Tag: writing

Qualitative and Quantitative

Do I need to define these two? Yes, because they are not words that automatically come up in everyday conversation. Not even in technical conversations.

A qualitative approach to an argument deals with words, meanings, and experiences. Not so much opinions but defensible objective judgements based on best available information.

A quantitative approach to an argument deals with analysis, numbers and statistics. A scientific approach rooted in believable evidence that is reliable, repeatable, rational deduction.

In the aviation safety world, we use both. It’s my view that one is not subordinate to the other. However, the persuasiveness of one is greater than the other. At the end of the day, persuasiveness matters. If a key decision is to be predicated on an argument, then how it is constructed and presented matters a lot.

Many is the time when I have sat in a room listening to a person make a case in as elegant and enthusiastic a way that they can, but the results have been less than impressive. I’ve made the mistake myself. Coming prepared with a barrage load of sound evidence accompanied by a flaky presentation that misses the mark.

That is why the order needs to be thus. Establish a qualitative argument supported by quantitative information. Not the other way around.

In the field of aircraft system safety assessment this is vital. Probabilistic analysis is a powerful tool. Relating numbers to human experience is not so easy. So, detailed charts and logic diagrams sprinkled with numbers are unlikely to be enough on their own.

Stating an objective is met by handing over a pile of calculations is half the job. However impartial and truthful the numbers may be, arguments are not made until they are explained.

Many is the time when I have lifted a large report from my in-tray, studied it and concluded that there’s something missing in that gap between the QED and the statement of compliance.

Maybe this an element of safety regulatory psychology. It’s difficult to approve something if it becomes difficult to explain to others what’s been done. That evidence trail needs to be explainable. And easily explainable to a wide audience.

This doesn’t change with digitalisation. Replacing large piles of paper with large files of results puts the reader in the same position. Impenetrable evidence needs understandable explanation. Presenting a qualitative argument supported by quantitative information is a good way to go.

No more – please!

I would not ban Christmas. I think it was one of Oliver Cromwell’s biggest mistakes[1]. He may not have been the author of the legal ban but upholding it was a mistake (from 1644 to 1660).

But and there’s a but. Here the sun is shining and the temperature is mild. There are still bees landing on the flowers in my garden. Wander into a British supermarket or garden centre on the first of October and guess what I find. Rows and rows of Christmas goods. Anything from food in fancy tins to cheap toys from the far east. One or two shops take this to ridiculous extremes. Enter the front door and the first encounter is piles of Christmas goods. No possibility of ignoring the day that’s nearly 3-months away.

I find it insulting. It’s like we (shopkeepers) must shift this stuff, so we are going to make you pay attention. Make you loop your way through brightly coloured isles. For parents it must be awful.

The world turned upside down. Let’s bypass Halloween. Let’s bypass 5th November (Gunpower plot). Let’s bypass any other traditional winter festivals. Let’s go straight to Christmas.

I’m not alone. One local garden centre is especially bad. With the idea of continuing my efforts to eke out the last Autumnal colours and buy some compost, I walked through the doors. As I weaved may way through cavalcades of shiny lights and stuffed Farther Christmases my heart sank. Totally unimpressed with the tinsel and plastic trees. Popping out the other side, into the part of the garden centre that is a garden centre, I sighed. Others around me sighed too.

“I didn’t come here for that” and we agreed. It was too much. I wouldn’t have said the same in mid-November but, so early in the season, I was in no mood for tacky festive celebrations.

Should I lobby my Member of Parliament to ban the display of Christmas goods in the shops more than a month before the day of celebration? It’s worth thinking about. Today, I can’t say we have a puritan-dominated Parliament so there’d be little risk of igniting a religious conflict. That said, I imagine most parliamentarians have bigger fish to fry just now.

Let’s not ban Christmas but a modicum of common sense from the commercial sector wouldn’t go amiss. Ramming Christmas goods down our throats is bad practice. I know that the takings for a lot of commercial businesses go up in the festive season.

My question is – are shops there to serve customers or is it the other way around. We all like celebrations. A saturation of homogonous red and white for weeks and weeks is not celebration. It’s jolly depressing.

Shopkeepers may say – you have a choice. Don’t go in our shops if that’s your reaction. That’s a viewpoint that could drive a call to outlaw the unloading of artificial jollity on an unsuspecting public. Forcing us to grind our way through layers of stuff destined for landfills in January next.

