The following two videos caught my attention recently. They are both graphic. The first one shows birds caught in oil, struggling to breath/float and drowning. It is heartbreaking to watch this and the only relief is that this incident is (arguably) an accident, a rare event that can perhaps be prevented in future with stricter regulations.
The second video is even more appalling and is shot in a hatchery. It shows what the birds have to endure in the first few hours after being born: they are thrown around, some are caught in the machinery, some are drowned and eventually all the ‘unwanted’ male chicks end up in a grinding machine. The most horrifying thing about this video is that the things shown here are done intentionally and they will go on everywhere for as long as the demand for eggs and poultry exists.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Global Warming Debate part 4
Continued from part 3..
K: Althought I would usually like to argue/debate, it's not clear to me if some of that is important or useful. I won't say the reasons but anyways, I looked at the global dimming video. It seems pretty interesting. And then I looked up its criticisms, and realized that the video is another scare tactic. The more a theorist can make you emotional like with fear/concern/excitement/etc., the more you are prone to believing in it, and the less skeptical you will be of it. I won't say everything in the video was false, but I also realize that's a great topic for everyone involved. The media loves to telecast the video. The scientists love the attention and the funding involved. Since it supports global warming, now you are getting more people to support it. The stakes are high for people who believe this could be true. However a neutral scientist's views could be far less interesting and he might find lots of loop holes in it. If you search for criticisms of this theory there are some good ones you can find.
I found something quite interesting that I would like to share ...
I haven't verified it but if it were true, what could that mean? Perhaps it's not global warming that's the issue, perhaps earth is a very interesting subject!!
Me: I was looking for some kind of neutral and scientific presentation/documentary about this issue and I have come across the following. It is a series of lectures on climate change, skepticism, IPCC and green technologies by a renowned Berkeley Physicist (Richard Muller).
He takes great caution in distinguishing well-known facts with predictions and avoids exaggeration and cherry picking. He rejects/debunks some of the claims made by Al Gore and also debunks several claims made by the deniers. The conclusion (if you don't want to spend 2 hours watching this) is that there is about 90% chance that the globe is getting warmer and that most of it is caused by human activity. I hope we all can agree with this!
Also, I watched the global warming swindle and although it may have some truth in it, it is clear that it is highly biased, one-sided and cherry picked. It not only has several false claims but it seems to have twisted the views of some scientists. Just go through its criticism. You say you are always skeptical about things (which is good), but why do you so readily believe this deniers/skeptics theory? Surely you must be knowing that skepticism is not the same as blindly believing whatever the skeptics say.
I mentioned global dimming as a (potential) counter-evidence for your argument that the temperature rise is only (or mainly) because of solar radiation: It seems that in the last 40 or 50 years the solar radiation reaching earth has not increased but actually decreased because of global dimming and yet the temperature has increased.
Its alright if you look at the arguments of the deniers but please also look at the other side before deciding that a theory held by more than 95% of the experts across the world is fraud/swindle. I found this very informative site today that addresses all the criticisms of the deniers/skeptics, including the one about the rise in Antarctic sea ice, solar radiation, CO2 lag etc.
K: Althought I would usually like to argue/debate, it's not clear to me if some of that is important or useful. I won't say the reasons but anyways, I looked at the global dimming video. It seems pretty interesting. And then I looked up its criticisms, and realized that the video is another scare tactic. The more a theorist can make you emotional like with fear/concern/excitement/etc., the more you are prone to believing in it, and the less skeptical you will be of it. I won't say everything in the video was false, but I also realize that's a great topic for everyone involved. The media loves to telecast the video. The scientists love the attention and the funding involved. Since it supports global warming, now you are getting more people to support it. The stakes are high for people who believe this could be true. However a neutral scientist's views could be far less interesting and he might find lots of loop holes in it. If you search for criticisms of this theory there are some good ones you can find.
I found something quite interesting that I would like to share ...
I haven't verified it but if it were true, what could that mean? Perhaps it's not global warming that's the issue, perhaps earth is a very interesting subject!!
