Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life, by Edward O Wilson

My first reaction after reading this book was “thank you Edward Wilson for making such an important contribution to a very important issue, and doing it with such a fantastic book”.

This is a book that engages heart and mind. It manages to both explain the science behind the fieldwork that can inform our biodiversity/conservation strategies and also provide a passionate description of what it is to approach nature in all its beauty. To read a book by someone who has knowledge that is so deep that it is better described as wisdom, and so much passion that you can feel the energy oozing from the pages feels like a privilege.

But the book it more than another call for biodiversity/conservation. The books central message is the title of the book “half-earth”, a concept so radical and that it requires us to fundamentally rethink our place on this planet.  How do we, Homo Sapiens, that represents one species, relate to the millions known - and millions unknown - other species that we share this planet with?

A disclosure, the main reason I read this book is that I have discussed the idea of “half for our species/ half for all the rest (living organisms on the planet)” for a few years now. I have done this from a purely ethical standpoint, not – as Wilson is doing –  (also) from a (scientific) biodiversity perspective.  My own “half-approach” was the result of trying to define the vague term “sustainable development”, in a way where it actually could be used in strategies with concrete targets for biodiversity.

While exploring different aspects of sustainability, the ethical aspect (see below), “acknowledging the rights of all individuals, groups and species to evolve” emerged as one of the most interesting aspects. I have argued that “half for our species/ half for all other species” arguably is an appropriate starting point, and that it is not a very radical proposition from an ethical perspective. Most people define the starting point for basic equity as “equal”, i.e. same for me and same for you. This simple equity can later be modified, but it is hard to find a better place to start. When we think about all the different species, all the “individuals” that are non-human, and think about their rights and needs; a “contract” where half of the planet would be for all other species and half for us humans feels as a very (too) good deal for us. So if we start from what could be considered ethical, instead of what we are used to, half-earth seems like a good start.

With this disclosure of my personal interest in “half-earth” out of the way the challenge of what aspects of the book should be discussed emerges. My notes, after reading the book, are almost as long as the book itself. This is a book that really should be read so instead of trying to capture the most important ideas I will begin by highlighting some of the things I really like about the book, then discussing some of the key issues where I think further discussions are needed, finally I will list a few ideas for possible ways forward.

The first thing that struck me when reading this book is that it is written with a balance of knowledge and passion that for me approaches wisdom. This mix is something I appreciate when a new radical concept is presented. Talking about wisdom, do not imply that everything in the book is correct, or that Wilson does not have personal grudges that makes the book difficult to read sometimes. It is clear that he does not care much about fame, money, or any other mainstream gratification. His focus is on biodiversity conservation and he really wants to know why we are not better when it comes to taking care of our planet.

The language is also very beautiful. Just read the introduction:

What is man?

Storyteller, mythmaker, and destroyer of the living world. Thinking with a gabble of reason, emotion, and religion. Lucky accident of primate evolution during the late Pleistocene. Mind of the biosphere. Magnificent in imaginative power and exploratory drive, yet yearning to be more master than steward of a declining planet. Born with the capacity to survive and evolve forever, able to render the biosphere eternal also. Yet arrogant, reckless, lethally predisposed to favor self, tribe, and short-term futures. Obsequious to imagined higher beings, contemptuous toward lower forms of life.

Have the evolution of humanity and our current highs and lows ever been better described better in less than ten sentences? Complementing the beautiful language are illustrations of different animals and plants from each chapter, such as the two waterleafs below.

waterleafs

The book is also entertaining. It is easy to imagine the kind of people that will be scared/frustrated and/or even angry when their lack of capacity to think beyond incremental change is exposed. The only time where he feels diplomatic (dishonest/not as frustrated as you can read between the lines) is when he talks about current conservation organisations. I understand that he does not want to make the people fighting for the same thing as he does frustrated, but I would have liked to see a more frank discussion about the limits of the current conservation strategies.

The discussion about current trends is very good. Wilson makes it clear that the fact that we over the last few years have managed to slow down the extreme speed of extinction cannot be seen as a victory. He is rightfully frustrated that too many are celebrating a slightly slower mass extinction as a victory.

The discussion about future trends is not as good as current trends, but still much better than most discussions out there (and definitely better than almost everything relating to biodiversity, as those books tend to ignore future disruptive trends). He addresses both macro aspects of biodiversity, population and lifestyles/technology. For the population he is long-term optimistic as much indicate that the population growth will stabilize when people move out of poverty, but he also acknowledges that before that stabilization we will have a lot more people on this planet. There is however not a discussion about the risk of continued population growth in the book. A serious omission, as the probability for continued population growth should not be dismissed (the continued population growth are a significant part of the of the UN populations probability curves).

For the global population, we know that we could see continued population growth well beyond 10-15 billion people. That we need to focus on how to avoid such scenarios should be highlighted in books like this. Population growth is a sensitive issue, so I understand that Wilson did not spend too much time on it. However, the risks with new technology would have been good to address in some detail.

He also discusses the potential for future technology breakthroughs, but that part is not very good. However, it is not often you find a hard-core conservation activist talking about biology, nanotechnology, and robotics.  Still, what is seriously lacking in these areas is a proper discussion about the risks, both technological and political

In Wilsons defence I would like to add that he is obviously aware of the dual nature of technology and writes:  “The explosive growth of digital technology, by transforming every aspect of our lives and changing our self-perception, has made the “bnr” industries (biology, nanotechnology, robotics) the spearhead of the modern economy. These three have the potential either to favor biodiversity or to destroy it.” But he needs to be careful as it will be too easy for people to interpret him as naïve when it comes to the problems with technology. I say this from personal experience, as someone who have spent a lot of time talking about the opportunities that technology provides. I know that it is important to keep in stressing obvious negative possibilities also as the current discussions about technology is very polarized.

The different stories from the field add to the overall narrative. Rather than an attempt to provide an authentic alibi that only feel artificial, as these kind of “snapshots from reality” tend to feel like, Wilsons stories from nature provide both a reminder of what is at stake, but also a glimpse into the experience that helped shape Wilsons passion for nature.

The outbursts of frustration that are sprinkled throughout the book are so good that those parts alone would make the book worth reading. I guess that says something about how good I think this book is. Just listen to this reaction by Wilson to those who dream about humanity evolving into a civilization capable of utilize almost unlimited amounts of energy. Here is a snippet from the book:

“Meanwhile, in imagination, we may attain the status of what the astronomer Nikolai Kardashev called Type I civilization, a society in control of all the available energy on Earth. Thus we conceivably could press on to Type II civilization, in control of available power in the Solar System, and even Type III civilization, taking control of all energy in the galaxy.