Oliver Cromwell’s era came to an end as foolishness took over. 365 years later I think we can do without 365 days of Christmas. British winter festivities amount to more than colourful biscuits.

[1] https://cromwellmuseum.org/did-oliver-cromwell-ban-christmas/

Be fair

Here’s an example of why the public interest needs protection. It’s easy to assume that an App in common usage is comprehensive, unbiased, and trustworthy. But is it?

Sitting in a theatre there’s music playing as people fill the auditorium. Sounds a bit fancy. I’m talking about a local arts centre on a Saturday night. Playing was a compilation of songs and comic tunes few of which I knew. This kept the audience entertained as they shuffled in.

It’s the digital age. One tap on an App on my phone and the result is usually a whirring symbol whilst the App does its analysis to eventually show me what was playing. The whirring symbol kept going. This is hard, so the App excused itself. Then it drew a blank.

The next approach was to pick what seemed to be a theme in the song and look it up on a search engine. There’s the answer. A children’s show theme.

That made me think. Did the App not know the answer or did the App not bother to have reference to that type of song? I went down this line of thinking because what the App normally does is “helpfully” show where a song it has found can be purchased (streamed).

What interest could the App’s algorithm have if there’s nothing available to buy at the end of the process? Any presumption of coverage, fairness and objectivity is merely something I projected on the App’s internal workings. It’s not necessarily there.

The wider point is that placing trust on Apps that are free to download and for the most part produce useful results, as if by magic, maybe not be quite what they seem. Afterall nobody reads the small print – do they?

Some Apps compose data that is extracted from reputable sources. These become popular because of the love of convenience. Within bounds, the information provided can be trusted. This is the general assumption I may make about a freely available weather App.

A key factor here is trust. However, most often that trust only comes about by a regular “try it and see” experience. There’s no mark of quality. There’s no organisation looking after the public interest. Now, if you say to me – that’s what Ofcom[1] does in the UK, I’ll have a little laugh. That regulatory may keep a watching eye on the worst offenders as far as lawbreaking is concerned, but they are not much help in saying this App is a gold star, and this one is equivalent to a dodgy doorstep salesman.

For Apps with mechanical algorithms that chunter out information this may not be a problem. Even if their display includes advertisements and enticements to win a holiday.

What comes next with AI is more concerning. The commercial interests of a smart music identifier are evident. Making recommendations is not to my detriment. Although purposefully fishing in a restricted pool of information could be.

With general purpose Apps, which are a front to AI systems, there’s the potential for manipulation. Where commercial interests are the primary motivator there does need to be someone looking after the public interest. My interests. Yes, I am in favour of regulation.

[1] https://www.ofcom.org.uk/

Stop and think

Anthropomorphism is more than the world of “Alice in Wonderland”. A talking rabbit is not the least bit strange fictional tale. Our minds happily accept this as a normal part of storytelling. The anthropomorphic qualities of an animal, or an object is not so easy to explain. But we do it all the time. That is thinking of non-human objects as human in a mystical transformative way.

A teddy bear is an object. One eye, fur, fluff and stuffing however shabby. It’s an object but the teddy bear I had when I was 6-years old is something more. It has a personality. Having travelled with me, over the decades, it’s not an object to be thrown away without a thought.

Like others, I do the same with animals. Not always. Occasionally, I go to the bottom of the garden where it adjoins a grassy field. I may talk to the cows. That’s if they are grazing up against the fence. Now, I know those Dexter cows have no idea what I’m saying but that’s unimportant.

Personal computers haven’t been in our lives as long as teddy bears and animals. From the unwieldy plastic boxes that filled our desks they have transformed into tablets, lap-tops and super smart phones. These devices can be sources of great utility or, on bad days, incredible annoyance. Fliting with both times saving or time destroying.

It’s likely that a machine’s anthropomorphic qualities come out when we are most frustrated. That instantly takes me to the scene from the BBC’s Fawlty Towers[1]. It’s a memorable comic scene. It’s Basil Fawlty’s frustration peeks when his car breaks down at the most inconvenient moment possible. He gives his car a damn good trashing. The car doesn’t flinch or runaway.

Who hasn’t sworn at a computer? I’d label you untrustworthy if you answered – never. I’ve done it more times than I can remember, as if my computer could feel my annoyance. An inanimate black box, full of integrated circuits, memory chips, circuit boards, components, connectors, and multi-coloured wires.

One aspect of computing, that I can state without fear of contradiction. They don’t care. Not one bit. How can they? Caring is a human reaction.