Me: I was looking for some kind of neutral and scientific presentation/documentary about this issue and I have come across the following. It is a series of lectures on climate change, skepticism, IPCC and green technologies by a renowned Berkeley Physicist (Richard Muller).
He takes great caution in distinguishing well-known facts with predictions and avoids exaggeration and cherry picking. He rejects/debunks some of the claims made by Al Gore and also debunks several claims made by the deniers. The conclusion (if you don't want to spend 2 hours watching this) is that there is about 90% chance that the globe is getting warmer and that most of it is caused by human activity. I hope we all can agree with this!
Also, I watched the global warming swindle and although it may have some truth in it, it is clear that it is highly biased, one-sided and cherry picked. It not only has several false claims but it seems to have twisted the views of some scientists. Just go through its criticism. You say you are always skeptical about things (which is good), but why do you so readily believe this deniers/skeptics theory? Surely you must be knowing that skepticism is not the same as blindly believing whatever the skeptics say.
I mentioned global dimming as a (potential) counter-evidence for your argument that the temperature rise is only (or mainly) because of solar radiation: It seems that in the last 40 or 50 years the solar radiation reaching earth has not increased but actually decreased because of global dimming and yet the temperature has increased.
Its alright if you look at the arguments of the deniers but please also look at the other side before deciding that a theory held by more than 95% of the experts across the world is fraud/swindle. I found this very informative site today that addresses all the criticisms of the deniers/skeptics, including the one about the rise in Antarctic sea ice, solar radiation, CO2 lag etc.
Global Warming Debate part 3
Continued from part 2..
K: Globe is definitely warming, but that doesn't mean it's warming because of green house gases. It could, but then you have to do your experiments and find out how green house gases affect the temperature. You can't just suspect or logically assume so. Like you said it takes experimentation and comprehensive scientific work to get the truth. And the truth also always has a nature of change.
What's missing in your approach is a lack of skepticism. You are kinda naively trusting what you are hearing, like most people do. Have you read much about how politics works? How much politicians impact the news out there? The world is not as clean as it seems to be, not even close to it.
While it is very good and important as well to be concerned about issues, when you get attached to them, you start to assume you are right by default and filter out the other inputs. Instead of being scientific and skeptical, you are now a propagandist for your theory. In other words you are a little politician in yourself.
Anyways all of that apart, I do know that the globe is warming. I get concerned for the polar caps melting. However I am realizing more and more that things are not as drastically bad as they show them to be. If you go back in time and look at geological history, you find that earth heats up and cools down in a cyclical fashion. That's easy to see because nobody is denying that and there is no propaganda against it ... gladly :).
I think it's important to be able to critically think from both directions if you really want to get closer to the truth, because when you pay an ear, both sides at first seem completely logical. That's when you need to stay neutral and proceed with your scientific analysis. It is quite tricky how you can know the actual facts.
It reminds me of the game of Mafia. At some point you really think this guy is mafia and you want to take him out, then somewhere in the middle you change your mind, and finally vote for another guy, but then you realize you were right the first time or perhaps the other way round. Anyways ... the point I am trying to make is it's not as simple as ... 'all the scientists are saying this ... so it must be true'. It will prolly take you a long time to realize it, but .... you have our support. :).
K: By the way if you are interesting in looking at the other point of view, this video drives home the point very well. Check it out.
It's in eight parts. Watch it to the end. It also tells you about the people ... so you can check their credibility. It also gives you several data points that you can also verify.
The most important one for me is still that globe has warmed and that it had ice ages for like the entire history of the planet for millions of years. It has been much warmer than it is now and will probably get warmer, and probably also go into an ice age as well.
However you can never really get the full measure of the movie, unless you really get the power the politics has on what goes out to public. One striking evidence of it that is pointed in the movie is how IPCC distorted the facts and sensored the real scientific treatises. You might want to look into that if you want to be neutral and skeptical. I would like to know the facts myself.