May I now humbly ask, just where do we think we are going—really?”

[…]

“We are still too greedy, shortsighted, and divided into warring tribes to make wise, long-term decisions. Much of the time we behave like a troop of apes quarreling over a fruit tree. As one consequence, we are changing the atmosphere and climate away from conditions best for our bodies and minds, making things a lot more difficult for our descendants.

And while at it, we are unnecessarily destroying a large part of the rest of life. Imagine! Hundreds of millions of years in the making, and we’re extinguishing Earth’s biodiversity as though the species of the natural world are no better than weeds and kitchen vermin. Have we no shame?”

The way Wilson describes the Kardashev scale (a scale to measure civilizations) and then put into context made me laugh hard and I hope some of those spending time on the Kardashev scale could reflect on the kind of issues Wilson discusses.

Further discussion needed The book is however far from perfect, as no really interesting book is. Below are six areas where I think further discussions in needed to take half-earth, or any serious conservation attempt forward:

1. A clear definition of half-earth and what is needed One of the major weaknesses is that there is no clear definition of half-earth.Where geographically should this half be (important from a biodiversity perspective and a human settlement perspective) and how connected must the different parts be? Perhaps even more important is what kind of protections from humans would this half have. Currently protected areas are categorized into seven categories. These range from “Category Ia: Strict Nature Reserve” that is only light human use to “Category VI – Protected Area with sustainable use of natural resources” where low-level non-industrial use of natural resources compatible with nature conservation can take place. It is significant difference between the different categories and research has also shown that the categories with more intensive human activity often have significant problems. See for example the study “Cautionary thoughts on IUCN protected area management categories V–VI” by Craig L. Shafer I find it difficult to imagine that Wilson would think it is enough to only have Category VI for half-earth.Also, currently there is no category that excludes all human use. In on our way to a half-earth future such a category, that moves beyond an anthropocentric perspective, should at least be explored.

2. Assessment of the direct and root causes of the biodiversity loss Another major problem is that Wilson does not provide an overview and assessment of the importance of different drivers of biodiversity loss. HIPPO (Habitat destruction, Pollution, Population growth, and Overhunting) is used to give an overview but it does not really say anything about the drivers. Also it is not very smart to include “population growth” as a separate category the way Wilson does. It is, as Wilson also writes, a multiplication of population and lifestyle that affects the biodiversity. The first example of a driver of biodiversity loss that Wilson use in the book is the Chinese craving for traditional medicine. This is obvious a significant problem, especially for some high profile animals, but it is insignificant compared to the western over-consumption lifestyle. A more detailed overview of different technology scenarios would also be very helpful, as this will affect the possibilities to deliver a half-earth solution. Many people skeptical to technology do not understand the enormous potential new technology has, but many technology optimists do not understand the risk we face and that current trends will result in a situation where new technologies are used to accelerate destructive trends and that new rules/regulations and values are needed to guide the development in a sustainable direction.

3. The arguments for half-earth A challenge for the half-earth idea, that hopefully can be turned into a strength, is that there are many arguments for it. Unfortunately Wilson does not provide much clarity in the book. Too often for my taste he uses short-term anthropocentric arguments; i.e. the species we threaten might have direct economic value to us, or that they provide some valuable “eco system service”. The survival of humanity argument is the anthropocentric argument I found most interesting, but I think much better probability data is needed if this is to support a half-earth strategy (most would argue that much less is needed for our survival). What is really lacking is more on the ethical side beyond the anthropocentric, especially as Wilson has introduced the very interesting concept of biophilia earlier.

4. The role of the poor, the responsibilities of the rich The need to move people out of poverty and create a more equitable society is something that must be integrated at the core of a half-earth strategy. Here Wilson is weak and that is strange. He does not even talk in general terms about the need to ensure that the poor will be helped by the half-earth process. He does not even mention the “poor” or “poverty” in his book and that feels very strange in 2016. I have no doubt that he has thought a lot about the issue as it is dominating most conservation discussions today. Perhaps he thought it was too obvious to include, if so I think he needs to rethink in future texts about half-earth.

5. The technical solutions needed There is no concrete discussion about what technical solutions that are needed to make a half-earth solution possible. Wilson only talks in general terms about new technologies, but to be convincing it would be good to have more clear idea about the kind of solutions that are needed, not just the technological solutions themselves, but the administrative, legal, and economic systems that will allow implementation of such solutions.

6. Animal rights The total absence of a discussion about animal rights and how we “use” animals today is surprising, especially as Wilson is supposed to have written the following in an earlier book “If everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving little or nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectares of arable land (3.5 billion acres) would support about 10 billion people". We are already using economic arguments to excuse a system where animals are seen as products, so it is important to show how a half-earth strategy can avoid worsening the situation, and instead be part of the solution.

Possible ways forward Below are four areas that I think would be good to prioritize to get the discussion and action needed

1. Create a global map that outline how a half-earth would look like. Perhaps the name should change to “full-earth”, but still keep the half for us/half for them focus, to better reflect that we are on the path to an “almost-empty-earth” with current trends.

2. Calculate what natural resources that are needed to provide all that is needed for more than 10 billion people to live a good and equitable life, so that companies, governments, academics can develop guidelines that encourage solution that do not use more resources than that.

3. Based on the calculations above provide examples of different half-earth lifestyles with solutions from different companies/entrepreneurs. To demonstrate that an attractive life is not just possible, but would be better than what we have today.

4. Identify next steps towards half-earth, for all countries and governments, but with special focus on the G20 countries and Global Fortune 500 companies in order to initiate a race to the top.

I look forward to follow the meme of “half-earth” and it will be my latest additions to current ideas that are interesting to discuss using the Overton window.

"How Will You Measure Your Life", by Clayton M. Christensen, Karen Dillon and James Allworth

The alternative title should be ""How we lost an opportunity to help reduce 35 million tonnes of GHG and help move 3.5 million out of poverty” and it would refer to a rough calculation, see below, where I make some assumptions about the lost potential of this book.

I'm not sure how to describe this book. It is so simplistic and feels so outdates in so many ways. Most surprising is that it feels so out of touch with how leading people within the business community discuss the purpose of business.  If it was a book written by a 90 year old CEO from a fossil fuel company - who though Milton Friedman was right in every way - it would make sense. But this book is written by three intelligent people who explore one of the most interesting subjects when it comes to the future of companies, and society in general. All three seem to be interesting in ethical issues so the result is nothing but strange.