By the way, in 1975, Basil Fawlty’s Austin 1100 Countryman (Estate) car had negligible electronics even if it was probably the car’s electrics at the root of his overwhelming frustration.

I’ve lead you down this path because the thought I have in mind is – will AI make a difference?

We humans are highly influenced by the nature of tasks. Having to read a simple advertising slogan is a million miles from learning from a dense book packed with complex detail.

It’s easy to forget that a computer has no opinion on the tasks that it’s given. Big or small. Awkward or easy. There may be ten lines of code to execute, or a thousand or millions.

My question is – are we anthropomorphising AI? When I read some articles about the future there’s a suggestion that computer code has become like the talking rabbit. It’s more than a synthetic voice composed from trillions on electrical ones and noughts. Blind we become to the reality of billions of machine instructions being crunched. Invisible is the reality of the billions of semiconductor junctions working at unfathomable speeds.

Using jazzy description like; “super intelligence” gives machines a mythical god like status. This is way off the mark in 2026. Powerful computing is truly amazing. AI is developing at an astonishing speed. That said, it’s an exceedingly long way from being anything like us. It’s true I may not be able to say the same in 2046, but we are not there now. What we can say confidently is that nature has had a head start of billions of years. And conscious creatures are vast orders of magnitude more complex than silicon-based electronics.

[1] https://youtu.be/78b67l_yxUc

AI Now

Without a long and tendinous epical on the ethical concerns raised by AI it might be as well to consider several of the practical changes that it has brought about in everyday life. Let’s go for something as simple as applying for a job. An experience that has changed considerably.

I think it’s well written up that this is not a great time to leave school or graduate. The prospect of applying for hundreds of jobs and getting a pile of rejections is an unsettling experience. Fine, during recessions, such as have happened in the past, this is not entirely unusual.

I’ve done my fair share of recruitment. That’s recruitment applying a paper based but highly bureaucratic process to address a pile of job applications. The writing of vacancy notices and setting criteria for a recruitment can be a time-consuming task. That is if the aim is to uphold the best practices that are current or even mandated. at the time.

It’s unsurprising that employers and recruitment agencies are now using AI tools to process applications as they arrive, most often via e-mail. Paper is going out of the window. That world I knew of having a file busting at the seams, and methodically working through it, are gone.

Like a vast electronic funnel applications are pushed in, are sieved through a filter, and some pop out at the at the other end of a hidden process. Hundreds of automated rejections are then created and scattered like confetti amongst those who failed to get past the AI gate keeper.

No wonder young people get a bit dejected as they accumulate masses of machine generated rejections. It’s not them, it’s a process. Easy to say but rejection can feel very personal.

However, there’s a smart fight back. AI can help (or can it). Let’s say I want a job that fits my profile. My ambitions, experience and talents. Just ask one of the AIs out there to generate a “prefect” CV. Feed it the relevant information. Next ask the AI to survey all the current vacancies for jobs that I could apply for with my generic CV. Then select the ones of interest. Having that list, feed the results into AI asking it to tailor a CV and application to fit the requirements of each one. Then automatically fire off the job applications. Error free, formatted to suite the style of the moment and fully customised.

I think you can see where I’m going with this description of events. Yes, it is dehumanising. If both applicant and potential employer are using AI, without human intervention, there’s a battle of the machines going on. Noone need communicate a single word.

It’s like a human – machine – human sandwich. There’s no malicious intention in all this processing. Objectives are set to try and match people with opportunities, but the unintended consequences are ruinous. In fact, it’s like a Monty Python sketch for today.

Not for one moment am I saying that a process is not needed. What’s getting into the realms of science fiction is the escalation that is possible with AI tools. That interface between aspiring employee and potential employer becomes an algorithmic battle.

Because AI costs are so low then this mechanism can be applied at all levels, whether it’s applying to flip burgers or become a commercial pilot.

I’m not having a downer on AI. It’s just that we much never forget the need for the human touch. More than that, if the end results of the above mass processing is cynicism and demotivation again the results are unintended consequences. So, think before creating a new process.

Unraveling Future Risks

Much talk of the end of times doesn’t make for the end of times[1]. It’s true to say that commentators have taken time on their keyboards to ponder on the apocalypse. It isn’t the first time the subject has occupied the public mind. I could say that the four horsemen of the apocalypse have been around since biblical times. They have, and now there’s a couple more of them riding around the globe.