Me: I will ignore the personal attacks though they are amusing: Yesterday I was a little kid who knew nothing about politics and today I have become a little politician and a propagandist of 'my own theory' :)
After a few days when you have calmed down, I suggest you to go through this thread once again from a neutral point of view and see if you can find any thing new!
Its good that you now at least acknowledge that rise in CO2 could result in rise in temperature. Thats a great progress!
But you are wrong in believing that just because the earth has warming and cooling periods before, there won't be any problem if it warms up now. There won't be any problem for the earth. With or without global warming, the earth will move on: old species which cannot adapt to the changes go extinct and species that are better adapted will thrive and continue to evolve. But you can be sure that since humans are there on every corner of the globe (except Antarctica), many of them will face dire consequences if the earth warms up even by a degree or two (not just because of the temperature increase itself but because of the change it creates in weather patterns, rivers, wind and ocean current patterns).
I will watch the video you sent when I get time, may be in the weekend. May I also suggest videos that present the arguments of the (overwhelming) majority of experts? Here are some I've seen (not counting AlGore's Inconvenient Truth):
Earth: The Climate wars: This actually is pretty neutral and fair. Looks at both sides
Earth: The Power of the Planet: I learned a lot from this.
HOME:
This mainly shows the impact of humans on the environment. Not mainly about Global Warming.
Planet Earth:
This is an excellent documentary about planet earth, mountains, oceans, deserts, forests, glaciers and the species that live on it. One episode talks mostly about climate change.
Cosmos:
This is classic. Must watch. Its about earth, solar system, astronomy, physics and cosmos. Narrated by the legend: Carl Sagan! In one of the episodes he talks about how rise in greenhouse gases results in temperature rise.
Me: I forgot about one documentary. The one about Global Dimming.
K: Globe is definitely warming, but that doesn't mean it's warming because of green house gases. It could, but then you have to do your experiments and find out how green house gases affect the temperature. You can't just suspect or logically assume so. Like you said it takes experimentation and comprehensive scientific work to get the truth. And the truth also always has a nature of change.
What's missing in your approach is a lack of skepticism. You are kinda naively trusting what you are hearing, like most people do. Have you read much about how politics works? How much politicians impact the news out there? The world is not as clean as it seems to be, not even close to it.
While it is very good and important as well to be concerned about issues, when you get attached to them, you start to assume you are right by default and filter out the other inputs. Instead of being scientific and skeptical, you are now a propagandist for your theory. In other words you are a little politician in yourself.
Anyways all of that apart, I do know that the globe is warming. I get concerned for the polar caps melting. However I am realizing more and more that things are not as drastically bad as they show them to be. If you go back in time and look at geological history, you find that earth heats up and cools down in a cyclical fashion. That's easy to see because nobody is denying that and there is no propaganda against it ... gladly :).
I think it's important to be able to critically think from both directions if you really want to get closer to the truth, because when you pay an ear, both sides at first seem completely logical. That's when you need to stay neutral and proceed with your scientific analysis. It is quite tricky how you can know the actual facts.
It reminds me of the game of Mafia. At some point you really think this guy is mafia and you want to take him out, then somewhere in the middle you change your mind, and finally vote for another guy, but then you realize you were right the first time or perhaps the other way round. Anyways ... the point I am trying to make is it's not as simple as ... 'all the scientists are saying this ... so it must be true'. It will prolly take you a long time to realize it, but .... you have our support. :).
K: By the way if you are interesting in looking at the other point of view, this video drives home the point very well. Check it out.
It's in eight parts. Watch it to the end. It also tells you about the people ... so you can check their credibility. It also gives you several data points that you can also verify.
The most important one for me is still that globe has warmed and that it had ice ages for like the entire history of the planet for millions of years. It has been much warmer than it is now and will probably get warmer, and probably also go into an ice age as well.
However you can never really get the full measure of the movie, unless you really get the power the politics has on what goes out to public. One striking evidence of it that is pointed in the movie is how IPCC distorted the facts and sensored the real scientific treatises. You might want to look into that if you want to be neutral and skeptical. I would like to know the facts myself.