How you will measure your life?, focus on what I call the question of legacy. A book that focuses on how a person can measure his or hers whole life is a very welcome addition to the flood of books that focus on how you can be better at your job. When you look beyond immediate gratifications and the narrow need for profit in a company what have you actually contributed to?

So I was all existed about the book, but soon after I begin to read it Christensen list three questions that the book focus on and present them as: “how can I be sure that:

• I will be successful and happy in my career
• My relationships with my spouse, my children and my extended family and close friends become an enduring source of happiness?
• I live a life of integrity – and stay out of jail?"

I find it hard to believe that any person, especially a young person, would consider such low ambitions inspiring in any way. I thought they where joking when I first saw the list. Who, beside a total psychopath, would use “stay out of jail” as one of the main measurements when they think about their future? For a few pages I was sure that the authors would say that such targets would indicate that you are in a very bad place already as you basically can not set the bar any lower.

But it’s not a joke, they actually discuss the CEO of Enron and someone who was sent to jail for insider trading as examples of people who took “a wrong turn”. I guess a lot of people working in companies that destroys the climate, undermine biodiversity, make people obese, create images for young people that makes them hate their own bodies, etc. feel much better if they can refer to Christensen and company when they call themselves successful.

The fact that Bruce Upbin at Forbes wrote "One of the more surprisingly powerful books of personal philosophy of the 21st Century" back in 2012 when this book was released (and one of the reason I read the book) makes me really afraid of where the bar must be in parts of business world. Perhaps Urbin was referring to the fact that he was interested in the idea of applying business theory to ones personal life. While the idea is interesting (and highly problematic from my point of view) I find it difficult to understand how that would make it one of the more powerful books on personal philosophy of the 21st century.

In a way the book becomes even more simplistic than the simplistic self-help books they, rightfully, dismiss as simple check lists. Most of the self-help books do not claim to address the big issue about life. Those book tend to focus on how to be happy/successful in the easiest way, e.g. how to make a million, how to move up the food chain, and similar goals.

Not once do the authors discuss what people actually contribute to in society through their profession. E.g. do they help poor people out of poverty and ensure that people get nutritious food by providing markets for inexpensive organic and fair-trade vegetarian food, or do they push fast food that contribute to destruction of rainforest, make people obese, make poor people loos their land and push down salaries in fast food chains? There are no discussions about that.

The book feels in large parts like a guide for insecure persons who want to follow the mainstream (unsustainable) path in society and be happy while continuing to be a part of the problem. That might be what many people end up doing, but my experience from what people increasingly are looking for is a legacy that is more than a "happy and successful career, nice marriage and not go to jail". My experience is also that these questions are not the questions most people struggle with, they are the minimum people expected.

The fact that many companies now focus on how they can contribute to needs in society, and even set targets to become “net-positive” must be something that the authors are aware of. Christensen himself has even suffered heart attack, advanced-stage cancer and a stroke. The least I would expect would be a discussion about how you can work to make sure that your company help reduce these problems. There are obviously more and bigger issues (such as the global sustainability challenges), but if Christensen fail to make the connection between companies and the things he himself has suffered from it is easy to see that he will fail to make a connection between companies and the potential to be part of the solutions to the greatest challenges of our time.

The strange thing is that Christensen is not only aware of people who want to use their professional carrier to address global challenges, he has met them. I think he only mentions it once, but page 35 we find the following:

''many of my classmates had initially come to school for very different reasons. They’d written their entrance essays on their hopes for using their education to tackle some of the world’s most vexing social problems or their dreams of becoming entrepreneurs and creating their own businesses.''

So he is aware that some students (and according to studies and increasing number) are interesting in sustainability. ”Sixty per cent of domestic students revealed a desire to learn more about sustainable development, a figure which rises to 75% amongst international students.” Does Christensen not think that these people would measure their life based on what they have done for sustainability? And even if people would not think that it is important to contribute to sustainability, would not a book with a title about “measuring your life” be a good place to at least highlight such ideas?

Christensen is also aware that there are people that spend their lives trying to contribute to society, but he do not seem to understand that this is something people might want to do in business also. He has taken one step, as he realise that some people do not work for money, but think that people are only caring about themselves.

“some of the hardest-working people on the planet are employed in nonprofits and charitable organizations. Some work in the most difficult conditions imaginable – disaster recovery zones, countries gripped by famine and flood. They earn a fraction of what they would if they where in the private sector…. You might dismiss these workers as idealists. But the military attracts remarkable people, too.”

The book almost seem to have as the objective that people should think more about themselves, but not about society or those less fortunate. This is a telling quote from the book (bold added): “Is this work meaningful to me? Is this job going to giveme a chance to develop?  Am I going to learn new things? Will I have an opportunity for recognition and achievement? Am I going to be given responsibility? These are the things that will truly motivate you. Once you get this right, the more measurable aspects of your job will fade in importance.”. Maybe the book is actually written by G-Eazy x Bebe Rexha who sing "Me, myself and I"…   [There was a song with that name back (or if it was just in the refrain) in the 80s that I tried to find, but could not find it when I was searching for it. But this new song has a similar message...]. Sorry for a link to trivial pop, but I just had to.]

A quick search through the book (one of the benefits of ebooks) indicate a total lack of interest to include any discussion about the greatest challenges of our time. Climate change and poverty are both mentioned exactly zero times. Cancer is mentioned seven times, but six of those refer to Christensen’s own experience and the last is used as an analogy. There are really no references to the challenges of our time. It is as if we are living in a perfect world, and the only challenge that exists is to feel challenged at work and have a happy life at home.

Christensen even manages to have a conversation about selling milkshakes as a service instead of product over four pages without reflecting about any social aspects. And he lives in a country that is one of the leaders in obesity. Christensen is not just ignoring the heath issue, he is actively dismissing it when he (accidentally?) stumble across it. “You might add chunks of fruit – but not to make it healthy, because this is not the reason it’s being hired [This is Christensen’s word for “used/consumed”]. It’s being hired by morning customers to keep their commute interesting. The unexpected pieces of fruit would do just that.” What right does he have to say that people do not want to be healthy and spread such a message in todays society?