In my lifetime, the atomic age, the jet age, being wiped out by bombs and a following nuclear winter was brightly coloured there on the chart of probability. Far too high up that chart. Then the Cold War ended and a period of moderate sensibility seemed to exist. That didn’t last long. Chewing over the masses of accumulated planetary climate data created another headache. This time, but at a slower pace, climate change became one of the horsemen. No doubt the popularity of apocalyptic science fiction and science reality comes from a deep insecurity. A realisation that the evolution of space and time is way beyond human control.

Playing my vinyl that’s been sitting in a box for too many years, I’m listening to one of my favourite David Bowie tracks. “Five Years[2]” is the ultimate apocalyptic disaster song. It asks the listener to imagine the News coming over that we’ve only 5-years left on Earth. What would happen in such a situation? Would we all scream and run around like chickens with no heads?

Now I must ask, is that a good lead into one or two words about Artificial Intelligence (AI)? Those working on this technology seem to be getting nervous about that technology which they have cherished, developed and promoted. Let’s first say that AI is not new. When I graduated, in the 1980s, it was one of those esoteric subjects that was only for those wanting to do a PhD in an obscure part of the world. Not more than 20-years ago, given that aviation research was part of my remit, academics lobbied me because they thought a complex neural network should be able to predict the next major accident in aviation. That is fed with enough safety data. They may have been ahead of their time.

What has surprised a lot of people is the speed with which industry has gone from academic research to live digital systems that exhibit astonishing abilities. Access wide open too.

I don’t know if there’s a Moore’s Law[3] for AI. There doesn’t need to be one. The observation is that every week there’s News of even more powerful technology being made available. The disruptors are disrupting themselves before the rest of us have a clue what’s happening. As David Bowie would sing: “my brain hurts a lot.” Here’s what I think is problematic.

One. Concentrated Ownership. This innovation, and its potential power are in the hands of few people and States. Specialised expertise and infrastructure are prized intellectual property.

Two. Forecasting Dilemma. Projections are fuzzy, to say the least. Who can be believed? A simple curve on a graph doesn’t cut it. Step transitions are more than likely.

Three. Sleeping Sentinels. Regulatory lag is normal. Rules and regulators take time to mature. It’s just that, in this case, this lag may be disastrous. And some prefer to sleep.

Four. Legacy Thinking. Imagining AI’s future to be a version of past progress is woefully inadequate. It’s a new game when machines exceed human intelligence.

I do not believe that the world will end in five years but it maybe unrecognisable from today’s world. AI will create as many problems as it solves. Surely the powers that be need to step back and think about how the next decade will pan out. 

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/sep/02/jd-vance-god-podcast-end-times

[2] https://youtu.be/8gPSGrpIlkc

[3] https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/moores-law

Ideologies and Education

Listening to a new Labour Education Minister say, for all intents and purposes, that Gove[1] caused young people classed as NEETs (Not in Education, Employment, or Training) isn’t what might be called objective thinking.

Education and training in the UK have long been a victim of the classical political ding-dong. Right leaning politicians support elitism (masquerading as aspiration). Left leaning politicians support egalitarianism (within class hierarchies). Both claim to celebrate achievement, merit and social mobility. I say “claim” because the outcomes of their polices are often so different from their utterings.

It’s not too difficult to understand why. Historic social prejudices run deep. They remain embedded in our institutions. Public and private. Comedians Cleese, Barker and Corbett star in a BBC sketch of 66 years ago[2] that sums-up stubborn in-grained British attitudes. As a 66-year-old this doesn’t sit well with me.

Although the public are gradually freeing themselves from an addiction to political creeds, the current cohort of elected members and the media moguls still perpetuate a dated world of stereotypes. From Classical Greece to now, the phrase “everything changes, but nothing changes” still has its place.

Here’s a view that might be different. On a day when examination results are published, much of what has been said this morning is about education pushing young people out into the world. Like products coming off the end of a production line. Ready to be integrated into society. Both from political right and left this is horribly mechanistic.

If something isn’t working, it’s the fault of the implementation of policies, processes and procedures dreamed up by past Ministers.

What about looking at the subject from the other end of the telescope. Our society isn’t going away. Whatever the successes or failures, in 66-years from now, that’s 2092, people will be writing articles about education and training. The good and bad.

Within the lives of this generation of young people the rivers of change will flow ever faster. Instead of pushing young people out into the world, let’s imagine the factors that will pull them into different life outcomes. What will success or failure look like in their time between leaving school and retirement. Assuming such a condition as retirement continues to exist.

