Petition: Californian fish need bicycles!

The headlines scream: "Stop the Export of Billions of Gallons of California's Water to Asia!". (Check out the undated website here - turns out it refers to the exporting of alfalfa.) A friend of mine who cares deeply for the environment shared it on Facebook after signing it. That sounds reasonable enough, though I did get the feeling it was a little anti Asia (surely alfalfa is exported elsewhere, so why single out Asia?) but I digress. Having written on the subject of water for an industry journal (slightly after the dark ages), I guess I had a running start on the subject. (OK, OK, so I run like a fish - so perhaps a nerdy fast walking start.) Important fact: total water use in California is about 13 trillion gallons for the year of 2014. Let that number sink in. By any scale, that's a lot of water, and probably a whole lot of fish as well.

When quoting facts, lobbyists, people who run petitions and even bloggers need to check the context - or risk their credibility. If the focus turns out to be on minor issues - one risk is that successful lobbying could distract the decision makers away from the big issues - so successful petitioners can rub their hands with delight while the state turns into a dust bowl. And if that happens, a petition to give fish bicycles sounds a little more reasonable. So in the scale of 13 trillion gallons, Nestle's bottled water or bottled water generally is an insignificant fraction of a fraction of a percent. It hardly warrants a mention - bottled water (with or without added sugar) is potentially problematic for other reasons. I know there are issues, but without a doubt - there are no fish there - a least not in the bottles of water I have seen. If they were, I would hope for the fish's sake the water is without added sugar. Expanding agriculture remains the number two immediate concern and number one long term concern. The highest immediate concern is the lack of rain. Now in it's 3rd year of drought, there seems a reluctance by Brown (who is a really big fish being Californian Governor) to do something serious about the alfalfa earmarked for Asia? Why? Well the issue isn't Brown, it's perception and misinformation, and less significant truths being presented as exceedingly important. Having spent some time in California, there is a high level of awareness, and urban use is being cut. Nearly 90% of Californians think it's a good idea to cut use - which is no revelation - but speaks volumes in their level of awareness. So it's more than a little fishy to read in the petition that "Governor Jerry Brown has declared a drought emergency for the state of California. California residents have been asked to be vigilant and cut back on household water use, but only about 5% of California’s water footprint is individual, personal use. This will not help solve the severe problem that we're all facing!" Which does not wholly represent Brown's position, or it could be worse for the fish than ever imagined. Besides, Brown needs to think and act big, as it's a big crisis. Fortunately, agricultural use is being cut back, with farmers letting fields lie fallow - partly because there is not enough water. Farmers have agreed with a state initiative to make significant cuts of 25%, - whether or not that will turn out to be enough is another debate. The fact is that agricultural use is where the biggest gains need to be made, because that's where the majority of water is used. So back to alfalfa - the figure 100 billion gallons quoted seems OK - I won't try to refute it, however the conclusions reached are a little off. ("Join me in asking Governor Jerry Brown to hold the meat and dairy industry responsible for its tremendous water usage and STOP THE EXPORT OF 100 BILLION GALLONS OF CALIFORNIA'S WATER TO ASIA.") So even if the water use is 100 billion gallons per year, that constitutes less than 1% of total water use. Remember, the petitioner was critical of an initiative that concentrated on only 5%. Very fishy indeed.
With regards to alfalfa exports, this report by Dan Putnam give his industry's perspective, putting forward very reasoned and at times critical points concerning alfalfa's water use, and concludes: "...it is abundantly clear to me that agriculture needs to increase water-use efficiency of alfalfa, as well as other crops, whether these crops are exported or used locally. But the inordinate critique of the export of ‘water’ in the form of only one (minor) export crop seems pretty narrow, incomplete and shortsighted". Hearing this will surely have the fish ringing their bike bells will glee.
As this blog is entitled "Security and more", what this has to so with security? Some may say that it speaks volumes about gullibility, but it's deeper than that. It's not about laziness either - remember my friend took action to sign the petition, not to mention the efforts of the petitioner. It's more about taking things at face value. It's about the impassioned jumping down a rabbit hole of a single issue, then coming up and spreading the passion. It's about the noise in a crisis, compelling all to turn their attention to the loudest voices. It's more about focusing on the small stuff without realizing that it is the small stuff. It's having fantastic virus protection and all files backed up efficiently every day, only to have all attempts ruined by finding out after an event that your backup can't be used. No amount of focus on your virus protection will help you when a natural disaster strikes. So to all those bicycle manufacturers excited about fish needing bicycles, you just might be missing a bigger picture. Needless to say, I don't think I'll be signing either petition just yet.

Was Salvador Dali's 1957 painting about social media?

Salvador Dali's 1957 painting entitled "Modern Rhapsody" from his series The Seven Arts is scarily appropriate when applied to modern communications and social media.

It certainly inspired me to think.

The painting depicts modern communications in the sense that we are being watched or listened to - that our flimsily covered nudity is under the uninvited gaze of others. Social media in the sense that we expose ourselves. In both cases, one of the main figures is human, reaching out and tied to the machine, the human is easier to identify with than any other figure. While the other is a 'in need of repair machine' with reaching tentacles, more strongly aligned with big brother, the media as a machine, or the unthinking viral nature of social media. All along, unintended victims in the form of giraffes burn in the background. The clouds represent the constant unthinking gaze of the public, who by blowing the flames assist the burning while paradoxically threatening to rain. 

Edward Snowden, News of the World and a constantly reported threat of fraud, identity theft and general technology based skulduggery results in for me a growing reluctance to post personal details. Yet our online identities grow in spite of this, and information security has figured increasingly larger in our lives.

It raises a deeper and practical questions, since we now know the less savory nature of modern communications, what changes have you made? What protection do we need?

For me, the changes have been protective in nature, with me less willing to share on social media details about friends and families - and when I do, I seek their permission.