It feels sad to read a book and realise that even when concrete examples are provided that have extremely clear links to important issues Christensen push it away. As I read the milkshake story I kept thinking that I paid for this book and thereby gave money to people who ensured that anyone working in the fast food business and who do not want to think about the challenges they have (sugar, fat, low wages, stressful lives, etc.) will love this book. But even worse was that I realised that I know a lot of people who want to do good in the (fast) food business and they can’t get anything meaningful from this book at all.

Taking a step back I realise that I can’t think of anyone that can use this book. I’ve realised that I read the whole book desperately trying to find anything that I can link to/use. I’m sure that there must be something, but I can’t get myself to reread it as it is these kind of books that makes me question if we have any chance of creating a sustainable society? [I was reading e. o. Wilson’s book Half-Earth so I got energy from intelligence and empathy from that book that gave me hope].

What makes me feel so sad about books like this is that they continue to spread a message that you have no responsibility to ensure that the company you work for, or started, has a positive impact on society.

Measuring the impact of a book One concrete outcome of reading the book was that I started to think about the responsibility of best selling/high profile authors that write books that can influence the way society evolves.

A more comprehensive approach is needed, and assessments of what areas that are the most important are necessary moving forward. For now however the idea is to start simple only by looking at lost opportunities for climate change and global poverty (two issues that tend to be on the top-list of many companies when it important issues). A draft formula for societal contribution could then look something like this for “How Will You Measure Your Life”:

Number of books read * % of people looking for guidance for/open to how to engage with poverty issues and climate issues * how many % of these people that take the ideas serious for how they should measure their lives * (for how long these people take it serious* Annual opportunities missed in the companies where these people work/will work/affect) * lifetime of the realised opportunities *the emissions that where not reduced and the people not lifted out of poverty due to these missed opportunities

To this we should also add: Number of teachers/other people presenting the core ideas in the book * % of people looking for guidance for/open to how to engage with poverty issues and climate issues * how many % of these people that take the ideas serious for how they should measure their lives * (for how long these people take it serious* Annual opportunities missed in the companies where these people work/will work/affect) * lifetime of the realised opportunities *the emissions that where not reduced and the people not lifted out of poverty due to these missed opportunities

and also this Number of positive articles about the core ideas in the book * * % of people looking for guidance for/open to how to engage with poverty issues and climate issues * how many % of these people that take the ideas serious for how they should measure their lives * (for how long these people take it serious* Annual opportunities missed in the companies where these people work/will work/affect) * lifetime of the realised opportunities *the emissions that where not reduced and the people not lifted out of poverty due to these missed opportunities

With the draft key factors identified we can put some initial numbers on this for the first category.

Those who read the book 1. Number of books read (not sold): 150 000 I assume 100 000 books sold, of those 50 000 actually read it and then the rest are people borrowing, downloading for free etc.

2. % of people looking for/open to guidance for how to engage with poverty issues and climate issues: 30% There are obvious degrees to this, but say that about 30% are interested in such guidance given that a credible source, like Christensen, provides it.

3. how many % of these people that take the ideas serious for how they should measure their lives: 80% I assume a high number for those that actually read the book and are interested.

4. for how long these people take it serious: average 10 years This is a really important number and I would put this number much higher than for most books as the focus is on the long-term.

5. Annual opportunities missed in the companies where these people work/will work/can affect: 2 I assume two per year as an average number, but this is something that would be very interesting to study. The number must also include those that are students and unemployed, etc that do not have an opportunity to change a company. It must also include regulators and board members that can influence a number of companies.

6. How long the average initiative will last: 5 years This is also very difficult to estimate but I will assume 5 years based on my experience with companies work to help contribute to sustainability.

7. the annual emissions that where not reduced and the people not lifted out of poverty each year due to each missed opportunity: 10 tonnes GHG and 1 people out of poverty This is a difficult number to estimate as it depends on: A. what position the readers have, I assume a reasonable high position due to Christenson’s fame in the business community. B. The role of the reader, I assume unusually important due to Christenson’s fame in the area of disruptive innovation. C: The potential of the company, this is very tough and it is probably a power distribution (many very small contributions and a few extremely high contributions). If a book like this swing one major company it does not only deliver enormous results, it also has multiplication effects. Just imagine if the CEO of Apple, Wal-Mart, or Exxon, would read this book at make them change focus.

So: 150 000 *0.3 * 0.8 * 20 * 5 * impact

Lost opportunity for climate change: 35 million tonnes of GHG About 3.5 million * 10 tonnes = 35 million tonnes of GHG (spread over different five year periods). This is a little hard to compare with other sources of emissions, but as a reference Sweden’s total annual emissions are about 50 million tonnes.

Lost opportunity for poverty: 3.5 million people not lifted out of poverty. 3.5 million * 1 person not lifted out of poverty = 3.5 million people not lifted out of poverty.

These numbers are obviously extremely rough estimations and they could be off by magnitudes, but I found the process interesting and I think it is important to begin estimation more indirect contributions (like books) as well as lost opportunities for sustainability.  Please remember that I have not included the impact due to the books use in education/presentations or through articles.

There might also be mitigating factors, such as people being inspired by the apparent lack of the “old” experts to address the most important challenges. But I have not found a reasonable way to estimate this and I think it might be neglectable.

Future estimations could also estimate the more direct negative impact. For this we could for example assume that the people using the ideas would be part of the problem in a company. The assumption would be that when ideas come up that would contribute to increased emissions/increased poverty the people using the ideas in this book would only look at the old way of being successful and support such initiatives. Assuming that all other estimations stay the same, but they support one bad idea per year they would have contributed to 25 million tonnes of increased emissions. We could also try to calculate the impact of these people blocking one good idea per year.

Too much of a good thing, by Lee Goldman

This is a very interesting book. Below is first an overview of the book, then some longer quotes, and finally a discussion about obesity as I think it is an interesting area that shows some of the more problematic weaknesses with the book.

Before the overview of the book I think it is important to remember that the issues that Goldman writes about are not new. “And aren´t the most important aspects of self-discipline… establishing one’s own authority over the pleasures of drink, sex and food?”… “people are, thanks to inactivity and the diet we described, as full of fluids and gases as a marsh”. This quote is from Plato, Republic 389c, written 380 bc. So we’ve had, at least, a 2300 year long discussion about how we deal with a situation where we have too much. The big change is that for most of our written history this has been a problem of the very rich.

An overview of the book How to address the fact that we have too much, of things that we used to have to little of, is an extremely timely and important subject. For most of human history we have lived with potential and real scarcity (food, shelter, healthy environment, etc.) as the defining characteristic of life.

