitals need assistance.

In such case satellites and satellite terminals are an ideal means to restore communications. They can also play a role in the coordination of humanitarian convoys, coming from the neighbour countries. Navigation satellites and earth observation satellites can also play an important role in the prediction and detection of additional floods, earthquakes or tsunamis or to assess the size of the disaster.

See also:

EMERGENCY.LU DEPLOYING IN RESPONSE TO THE EARTHQUAKE IN NEPAL

and watch the video of emergency.lu

Truth and justice are not found through alliances

Our opinions are coloured by our alliances and friendships. It is good to be aware of this. Love and hatred follow a sign multiplication rule, which works as follows:

• The friend of my friend is my friend. (++ => +)
• The enemy of my friend is my enemy. (-+ => -)
• The friend of my enemy is my enemy. (+- => -)
• The enemy of my enemy is my friend. (-- => +)

The logic is a very simple survival logic. We do what we think is best for ourselves. We divide the world in two groups: the ones who are good to us and the ones who are bad - anyway. Our opinions are correspondingly influenced by these relationships. We tend to agree with our friends and disagree with our enemies. We see this in national and international politics. And it always leads to polarisation.

In national politics, we see in all countries the great left - right divide. If you belong to the left or to the right, you are very likely to have different opinions on just about everything: immigration, nuclear power, genetic engineering, abortion, gay marriage and environment. Our friends from the same side are always right, our enemies at the other side are always wrong. We also see that each side is very critical to the other side. From the other party, a slight slip of the tongue will not be forgiven, but from the own party members even criminal acts can count on understanding. We saw some examples in Belgian politics recently.

In international politics we saw years ago that Yasser Arafat was supporting Saddam Hoessein because they had a common enemy. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Today we see the United States supporting autocratic fundamentalist regimes, only because they are an ally against other evil forces.

This "rule" also explains why gossip is so tempting. If you talk evil to someone about his enemy, this person will consider you to be a friend, because you seem to be defending his perspective and his interest. In 1930' Germany, you could  make good friends with your countrymen by insulting Jews and you could make dangerous enemies by defending them. In 2015' Belgium, you can now make good friends by warning people against Islamic dangers, even  if they are very unlikely to encounter these in their own residential area.

The problem with the sign multiplication rule described above is that it misleads us. Truth and justice are not found through alliances and friendships and certainly not through prejudice and gossip. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend and the friend of my enemy is not necessarily my enemy. My best friend may have committed a bad crime and my worst enemy may well be his innocent victim. To reach justice, we need to use our conscience, not our relationships.

This is the great message from prophets and philosophers. The Samaritan, the Jew or the Muslim may well be my new good friend anyway and it may be my oldest friend who actually needs to check his conscience. Truth and justice are reached through individual reason and conscience, not through alliances.

See also my blog: mainstream versus democracy.

Africa: something has changed

I still remember the days that Africa was hardly mentioned in the commercial world of satellite and telecommunications operators. This has changed significantly in the last 10-15 years. Africa has become a key continent in commercial business awareness.

Africa is of course a continent with growth perspectives. It is an ideal continent for satellite services. Not every village can be connected with fibre optic or coaxial cables but every village can watch television and surf on the internet using satellite terminals. This bridges the so-called digital divide in the world: poor and/or remote regions also get access to the digital world.

It is good to recognise that our global economy also shows some positive evolutions. More about this on the SES blog:

Explore the potential of the African continent.

Social web addiction

Social web addiction is a real plague. We experience it everywhere, even at work meetings. Some people start surfing on the social web as soon as they see the chance. They don't look up if you talk to them. You need to send them an e-mail or a chat sentence for them to react. This addiction is not different from other addictions like smoking. It is annoying for the people around and it is even annoying for the addicted person himself. The addicted person needs more strength to stop than to continue and the weakest characters suffer more from addiction than the strongest. Note that 40 years ago, television addiction was a major source of concern for parents and it still exists today, with or without internet addiction on top of it.