[This is where Gove got it mighty wrong. Retro education policies born of imperial public-school thinking contained no vision of the future.]

To thrive in let’s say, the period between 2026 and 2066, adaptability and resilience will surely be needed. Attitude comes into the equation too. A “can do” mentality will be an asset. There’s no need to downplay achievement, merit and social mobility. More a need to supress the pigeonholes and categories that hold people back. The forces that demotivate.

Our classical two faced political ding-dong does a lot of harm.

[1]UK Education Secretary (2010–2014): Led reforms, including the expansion of the academies and changes in what’s taught in schools.

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00hhrwl

Moments of Decision

It’s the time of year. Young people pass through a gateway. Exam results hit the streets. Through life there are moments of decision. Life is not linear or proportionate. Swaths of time will pass when nothing much happens. Then bang. There’s a moment of decision.

Certainly, education has a role to play in preparing people for those moments. This is where the race for superior exam performance statistics fails. It’s great for someone to struggle through and ace one subject. It’s great for a person of moderate ability to excel out of the blue. It’s great when a naturally talented individual gets more than their expected grades. The difficulty arises when people, consequently, are not prepared to know what to do.

Conflicting advice shovelled out by a fickle media isn’t the bast source on offer. Politicians juggling with volumes of statistic, a barrage of recommendations and a pile of prejudices struggle to find a line to maintain.

Is going to university important? Now, there’s a question mark that’s doing the rounds.

It’s true, I should not, on any account, judge the current situation as if it was the same as my experience of 50-years ago. 1976 was a world away from where we are in 2026. That said there are some fundamentals that stick.

At the deepest level there’s the reason universities exit at all. Let’s face it they are not an invention of the modern world. There’s a reason special places of learning were established in every human civilisation. It’s that basic hierarchy of needs. Once food and shelter are commonplace humanity gets around to asking endless questions about the world and the universe.

Is going to university important? I find the question strange in so many ways. Fine there’s a small number of institutions that don’t offer the ideals of university life or an uplift in future opportunities. However, the vast majority provide the next steps that a maturing adult needs. It may lead to a specialisation or a jumping-off point to a radically different destination.

A hardy perennial that keeps cropping up is this war of the vocational verses the academic. It’s a persistent theme.

Mechanics that fix semi-autonomous electric vehicles may not need a degree in oceanography. Researchers in the art of renaissance architecture may not need to know how to lay bricks. Engineers developing farm machinery may not need a qualification in linguistics. Need is not all.

What this presents is a false conflict. In my mind, people with a diversity of experiences are going to be much better equipped to deal with the future than those who tramline. Thus, the “hard hat verses gradation cap” is the most moronic of slogans. It’s the ultimate visualisation of the tramline. It paints a picture of a fork in the road (or rail).

I started by writing that there are moments of decision. The point I want to make is that the decision of university or not university shouldn’t be based solely on career aspiration or finances or popular fashion. Believe it or not it’s possible to read medieval illiterate and be a gifted welder. To be fascinated by the Greeks and Romans and fly a plane. To enjoy construction work and play a musical instrument to a high level. Motivation and passion are the key.

Please let’s think more widely about lifelong learning. Let’s build systems that enable lifelong learning.

Rise of AI: A Double-Edged Sword

Spotting AI generated articles is a hobby that is designed to be a minority pursuit. There will, no doubt, come a time when the writings of a human and that of a machine will become indistinguishable. I don’t think we are there – yet. Headlines like “Aircraft flies through heavy rain” are either a bored human scribbler or a machine with time on its hands.

The early promoters of the INTERNET imagined a great library of existing material becoming easily and freely accessible to anyone and everyone. It was to be an enlightened development that drove the digitisation of massive amounts of information. Although, even now, it’s not too difficult to pick an obscure book or magazine off a charity shop shelf and find that there’s no reference to it on-line. True, it’s getting harder to do.

That which hasn’t made it to the digital world, like boxes of 35mm slides I inherited from my father-in-law, will sit quietly gathering dust in the attic. I hardly think this is a great loss to humanity. Although, random holiday snaps of Cornish landscapes from the 1970s might one day become fashionable. More likely they will gather another decade’s dust.

Making the INTERNET the modern equivalent of the great library of Alexandria[1] is a worthy ambition. Civilisation could be defined in a way that embraces a preservation of knowledge. What we find is that the 21st century version of the digital world has strayed from these high-minded ideas of its early promoters.