Now we see a change on a global scale where we in many areas have too much instead of too little. This is obviously cause for celebration and a triumph for human ingenuity. But a major challenge is that our bodies have evolved over 100 000’s of years to deal with scarcity. We have lived such a life so long that only those individuals that best could survive this scarcity where able to pass on their genes. The result is that people today are born with genes that lead to problems in our current society.

A little simplified we could say that our current bodies are reasonable well adapted to a hunter and gatherer society, but many of us live in an industrialised society. One example of the kind of results we now see was presented in a comprehensive report that was recently presented in Lancet. This report indicated that obesity now is bigger health crisis than hunger.

[Based on some initial reactions I want to clarify (what I thought was obvious) that the while our bodies are from a hunter and gatherer society, that society was not a better society from a broad health perspective as life expectancy and exposure to different illnesses made life very hard. Our bodies made the best of a very bad situation might be one way to describing it. Advocating for a hunter and gatherer society, food, etc. is therefore not a very clever idea.]

The challenge with a 1.0 body/brain in a 3.0 society is the key challenge that Goldman discusses. He start with a classic overview where he reminds us that we’ve been around for 2 million years as the Homo genus, 200 000 years as Homo Sapiens and that we have only lived 200 years in what he calls the ”modern civilized world ”.

How long we have been living in the industrial age obviously depend on where you live on the planet and how you define the modern civilized world. Goldman does not give a specific definition, he only writes that it is when we “no longer spend all our time hunting and gathering food or even tending to our farms or domesticated animals.” but rather ”creating science, technology, art, and other advances that define a modern civilized world. We have become a species of gradually aging, sedentary people who live indoors, ride in cars, take elevators, and may or may not engage in occasional exercise. ”

From an individual, or even country perspective, you can argue about exactly when this modern society begun (and some parts of the world are obviously not “modern”), but on the global scale it does not matter. Goldman is highlighting the difference in magnitude between timescales for how we evolve genetically and the speed of change in modern society. He makes two points. First, that most humans now live so long beyond our reproductive age that natural selection does not work (i.e. we die from things that do not affect our ability to reproduce) and second, even if this would be the case we are talking about time scales that often include 1000’s of years (depending on for example how important a new mutation would be for survival). So for all practical reasons evolution has ended.

If we look at the main causes of death today, as Goldman does, we see that much of it is related to areas where we get “too much”. The book divides these challenges, a little arbitrary, into four areas: 1. Hunger (Appetite and the imperative for calories), 2. Water (Our need for water and salt) 3. Danger (Knowing when to fight, when to flee, and when to be submissive) 4. Bleeding (The ability to form blood clots so we won’t bleed to death)

These four areas are quite different, but they work as a convincing overview that our body is not well adapted for the society we live in in a number of important ways. The one area that is most different is number three as it is more related to broader cultural and psychological aspects, while the other areas are more directly related to different ways our physical body works.

The full name of the chapter for the third area “Danger Memory Fear and the Modern Epidemics of Anxiety and Depression” is also indicative of how many topics that it covers. The result is a lot of interesting ideas that I would like to know more about, e.g. DRD4 and the link to risk taking/innovation and attention deficits. Likewise the discussion about depression was very short and incoherent covering everything from the problems we have when it comes to worry about new threats to the fact that “suicide is now the tenth most common cause of death in the United States”. But the chapter was already fragmented enough and I think it was a good choice to give an honest and incomplete overview over a very complex area, rather than the more common approach of simplifying complex issues into sound bites.

After the chapters about the four areas the book becomes a bit problematic. First Goldman spends 40 pages reiterating what he already said in the preface about the possibility for our genes to evolve fast enough: “The bottom line is that we can’t expect new mutations or the rapid spread of any existing mutations to reduce the frequency of obesity, high blood pressure, depression, and excess clotting.” His discussion about how quick mutations can spread (see long quote at the end of this text) is basically everything you need to know about that the limits of natural evolution in a rapidly changing society.

Then comes the two normative chapters where Goldman discusses the opportunities he sees for addressing the challenge; either by changing our behaviour, or by changing our biology.

This is where I think the book fail to have an appropriate perspective on history and opportunities. We can change our behaviour and we can change our biology. Both are important, even if the later needs a lot of discussion before we start doing anything with irreversible consequences, as the implications could be extremely significant. But first of all we need to ask why people act in different ways, what kind of society we have and if there are measures we can take to make it easier to act healthy. Not only with incremental changes, as Goldman focus on, but structural changes.

Rather than a focus on only the individuals’ behaviour we should ask what structures, cultural values and incentives that influence how people live their lives.

Goldman makes a number of good points, and emphasises that he think it is a matter of both, not either or, when it comes to behaviour and biology. This is obviously true, but I think Goldman fundamentally fails to put the question in a broader context and only focus on a narrow, short-term and American, context.

There is almost no discussion about the differences in health/sickness between cultures/countries. There is no good overview of the different possibilities that different strategies have. It would have been good to see a structured discussion about options for lifestyle changes, government and business initiatives, medicine, physiology, as well as different combinations.

Two things where very good to see mentioned in the final chapters. First, tailor-made medicine and second, the need to think about the opportunities that an explosion in health related data provides.

As an endnote I want to add that the book has no footnotes in the text. There are notes in the back of the book. But these are of the worst kind with a heading and then a general reference (such as a full book). I think this kind of sloppiness can be accepted only if the underlying facts are not very important, or if the book is done with small resources that break new ground. This is a book where the underlying facts are very important as the book does not break new ground, it brings together existing knowledge. Also, Goldman was also supported by two people to help ”check and double-check references”. If this is the case there is no reason to have such a sloppy (should be page numbers) and unpractical (should have footnotes) system.

Longer quotes As there are a lot of interesting discussions, and some a bit controversial, I wanted to give three examples that I hope will encourage more people to read the book.

1. On personal health “One of the great excitements of modern biology and medicine is that we’re about to embark on an era of personalized health. With the ability to sequence our entire genomes, the ability to measure a variety of biomarkers, and modern imaging techniques at our disposal, we’ll increasingly know our future risks for a wide range of potential diseases. This information will facilitate the appropriate use of screening tests, help guide the selection of the best therapies, and permit an accurate estimate of our prognoses. There still will be a role for large randomized trials that determine, on average, what’s best for people like you in general, but these large trials will be supplemented by much more focused research to determine whether something is good or bad for people who share your particular genetic predisposition—or even just for you as an individual.”