Me: I will ignore the personal attacks though they are amusing: Yesterday I was a little kid who knew nothing about politics and today I have become a little politician and a propagandist of 'my own theory' :)
After a few days when you have calmed down, I suggest you to go through this thread once again from a neutral point of view and see if you can find any thing new!
Its good that you now at least acknowledge that rise in CO2 could result in rise in temperature. Thats a great progress!
But you are wrong in believing that just because the earth has warming and cooling periods before, there won't be any problem if it warms up now. There won't be any problem for the earth. With or without global warming, the earth will move on: old species which cannot adapt to the changes go extinct and species that are better adapted will thrive and continue to evolve. But you can be sure that since humans are there on every corner of the globe (except Antarctica), many of them will face dire consequences if the earth warms up even by a degree or two (not just because of the temperature increase itself but because of the change it creates in weather patterns, rivers, wind and ocean current patterns).
I will watch the video you sent when I get time, may be in the weekend. May I also suggest videos that present the arguments of the (overwhelming) majority of experts? Here are some I've seen (not counting AlGore's Inconvenient Truth):
Earth: The Climate wars: This actually is pretty neutral and fair. Looks at both sides
Earth: The Power of the Planet: I learned a lot from this.
HOME:
This mainly shows the impact of humans on the environment. Not mainly about Global Warming.
Planet Earth:
This is an excellent documentary about planet earth, mountains, oceans, deserts, forests, glaciers and the species that live on it. One episode talks mostly about climate change.
Cosmos:
This is classic. Must watch. Its about earth, solar system, astronomy, physics and cosmos. Narrated by the legend: Carl Sagan! In one of the episodes he talks about how rise in greenhouse gases results in temperature rise.
Me: I forgot about one documentary. The one about Global Dimming.
Global Warming Debate part 2
Continued from part 1..
K: I don't know if I want to agree with that, but it's definitely not scientific. Logical thinking is almost the best exploits of political propagandists. Just like the argument you just presented, Mr. Al Gore said after looking at this diagram, "it's clear that co2 directly affects temperature" and people ofcourse nodded hysterically!! What does that really prove!!?
(See this picture)
At first glance, the CO2 lagging temperature would mean that it’s the temperature that controls CO2 and not vice versa.
Most people only see a percentage of what's visible. We are trained to filter what we don't want to see. Politicians know how to exploit that. Assuming that CO2 doesn't affect temperature, but it's the vice versa, you are yourself a very good example of this filtering.
If you really want to know the truth, find the facts yourself. And another thing, you know nothing about politics. You are really just a little tiny kid!! like many others ofcourse. And I don't mean to offend you but you can't really know the truth if you listen to politicians and can't go beyond it!!
One most glaring example of how politicians affect global judgement is Hitler. To forward his theory that German natives are the purest and best human form, he sent many scientists over to all over the globe, also to India to gather evidence of Aryans being the supreme beings, and guess what, the scientists did, and then they were awarded with high honors. Ofcourse we now know that most of it is faked and it was not scientific. DO NOT UNDERMINE THE POWER OF POLITICS.
And just think about it. If you, probably one of the best at logic, given your algorithmic talent, would resort to logic like .... if most people and scientists say something, then it must be true .... or that if one believes in one of those dogma, he is more likely to believe the other .... to determine the truth, think about the fate of the rest of population, the average of which is only minorly as logical and smart as you are!!
And psychology also has a big part of this phenomena. Take the example of Galileo who was killed cuz he said earth wasn't the center of the universe. People can't accept certain things. Perhaps they are so invested in an idea that denying it is more costly to their survival than to accept a counter idea that might be more true or more honest or more of a value that they honor but doesn't necessarily impact their survival as directly as food or status in society or some other blah.
I couldn't be more sure that you would continue thinking that the CO2 produced by the animals is going to destroy the earth because I know how emotionally and spiritually invested you are in that 'fact'. And it's ok .... whatever works for you ...