My desktop, tablet, and phone can access a universal store of fact and fiction, truth and lies. What is troubling is that the line between these is becoming increasingly blurred. The demand for instant and every changing material is insatiable. In the past, technology was the limiting factor. Now, it’s not.

Here’s a compilation of likely headlines from our machine friends. I can’t be sure and it remains possible that a human may have authored some of these eye-catching wonders.

“Astronauts face dangers during spacewalks.” “Most fascinating deserts on Earth.” “The beach that many consider to be the best on the entire planet.” “Study claims aliens may be hiding on Earth.” “They found a triangular UFO in the woods – then it vanished without a sound.”

I note from 5-minutes watching headlines change that the craft of catching our attention is the one that is most valued. The term – click-bait – was made to describe what’s going on. Whatever words can be framed to entice a potential reader/viewer to go here and not there, that has value.

Again, what’s concerning is that it will be algorithms that will master the art of catching our attention. They do. They will surpass smart thinkers and artful writers. Mainly because they instantly have a whole well of past successes to draw upon.

For sanity’s sake, I need to stop this line of thinking. The further I look the more we become destined to a dystopia that was portrayed in a movie that hit the screens before the mobile phone became ubiquitous. A 20th century fiction that made everyone sit up and think, as well as being highly entertaining, was The Matrix. Now, it called a classic.

A generation on and AI produced material is filling our screens. It’s not yet dominant. There’s a small amount of kick-back too. Not time for a rebellion. Question is – will those born now be the rebels or the captives of this digital revolution. 

[1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Library-of-Alexandria

Travel Dilemma

A dilemma. Travel is a unique way of enhancing life’s experience. Travel inevitably has an environmental cost. It’s a predicament that’s impossible to avoid. I could look at this as a balance of pros and cons. That’s to seek a reason to balance the scales. It’s what I’m inclined to do. A highly rational way of viewing a dilemma.

This doesn’t work for everyone. Belief comes into the equation. For those who see the world on a knifes edge, tittering on the brink of environmental disaster, any argument about travel is shaped by trepidation. People can get quite puritanical about travel’s burdens.

Equally, there’s a group of people who fit in the “burn baby burn” camp. Those who will not give a tinker’s cuss about global environmental arguments. That’s a bit disingenuous. There’s always the belief that God’s plan is mysterious and these matters are not in our hands.

There’s a third category. I’ve met a few who fit this one. It’s to espouse great concern about green issues and then to act in a manner that’s inconsistent with that belief. Hypocrisy is nothing new. It’s a permanent part of the human condition.

Here, I’m only going down the rational rabbit hole. It’s to harbour genuine concern for the environment at the same time as understanding the power of travel to open minds and create world where we better understand each other.

To travel or not, that is the question. Whether it be nobler to stay at home or to suffer the hassle and crammed seats of a cheap flight, for the excitement of visiting an unfamiliar place. I’ll start by putting my conclusion up-front. It’s nobler to travel.

The pros and cons of staying at home or moving in familiar territory. Restricted circles.

On the upside then it’s possible to say with a clear conscious that you have done your bit to try and minimise the environmental impact of travel. You can stand at the bar in the local pub and lambast those who you think are ruining the planet.

On the downside, not everyone will appreciate how virtuous you claim to be. Probably citing some other environmental impact. Like your gas boiler, lack of recycling or guzzling SUV.

The pros and cons of trains, planes, and automobiles, exploring new territory. Global curiosity.

On the upside then it’s likely you will not be stuck for conversation. Certainly, you’ll be carrying home the knowledge of different cultures and how others live. In fact, the experience can lead to a better appreciation of how others tackle environmental challenges.

On the downside, a conscientious traveller must account for their CO2 emissions or, at least, have mind to compensate for them in some way. Time to plant trees.

I’ve framed this piece in terms of the substance of a personal decision. That’s not the biggest factor at play. The global growth in travel is the total of the behaviour of people from all levels of society, in a mass of different situations. One element is clear. As the economic circumstances of people improves so the propensity to wish to travel increases. I’ve not lined up a convincing graph to show this relationship. However, it’s hard to argue against it. As an example, the curve for global air travel keeps going up.

So, we live with a dilemma. Making travel more accessible at the same time as minimising the cumulative costs. A familiar dilemma. One that’s inherent in much that we do. A perpetual challenge.