2. How quick mutations spread “Imagine, for example, a mutation that carries a 25 percent survival advantage for you and your children if you get it from both parents and half that advantage if you get it from one parent. This mutation will spread to less than 5 percent of the population in about 50 generations (circa 1,000 years) but to more than 90 percent of the population in 100 generations (2,000 years) and to essentially the entire population by 150 generations (3,000 years). By comparison, if a single new mutation carries just a 1 percent advantage, it will spread more slowly—but it will still spread to nearly 100 percent of a population of a million people in about 3,000 generations, or around 60,000 years. Interestingly, these calculations don’t depend much on the size of the population. For example, it will only take about 1.5 times as long for a mutation to spread throughout an entire population of 100 million people as it would take for it to spread to a population of 10,000 people. Slowly but steadily and inexorably, natural selection has defined which genes—and, as a result, which people—inhabit the earth.”

3. Supporting medications and/or gene modifications “At a time when food and salt are overabundant, physical activity is required less and less, anxiety and depression are so common, and we clot too much, medications will become an increasingly important way to offset the adverse effects of the mismatch between our historic survival traits and the world in which we live. We have to develop better ways not only to improve our behavior, with healthier diets and increased exercise, but also to improve our biology, with medications and procedures that either compensate for our inability to change our genes fast enough or that actually alter how our genes work.”

Obesity Goldman highlights medical responses as a key solution to the challenges we have with “old bodies” in a modern society. While such responses should not be rules out on irrational ground, but before such a response it is important to ask what we can change and if there are certain groups who are part of the problem.

It is no secret that there are strong groups with short-term economic interests that are lobbying intensively to avoid almost all incentives that aim to reduce our intake of harmful substances.

When it comes to obesity we should start by asking ourselves who the main stakeholders are the provide and encourage unhealthy food habits, as well as lobby against initiatives that try to encourage healthy living (e.g. sugar taxes, no fast food in schools, ban on linking children’s toys to unhealthy food, etc). We could start by analyzing the consequences of companies like Yum! Brands (World’s largest fast food conglomerate with three of the world’s ten largest brands: KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, Long John Silvers, A&W, Pasta Bravo, Wing Street, and East Dawning), McDonalds, and Coca Cola.

First of all it is important, as Goldman also does, to understand that obesity is almost exclusively about too much (bad) food. Exercise is very important for other health reasons – and should be part of a healthy lifestyle – but play only a marginal role (except under some extreme circumstances) when it comes to weight loss. First, because exercise do not burn as many extra calories as most people think, but event more as people tend to eat more when they exercise. Many of the bad food companies have a PR strategy and branding however that is all about “a more active life” and want to put the focus on the exercise. This is very similar to the tobacco companies that wanted to focus on genetic dispositions, other health aspects, etc. Everything to move the focus from the big problem they are responsible for.

The scientific discussion about the role of nutrition for weight gain is similar to that about greenhouse gases for climate change, i.e. in media you can see a lot of strange things, but among those who actually know there is no real discussion where the focus should be on. In scientific papers you see facts like this: "The pooled model results […] suggests that calories in account for 93 percent of the change in obesity from 1990 to 2002." The quote is from the paper “Why is the developed world obese? http://www.academia.edu/15985063/Why_Is_the_Developed_World_Obese.

Once we realize that there are powerful (rich with good political and media relations) companies involved we can begin to look at how the world looks like and if there are countries that have less of a problem, and what countries that have the most significant problems.

If we look at the numbers we can see that there has been a recent explosion of obesity, linked to changes in food habits and the creativity in marketing. There is no clear correlation between income and weight gain, and there is not more expensive to eat healthier. The tendency to take existing systems for granted and then look for old-school technology solutions is a big problem as these often strengthen the underlying problems.

Transformative transparency is probably the most important tool as it would show how money flows and the kind of lobbying that today happens behind close doors. It would also make mainstream media (that struggle to move beyond simple polarizations and think any suggestion that is more than marginal as unrealistic).

Below are two graphs that might inspire. These days’ simple and funny graphs are used in a way that would make Mark Twain laugh (or maybe cry). I have to say that I’m surprised that so many people can use statistics and graphs and with a straight face tell that they are trying to “educate” people about the “truth”. Obviously the mass media loves this kind of simplification, especially if the underlying message is that we are pretty much on the right track. Obviously all graphs have their underlying methodologies and you can show anything you want with statistics, but I wanted to include a few graphs that I hope indicate that a “more medicine/gene therapy to solve obesity” might be less obvious than some authors indicate.

Fig1

1. Graph above from “Why Is The Developed World Obese?” Sara Bleich, David Cutler, Christopher Murray, Alyce Adams Note the differences between the countries.

Fig2

2 Graph above from the report “Trends in adult body-mass index in 200 countries from 1975 to 2014” in The Lancet

The man who knew infinity, by Robert Kanigel

As someone who have the concept of infinity as a hobby Ramanujan has been a person that I’ve been fascinated by for years. But beside that he came from a poor family in India, made interesting contributions in the area of infinite series and (like many other geniuses) had a short life, I did not know very much about him or his contributions.

This book is so much more than a biography. It is a fantastic book that allows us to follow Ramanujan closely, but still always at a respectful distance. Rather than a traditional simple biography this is book captures Ramanujan’s life through two human stories (Ramanujan’s and Hardy’s, who invited him to Cambridge), two cultural stories (where we see an academic western culture contrasted with a ”normal” family living in relative poverty, Two perspectives on life (a more rational and one more spiritual), a war, and what I would call an infinity quest. The last is really what binds the book together.

Among other things the book is fantastic story of what happens when someone pursue a quest that few understand and does so at almost any cost. But it is also a very unusual, admirable and I would argue successful, attempt to also give glimpses into what Ramunajan actually spend his life exploring.

I would also like to see this as a call for students, or anyone actually, to dare to trust their passion. A key quote is the following:

"Many students put off attempting anything on their own account till they have mastered everything relating to their problem that has been done by others. The result is that but few ever acquire the knack of independent work.” E. T. Bell in Men of Mathematics, but I would argue that it is valid in all fields.

The way Kanigel manages to capture the resistance to innovative thinking, both in India and UK, at the same time as he provides insights to the personal relations that made it possible for Ramunajan to find a place where he, for a short while, could find intellectual support for his passion.