By the way the globe is warming!!
Me: In order to avoid digressing too much, I will ignore the euphemisms and criticisms against my psychology and my 'emotional and spiritual investment' (though I could easily overturn these arguments) and the comparisons with Hitler and Galileo (these seem irrelevant to me). You also misquote me: I never said that if most people say something, it must be true . You know quite well that I strongly disagree with most people on certain issues.
I am no fan of Al Gore. I haven't seen 'The Inconvenient Truth' until very recently. He's not a scientist and may have said some things which are wrong. If you are really interested to know the facts you should hear the arguments from climate scientists, and science journalists who write about it. And I hope you know that the overwhelming majority of them are convinced that global warming is happening due to human activity.
The way you disapprove global warming is ridiculous and funny! If it just takes one glance at a picture to disprove global warming, then (virtually) all climate scientists of the world must be f*ing insane and dumb !! I also don't see how you could say 'and not vice-versa'. I think it may be the case that increase in temperature increases CO2 AND vice-versa. Many climate scientists say that the earth has feedback mechanisms: Increase in CO2 results in increase in temperatures which in turn results in increase in CO2 and other green house gases and so on.
You also ignore the explanation about global dimming that I mentioned.
Finally climate and the influence humans have on it is quite complicated as there are too many parameters and factors. Its not as simple as looking at a graph or a bunch of them and deciding for ourselves whether an assertion is true or not. You need rigorous scientific training to do it. And for people like us who don't have this training the best bet is to listen and trust what the real climate researchers have to say.
On the other hand if you believe that (virtually) all climate scientists across the world are involved in some kind of a conspiracy.. I don't buy it.
K: I don't know if I want to agree with that, but it's definitely not scientific. Logical thinking is almost the best exploits of political propagandists. Just like the argument you just presented, Mr. Al Gore said after looking at this diagram, "it's clear that co2 directly affects temperature" and people ofcourse nodded hysterically!! What does that really prove!!?
(See this picture)
At first glance, the CO2 lagging temperature would mean that it’s the temperature that controls CO2 and not vice versa.
Most people only see a percentage of what's visible. We are trained to filter what we don't want to see. Politicians know how to exploit that. Assuming that CO2 doesn't affect temperature, but it's the vice versa, you are yourself a very good example of this filtering.
If you really want to know the truth, find the facts yourself. And another thing, you know nothing about politics. You are really just a little tiny kid!! like many others ofcourse. And I don't mean to offend you but you can't really know the truth if you listen to politicians and can't go beyond it!!
One most glaring example of how politicians affect global judgement is Hitler. To forward his theory that German natives are the purest and best human form, he sent many scientists over to all over the globe, also to India to gather evidence of Aryans being the supreme beings, and guess what, the scientists did, and then they were awarded with high honors. Ofcourse we now know that most of it is faked and it was not scientific. DO NOT UNDERMINE THE POWER OF POLITICS.
And just think about it. If you, probably one of the best at logic, given your algorithmic talent, would resort to logic like .... if most people and scientists say something, then it must be true .... or that if one believes in one of those dogma, he is more likely to believe the other .... to determine the truth, think about the fate of the rest of population, the average of which is only minorly as logical and smart as you are!!
And psychology also has a big part of this phenomena. Take the example of Galileo who was killed cuz he said earth wasn't the center of the universe. People can't accept certain things. Perhaps they are so invested in an idea that denying it is more costly to their survival than to accept a counter idea that might be more true or more honest or more of a value that they honor but doesn't necessarily impact their survival as directly as food or status in society or some other blah.
I couldn't be more sure that you would continue thinking that the CO2 produced by the animals is going to destroy the earth because I know how emotionally and spiritually invested you are in that 'fact'. And it's ok .... whatever works for you ...
By the way the globe is warming!!