Why do we get so addicted? It is not so much because we learn so many new things. We do it because we are social beings. We seek recognition. The advantage of the social web is that recognition becomes quantifiably visible in number of connections, recommendations, likes and comments. But this also nurtures our narcism. The social web gives us the impression we are important and relevant. We seem to tell important things and the other people are there to read all this. The problem is that we all have the same asymmetric, egocentric view. The most important content on the web is always our own. (In this case my blog, that you may read.)

Why is social web addiction a problem? It is not a problem because the social web is more superficial than the "real" world. The social web is just as real and just as superficial as the world we knew from before the social web. In fact, the social web is a mirror image of the "real" world. In daily  talk, we are also narcistic. In the "real" world (whatever that may be), we also believe our "content" (talk) is the most important and hardly listen to what other people have to say.

The true reason why social web addiction is a problem is that the people who are physically around us (children, parents, neighbours, direct colleagues) don't get enough attention. This is a problem if they are not part of our web discussion groups.

What is the solution? I believe we need to create time limits and we need to create routine. Suppose you could force yourself not to go on the social web before all your homework is done. Suppose you would be aware that web surfing in a meeting is impolite to the meeting organiser. Suppose you could force yourself never to do two things at the same time (especially if driving a car is one of them). Suppose you could always stop your social web activities at 10:00 PM. Suppose you would never go on the social web more than once per day. I guess you could turn a lot of time in quality time. You would not be frustrated about missing the things you would not have liked anyway.

I also refer to my earlier blogs: you are your time , raising kids in the 21st century and netwerkverslaving.

Freedom of speech

Freedom of speech was originally invented to allow socially weaker minorities to stand up for their rights against a powerful establishment. Freedom of speech is not a safe conduct for the majority to make fun of socially weaker minorities. We know from previous century where such fun can lead us. As the Muslims make out the socially weaker minority in our society, we should be particularly concerned about THEIR freedom of speech. Advanced societies and advanced written press should particularly offer a platform to the socially weaker groups.

The terrorist is someone who is essentially impatient. It is his social weakness that becomes unbearable to him and he decides to destroy this weakness in an act of despair. A competition driven society that ignores its spiritual values will see more terrorists at work, no matter what the "cause" is. The reason is that in such society, the consequence of being socially weak is indeed totally unbearable: you are excluded and start suffering from complete alienation. The focus on common, sometimes "forgotten", values in the different manifestations was therefore not a coincidence.

cars, ships, trains and planes connected

All moving vehicles will be connected soon to the Internet. This is valid for cars, buses, ships, trains and planes. There are several reasons for doing this. First, we need to have more and data exchange with the vehicle itself. This is the so-called telematics. Vehicles tend to have more and more sensors and more complicated software, This requires regular sensor reading and software updates. A vehicle is also an object of value; there may be reasons to follow its position, speed and status. This evolution is a part of the so-called Internet-of-Things (IoT) evolution.

In some years from now, cars, ships, trains and planes will be driven by computers. Or they will be remotely piloted by someone who is not inside. This requires reliable communication links. Autonomy and mobility will no longer be the privilege of those who can drive a car. This may seem scary. What if the computer is wrong? Very true, but don't forget how many people die today because of human errors and tiredness.

A second reason why we need data connections to cars is that passengers inside want to stay connected while travelling. This is already happening in buses and trains through the GSM network, but using satellites, we will also remain connected while travelling in ships and planes.

What is the impact on our life? Well first, we will remain connected to our employer even longer. A trip will no longer be an excuse for not answering an e-mail. On the other hand, we will also remain connected to our home base and share our travel experience instantly. There may be security and privacy implications. Social web sites will be used more and more to release travelling frustration. We will share and witness more and more arrogant driving behaviour on Facebook; this is not really what we were looking for, on the other hand it may discourage such driving behaviour. Passengers' smartphones may also relay images of security incidents in public transportation. Tracing relatives who are delayed in traffic will also become more easy. And in the long term, cars will drive for us. This will most probably increase the road capacity and reduce the chance of accidents and traffic jams.

I refer to earlier blogs: "Satellite Navigation can save your life", "e-call" and "Satellite navigation and communication".