I also found the found the way he described the tension/dynamics between Hardy and Ramunajan very interesting in relation to infinity. I have often found that it is an interesting field as I think most of those attracted to infinity are either extremely logical and radical (in the sense that they are not afraid of unexpected results), or extremely spiritual but with a significant capacity for math/logic. But they seldom meet as the later in the West tend to get attracted to more artistic work, and the former to math. With Ramunajan a meeting that is almost impossible happened anyway.

In parts of the book it is almost as if you can hear how the institutions are trying to eject Ramunajan as an infection. I was impressed by how Kanigel spent a lot of time with Hardy, as the crucial bridge builder that allowed Ramunajan into the system, but without diminishing the fact that it was Ramunajan who gave us something absolutely fantastic in a very unexpected way.

After this book I also feel that I better understand the fear that many academics have in relation to infinity. I have often seen a lack of understanding of math as the key obstacle, but I see now that a lack of passion to explore the unexpected might be the main obstacle. Especially as many of those who are most afraid are utilitarians of the less complex kind and they tend to make an effort to ignore passion in all shape and forms.

It is hard not to love a book like this and I hope a lot of people will. My challenge now is if the next book by Kanigel will be “The One Best Way: Frederick Winslow Taylor and the Enigma of Efficiency” or “Vintage Reading: From Plato to Bradbury, a Personal Tour of Some of the World's Best Books”. It will also be released as a movie soon, but I doubt that they will cover any of the math in that (if they will I will make sure I watch it).

Notes on the Death of Culture, by Mario Vargas Llosa

s

This book will keep you entertained, but not always in the best possible way. It is all over the place with regards to theme, structure and degree of coherence in the different texts. That might not come as a big surprise as it is a collection of articles, but it is hard to find any common thread that link to the theme of death of culture. Still the pure energy and passion from Llosa addressing a very interesting subject makes an interesting read.

I feel a bit disappointed, as he starts of well and then get’s lost as soon as he ventures into the concrete challenges of the 21st century. Instead of trying to understand the world we live in it looks as he just gets frustrated. The sad thing is that he often confuses his lack of understanding of different things with negative implications for culture. Just because you do not understand something does not mean that it is bad. The result is a text that is a confusing mix of reflections that rage between brilliant and ridiculous. It is like listening to person that can go from a wise old man to a pathetic and confused person, who is just bitter that the world has left him behind, in a few sentences.

The book can be divided into three parts: 1. A general discussion about culture 2. A critique of those who have diluted the concept of culture 3. Concrete examples from politics and "power"

The first part is very well written, interesting and important. It covers a number of key questions, including what does the concept "culture" mean and what are the negative consequences of the (often well intended) culture relativism that dominate the intellectuals of our time. What structures are defending culture and what’s the responsibility of mainstream media?

The second focus on important groups, including media, policy makers, and academics as well as those representing culture (artists, authors, etc.). This brings up some valid but vague points, but as the book lack any framework or narrative it is hard to really find much of substance. The third category is where you have to chose if you want to laugh, feel sorry, or just skip a page or two.

The problem with the book is that about 95% of what is really interesting can be found in two chapters; The introduction “metamorphosis of a Word” that discusses the concept of culture and in “final thoughts” where he reelects on the tension between two characteristics of our time captured in the following two quotes:

“Never before have we lived in an age so rich in scientific knowledge and technological discoveries; never have we been better equipped to defeat illness, ignorance and poverty, and yet perhaps we have never been so confused about certain basic questions such as what are we doing on this lightless planet of ours, if mere survival is the sole aim that justifies life, if concepts such as spirit, ideals, pleasure, love, solidarity, art, creation, beauty, soul, transcendence still have meaning and, if so, what these meanings might be? The raison d’être of culture was to give an answer to these questions. ”

“why is it that the culture we inhabit has become so banal as to be, in many cases, a pale reflection of what our fathers and grandfathers understood by the term?”

The text in these two chapters is really sharp and interesting. I really hope that as many as possible of those who are trying to make the world a better place will read it at it addresses many of the broader trends in society they tend to be ignored. Llosa discusses the implications of a society where nothing is better than anything else and where we no longer accept to be challenged, only entertained. You will not find many original ideas, but it is well written and these basic questions are seldom discussed outside academic rooms.

For the next chapters, it is not very much there. Perhaps part of Llosa’s frustration is that his own thinking becomes trivial when he tries to fit them in mainstream magazines, if that is the case it is something that I would really like to hear him discuss. This is however not the case and in the book he writes introductions to articles he has written for El país over the years and generally the introductions are more interesting than the articles themselves. I actually think it would have been better if he left the old articles out and just expanded the introductions.

For the chapters between the introduction and conclusion I was primarily fascinated with the bitterness, incoherent reasoning and lack of understanding when it comes to new trends and technologies. As it is translated from Spanish it was surprising that the main thing I enjoyed with the book was the language, so I have to congratulate to John King who translated the book. Either he did a fantastic work where he captured a text that was originally very well written, or he made it a joy to read anyway.

Instead of going through all the gems and the strange ramblings in the book I will just comment on a few quotes from the book. First, three examples of the kind of gems you will find. They are nothing special and once I finished the book and went back I realized that I mainly picked quite trivial observations, as I wanted to find something, so most of them feel more like pyrite than actual gems.

On reading a good book: “what is important about reading good novels always happens after the event; it is an effect that lights up in one’s memory and over time. This fire is still alive within me because, without these books, for better or worse, I would not be who I am, I would not believe what I believe, nor would I have the doubts and certainties that sustain me.”

I like the long-term perspective and one reason I stopped writing book reviews in newspapers was that I felt that the rush to comment did not allow me to really reflect on the book. I feel that much of what is out there are books that are written quickly, read in an hour or two and forgotten in a month or two. It is a market for this kind of airport literature and I’m interested to explore the dynamics behind this phenomenon at some stage. The reason I want to do this is that I’m afraid that they might play an important and especially dangerous role when it comes to making society more stupid. Especially as these books are the only things containing some kind of coherent reasoning (then it is just magazines and TED-talks with close to zero intellectual value, but high entertainment value) for many decision makers.

On the problem with markets in relation to culture: “The free market fixes the prices of products solely in terms of supply and demand, which has meant that almost everywhere, including in the most cultured societies, literary and artistic works of the highest worth are under-appreciated and marginalized because they are difficult and require a certain intellectual background and refined sensibility in order to be fully appreciated”

This is one of the most important issues today. Unfortunately Llosa does little more than reminding us that it is an important issue, but there are no real ideas for how to take steps to improve the situation. If you write about a new area it might be OK just to make people aware, but this is not a new area, so something more substantial would be good.