Me: In order to avoid digressing too much, I will ignore the euphemisms and criticisms against my psychology and my 'emotional and spiritual investment' (though I could easily overturn these arguments) and the comparisons with Hitler and Galileo (these seem irrelevant to me). You also misquote me: I never said that if most people say something, it must be true . You know quite well that I strongly disagree with most people on certain issues.
I am no fan of Al Gore. I haven't seen 'The Inconvenient Truth' until very recently. He's not a scientist and may have said some things which are wrong. If you are really interested to know the facts you should hear the arguments from climate scientists, and science journalists who write about it. And I hope you know that the overwhelming majority of them are convinced that global warming is happening due to human activity.
The way you disapprove global warming is ridiculous and funny! If it just takes one glance at a picture to disprove global warming, then (virtually) all climate scientists of the world must be f*ing insane and dumb !! I also don't see how you could say 'and not vice-versa'. I think it may be the case that increase in temperature increases CO2 AND vice-versa. Many climate scientists say that the earth has feedback mechanisms: Increase in CO2 results in increase in temperatures which in turn results in increase in CO2 and other green house gases and so on.
You also ignore the explanation about global dimming that I mentioned.
Finally climate and the influence humans have on it is quite complicated as there are too many parameters and factors. Its not as simple as looking at a graph or a bunch of them and deciding for ourselves whether an assertion is true or not. You need rigorous scientific training to do it. And for people like us who don't have this training the best bet is to listen and trust what the real climate researchers have to say.
On the other hand if you believe that (virtually) all climate scientists across the world are involved in some kind of a conspiracy.. I don't buy it.
Global Warming Debate part 1
One of my friends has pasted a video claiming that global warming is a hoax. This sparked off a debate between us. Though there are several people who replied, I will just paste the debate I had with him, in four parts: His arguments in maroon and mine in blue .
K: Raju, What do you think of this video? I am surprised to hear what they are saying.
------
Check out this video on YouTube.
Me: This is what I think:
K: That's disappointing. I thought you would say something rational, like evidence-based, scientific research based idea. Is there really any evidence that CO2 increases temperature in the atmosphere? It seems like the converse is true according to what environmentalists are saying. And I looked at the graph of sun radiation vs global temperature change graph which pretty much follows it.
Me: I wasn't sure whether you sent that video as a joke or not. But it appears that you didn't.
The overwhelming majority of climate scientists and experts are convinced that global warming is happening and is caused by human activity. Since you and I are not experts in this, the best thing to do (if you believe in the scientific method) is to trust them. Regarding your argument about solar radiation: If it is true do you think so many scientists from across the continents would have overlooked such an obvious explanation ?
Also I have seen several documentaries that give ample evidence for global warming. I am also not sure if solar radiation has been consistently increasing in the last 40 years. In fact I have read that the radiation reaching earth's surface has been reducing (until recently) due to air-borne pollutants. (This is called Global Dimming. It seems that global dimming has partially masked the effects of global warming i.e. without global dimming global warming would be happening even more rapidly.)
This discussion reminds me of the following. Consider the following sets of people.
1. Creationists (or people who don't believe in evolution).
2. Holocaust Deniers.
3. Global Warming Deniers.
4. 9/11 Debunkers.
5. Moon landing Deniers.
I conjecture that if a person falls in one of the above categories then there is a very good chance that they may fall in other categories as well ;) Do you agree ?
K: Raju, What do you think of this video? I am surprised to hear what they are saying.
------
Check out this video on YouTube.
Me: This is what I think:
K: That's disappointing. I thought you would say something rational, like evidence-based, scientific research based idea. Is there really any evidence that CO2 increases temperature in the atmosphere? It seems like the converse is true according to what environmentalists are saying. And I looked at the graph of sun radiation vs global temperature change graph which pretty much follows it.
Me: I wasn't sure whether you sent that video as a joke or not. But it appears that you didn't.
The overwhelming majority of climate scientists and experts are convinced that global warming is happening and is caused by human activity. Since you and I are not experts in this, the best thing to do (if you believe in the scientific method) is to trust them. Regarding your argument about solar radiation: If it is true do you think so many scientists from across the continents would have overlooked such an obvious explanation ?
Also I have seen several documentaries that give ample evidence for global warming. I am also not sure if solar radiation has been consistently increasing in the last 40 years. In fact I have read that the radiation reaching earth's surface has been reducing (until recently) due to air-borne pollutants. (This is called Global Dimming. It seems that global dimming has partially masked the effects of global warming i.e. without global dimming global warming would be happening even more rapidly.)
This discussion reminds me of the following. Consider the following sets of people.
1. Creationists (or people who don't believe in evolution).
2. Holocaust Deniers.
3. Global Warming Deniers.
4. 9/11 Debunkers.
5. Moon landing Deniers.
I conjecture that if a person falls in one of the above categories then there is a very good chance that they may fall in other categories as well ;) Do you agree ?
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Banff
I was in Banff, Alberta last week for the WADS (Algorithms and Data Structure Symposium) conference. My presentation went reasonably well. Here's a nice summary of some of the talks by David Eppstein.
Banff is a located in the Rockies and is one of the most beautiful places I have ever seen. Its a valley surrounded by mountains, some of which are snow-capped, even in summer! I got a chance to hike to the top of a small mountain. Also went on an excursion trip to a couple of glaciar lakes: Lake Louise and Lake Moraine. They are both spectacular! Whats amazing about both these places is that you can actually see the glaciars that feed these lakes. Here are some pictures:
Banff is a located in the Rockies and is one of the most beautiful places I have ever seen. Its a valley surrounded by mountains, some of which are snow-capped, even in summer! I got a chance to hike to the top of a small mountain. Also went on an excursion trip to a couple of glaciar lakes: Lake Louise and Lake Moraine. They are both spectacular! Whats amazing about both these places is that you can actually see the glaciars that feed these lakes. Here are some pictures:
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Japan Trip
I am a bit late in posting this. I returned from Japan 2 weeks back from the JAIST summer school on 'Computational Geometry and Graphs'. The school was organized by Prof. Tetsuo Asano. I was there for about a week and spent most of the time in an isolated seminar house surrounded my mountains and thick vegetation. I was only there for about two days in urban areas (Kanazawa, Narita).
My first destination was Kanazawa in Ishikawa prefecture. It is located to the west of Japan, close to the sea and is surrounded by mountains. I met a few other summer school participants and joined them in exploring the city. Kanazawa is a beautiful city with a blend of modern skyscrappers, traditional and old residences with wooden houses and narrow streets, gardens, historical sites and museums. It was also raining all the time! It seems that there is a local proverb that says "even if you forget your lunchbox, don't forget your umbrella." I read it a little too late and didn't had an umbrella, though I don't regret it.
This gate is the icon of Kanazawa city.
Traditional Japanese houses and street. The arcitecture is simple and elegant.
Every house has a garden inside.
Kanazawa Castle
Kenroku-en Garden
We next visited JAIST (Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology) the next day. Its a new Institute with with hi-tech computing facilities and posh classrooms and a scenic campus.
A supercomputer inside JAIST
A view of the campus
That afternoon we started traveling towards the Hakusan seminar house for the summer school. The drive was spectacular. We traveled through paddy fields, vegetable farms, rivers and valleys, and so got a good glimpse of rural Japan. The seminar house is located in an isolated location and has no access to Internet. There were mountains and dense forests all around. Naturally there are also several hiking places.
We ascended a near by mountain one evening.
We played the werewolf game every night.. that was fun!
One of the best parts of the trip was the werewolf game. We were playing every night till about 1.30 AM! The game is pretty interesting with special cards especially when there are more than 10 players.
On one of the days we went to a hot spring resort. There are many such hot pools/springs in Japan and many of them are naturally hot. I am not sure whether the one I went to is natural or not. (But I suspect that they have some kind of control to ensure that the water is not too hot or cold). In any case it was a unique experience. Spent about 40 minutes in 43C pool without any clothes. That was close to getting boiled :) I was red, tired and dehydrated by the time I came out.