On responsibility of authors “although I believe that literature should be engaged with the problems of its time and that writers should write with the conviction that, by writing, they can help others become more free, sensitive and lucid, I am far from advocating that the civic and moral ‘commitment’ of intellectuals will guarantee that they will make good decisions, support the best options to curb violence, reduce injustice and promote freedom. I have been wrong myself too many times, and I have seen too many writers that I admired also make mistakes, sometimes putting their talents to supporting ideological lies and state crimes, to delude myself.”… “which does not mean that we should not do everything in our power not to make it worse than it is”

This is a very interesting topic and it would have been great to see Llosa elaborate on these thoughts. What does it mean in practice and in what ways has he engaged in different issues? The fact that Llosa has moved politically over the years has been discussed a lot and it would have been interesting to hear his own words on his changes.

Second, a few examples of the weird writing.

On reading digital: “Of course the Web can store Proust, Homer, Popper and Plato, but it would be difficult to imagine that their work will have many digital readers. Why take the time to read the books if in Google I can find simple, clear and approachable summaries of what they wrote in those dense, massive books that prehistoric readers once read?”

I think it is safe to say that the lack of reading classics today has very little to do with the format, physical or digital, that book are delivered in, as long as it is easy on the eye (that was not the case until a few years ago).

The fact that many studies indicate the reading of books is going slightly down (about 10% points last 30 years) should have very little to do with the web (the trends started before the web played any significant role).  Still it is an important issue that should be discussed. Not just from a quantitative perspective, but also quality.

It would be interesting to know how many people today who has read Plato, Popper, Homer and Proust. If anyone knows of such studies please let me know.

You could even argue that the possibility to read other peoples comments and share interesting parts in more complex/demanding books would increase the possibility of people reading the classics. If people only want to read the summary it is because we have a society where this is enough. When people read all books as if they have one idea that can be forgotten in a few months this has an impact on how you read as well as what you read. The easy access for information and the possibility to browsing provides might have an impact on how we read and this have been discussed in many books (some of them I have discussed). The fact that role models today, policy makers, business leaders, pop stars seldom talk about/quote Plato, Popper, Homer or Proust is probably one of the main challenges and that responsibility is shared by many.

On religion in society “But perhaps even more damaging still for the cause that the Constitutional Court is championing is that the only politicians who have thus far come out in its defence have been that handful of shabby and vegetarian parliamentarians, lovers of chlorophyll and fasting – the Greens – whom nobody in this country of dedicated sausage and steak eaters takes very seriously.”

This is an example of when Llosas lack of political understanding and his as well as dated perspective becomes painfully clear. Llosa wrote this in 1995, and in 1998 the Greens became a governing party. When it comes to religion (especially in Germany) I think people like Joschka Fischer, from the Greens, have things that Llosa might learn from… The style is also so conservative that it is hard to take Llosa serious as it sounds like a caricature in one of Houellebecq’s books.

Simplification/entertainment in media/society and Julian Assange “Julian Assange, rather than being a great freedom fighter, is a successful entertainer, the Oprah Winfrey of the information world.”

There is much that can be said about Julian Assange and Wikileaks, but to call him “the Oprah Winfrey of the information world” and accuse him for trivializing the public debate is very strange to say the least. If anything Assange and Wikileaks (and other groups working for transformative transparency for powerful organisations and the right for individuals to protect their data) has contributed to a much needed discussion about information/rights and power structures in the 21st Century. The individual leaks are the less important contribution, the ideas about transparency, civil courage and collaboration that they have helped make part of the mainstream conversation is something to be very grateful for.

There are challenges with Wikileaks, ranging from unbalance in leaks where the most secretive governments and companies (so far) has not come under very much scrutiny, to the protection of privacy (e.g. when private mails from one of CIA chiefs John Brennan). The first Wikileaks has not addressed very much so far, but the later has been discussed.  I should add that Julian have made clear that he want more leaks from countries like China and Russia, but I have not seen a discussion about possible consequences when those countries who are relatively more transparent and have better working legal systems are exposed to leaks, while those where almost no transparency exist and where you can disappear if you say something that the government does not approve of. I have seen this problem in the corporate sector where those with some transparency are hunted by NGOs and media, while the really dirty and secretive are not criticised. This is a difficult question the require serious thinking.

But challenges exist in all areas, and the more important the area is the more significant challenges you tend to get. It is just sad that so many conservative people seem to ignore the problem in the existing system and only see problem when someone is challenging this old system. Of all people to pick as an example for simplicity in media, Assange is probably one of the worst on the planet. Talk about any owner of the main media outlets, talk about the key journalists, talk about politicians (both as regulators of the media and how the participate). The way Assange and Wikileaks have helped open up the closet and let some light in when it comes to some of the most powerful and most corrupt areas today is nothing short of historic.

The one thing I would say that I like about Llosa is that he talks about what Assange has done. So many (especially irrelevant journalist in outlets that have no global relevance and who have done nothing ground braking in their lives) retreat to ad hominem

The whole discussion about entertainment in society is obviously very interesting and relevant. I can see a significant problem when one of the most influential and trusted persons in US politics is/was John Stuart, a comedian who communicates news with slapstick humour. He is very funny and entertaining, like Steven Colbert and other talk show hosts, but if that is the best we have when it comes to serious political dialogue we are in deep trouble.

With regards to John Stewart I would like to recommend the now classic clip of John Stewart at Crossfire, when he discuss the role of journalists, just to make it clear that it is not John Stuart, or Colbert, I’m criticizing, it is the media environment that makes this the best we have to offer in terms of political discussion. This is what I would have hoped that Llosa could have discussed.

To end on a positive note, there those who want to do more than put simple messages when it comes to the challenges we face, and quite a few use new medium. Here are a few (I should not have to say it, but obviously I don't agree with all of them, or even most, that why I like them. They are doing an honest job of trying to take issues serious most of the time).

https://www.youtube.com/profile?user=PulitzerCenter
https://www.youtube.com/profile?user=uchannel
https://www.youtube.com/user/IntelligenceSquared
https://www.youtube.com/user/egsvideo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZO0sfXzrac

PS (21st March 2016) I got some feedback about the example I usually give when it comes to media with content, and it is true that I tend to use older examples as references for what can be done. Here are two fantastic examples. They are still better than anything contemporary I have found:

Dennis Potter's last interview

A discussion between Noam Chomsky & Michel Foucault - On human nature