Coming to the food, finding vegetarian food in restaurants is very difficult. Most dishes contain some seafood or meat. One good thing however is that most restaurants have pictures of the dishes. So I had to go for the dish that looked the most vegetarian. In the seminar house there were vegetarian meals and they also looked more traditional. I loved the food there. Japanese have the greatest life expectancy in the world and they are also thinner and fitter on avg than the rest of the world. I think the main reason is their food and lifestyle. Compared to Indians, they (traditionally) eat more vegetables, less rice (compared to south Indians) and don't eat any dairy products! They also eat fish regularly.
A typical lunch I had in Japan. Three of the bowls have Tofu!
The public transportation there is the best in the world and I have observed that the cars there are much more smaller than the ones in US/Canada. The houses are also smaller. Japan's population density is similar to that of India, yet 70% of the land is covered with forests and hills! It is a world leader in nature conservation and sustainable energy (though its not perfect by any means).
On the whole I had a great experience though I wish I had some more time to explore other cities like Kyoto and Tokyo.
My first destination was Kanazawa in Ishikawa prefecture. It is located to the west of Japan, close to the sea and is surrounded by mountains. I met a few other summer school participants and joined them in exploring the city. Kanazawa is a beautiful city with a blend of modern skyscrappers, traditional and old residences with wooden houses and narrow streets, gardens, historical sites and museums. It was also raining all the time! It seems that there is a local proverb that says "even if you forget your lunchbox, don't forget your umbrella." I read it a little too late and didn't had an umbrella, though I don't regret it.
This gate is the icon of Kanazawa city.
Traditional Japanese houses and street. The arcitecture is simple and elegant.
Every house has a garden inside.
Kanazawa Castle
Kenroku-en Garden
We next visited JAIST (Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology) the next day. Its a new Institute with with hi-tech computing facilities and posh classrooms and a scenic campus.
A supercomputer inside JAIST
A view of the campus
That afternoon we started traveling towards the Hakusan seminar house for the summer school. The drive was spectacular. We traveled through paddy fields, vegetable farms, rivers and valleys, and so got a good glimpse of rural Japan. The seminar house is located in an isolated location and has no access to Internet. There were mountains and dense forests all around. Naturally there are also several hiking places.
We ascended a near by mountain one evening.
We played the werewolf game every night.. that was fun!
One of the best parts of the trip was the werewolf game. We were playing every night till about 1.30 AM! The game is pretty interesting with special cards especially when there are more than 10 players.
On one of the days we went to a hot spring resort. There are many such hot pools/springs in Japan and many of them are naturally hot. I am not sure whether the one I went to is natural or not. (But I suspect that they have some kind of control to ensure that the water is not too hot or cold). In any case it was a unique experience. Spent about 40 minutes in 43C pool without any clothes. That was close to getting boiled :) I was red, tired and dehydrated by the time I came out.
Coming to the food, finding vegetarian food in restaurants is very difficult. Most dishes contain some seafood or meat. One good thing however is that most restaurants have pictures of the dishes. So I had to go for the dish that looked the most vegetarian. In the seminar house there were vegetarian meals and they also looked more traditional. I loved the food there. Japanese have the greatest life expectancy in the world and they are also thinner and fitter on avg than the rest of the world. I think the main reason is their food and lifestyle. Compared to Indians, they (traditionally) eat more vegetables, less rice (compared to south Indians) and don't eat any dairy products! They also eat fish regularly.
A typical lunch I had in Japan. Three of the bowls have Tofu!
The public transportation there is the best in the world and I have observed that the cars there are much more smaller than the ones in US/Canada. The houses are also smaller. Japan's population density is similar to that of India, yet 70% of the land is covered with forests and hills! It is a world leader in nature conservation and sustainable energy (though its not perfect by any means).
On the whole I had a great experience though I wish I had some more time to explore other cities like Kyoto and Tokyo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
