Markus Stocker

Some Thoughts On My Silence

2012-02-21T00:00:00Z

February is almost gone and I have yet to write my first post this year. I have been wondering why. Looking back, starting October, this blog has seen 15 posts in 2008, 77 in 2009, 44 in 2010, and 14 in 2011. What happened between 2008 and 2012? Am I running out of topics to write about?

Something changed: In 2009 I moved back to Europe, from the US. And I moved to Finland. In Finland, silence is said to be part of speech, so I have been told. Walter Bauer (1904-1976) wrote “[A]us der Arktis kommt die Endsumme aller Weisheit: Schweigen” [1], typically translated into “[T]he Arctic expresses the sum of all wisdom: Silence”. Silence is golden.

Compared to Washington, DC — where silence must be hunted — Finland is a different universe, sort of. While in transition, I used to argue that the great thing about the chatty American (US) is that, while 80% of what is said can be trashed, the remaining 20% is brilliant, and getting that makes being exposed to smart-ass crap worth it. In Europe, the further north the more silent, one may be less likely to be exposed to nonsense but, unfortunately, also to the brilliant — with people, politics, journalism, blogs, even advertisement. In 2009 I was in share-much mode, 77 posts. In 2011 I was in share-little mode, 14 posts.

However, more than my transitioning, I find it increasingly difficult to draft text or thought that is correct and comprehensive, and this is what has been keeping me from writing. When do you know something is correct? Even if you argue that what is said is correct, how do you know the arguments in support of what is said cover much that is relevant?

Let’s assume I state that “plants have no mental complexity, hence, no interests”, an argument that leads to the conclusion that plants are not objects of moral concern. Now, I suppose most agree that plants have no mental complexity. In fact, mental complexity relates to the mind and plants do not have one. Further, let’s agree that having interests is a valid proxy for being an object of moral concern. At this point, you may argue that the conclusion is correct, plants are not objects of moral concern. After all what else other than mental complexity could create interest? You may be correct, at least with respect to a specific school of thought, but there may be more here that is relevant and should be considered.

Some plant species have developed rather sophisticated defense mechanisms, not least because they cannot escape. One such mechanism is the recruitment of the predator that is a natural enemy of the herbivore a plant is under attack from. In essence, upon attack from a specific herbivore species, such plants produce and emit a certain mixture of volatile organic compounds to which the corresponding predator, natural enemy of the herbivore, reacts. The plant is, thus, recruiting the predator by signaling the presence of food. In doing so the plant is more likely to be relieved from the attacker. Is the plant expressing an interest, namely to avoid to be harmed? Can interest arise from complexity other than mental complexity? Are, thus, plant species with such behaviour objects of moral concern?

I’m not going to answer, or even attempt to address, these questions. My point here is that one is more likely to question the statement that plants have no interests if one knows about such plant behaviour. For this, however, one needs to be somewhat literate in plant biology. Of course this is obvious, right? The more you know, the more you can relate things, the more likely you are to make correct statements and suggest a comprehensive set of supportive arguments. However, being literate in fields one may draw from in daily discussions is, well, no piece of cake.

Discussing offshore banking, rather complex in details, Nicholas Shaxson recently said in an interview with Tages Anzeiger “[W]er redet, weiss nichts. Und wer etwas weiss, redet nicht. Sondern schweigt in seiner Villa.” which translates into “[W]ho speaks, knows nothing. And who knows something, does not speak. Rather keeps silent in his mansion.” In this case folks may keep silent for altogether different reasons, yet I also see the point that if one knows something about a complex system one also knows how difficult it can be to make accurate statements about such a system. The one who, on the contrary, speaks much about a complex system may well know nothing about it.

[1] Angelika Arend. Documents of Protest and Compassion: The Poetry of Walter Bauer. McGill-Queen’s University Press 1999.

Ecological Limits And Global Poverty

2011-11-17T00:00:00Z

According to Tim Jackson [1], and others, beyond a certain income rising GDP per capita is no reasonable proxy for rising prosperity, because once basic needs such as for food, shelter, security, education, health are met, prosperity correlates with the “ability to flourish” as human beings — i.e. the strength of our relationships, trust in the community, satisfaction at work, shared sense of purpose, participation in society — rather than with income. Obviously, we assume, correctly, that income does not correlate with, for instance, the strength of our relationships. Indeed, meaningful relationships are not marketable: we cannot buy them. This argument is used to demand by the conventional view of ‘indefinite economic growth’ — held by many economists and politicians — to face two realities: (1) the ecological limits of a finite planet and (2) the drift of global wealth towards the few.

No matter on what side of the debate one may be, the Earth’s ecological limits are not a matter of debate, even though after T.R. Malthus, the Club of Rome, and others it is ever more clear that the estimates for those limits with respect to our species come with considerable uncertainty. If and when we hit those limits is, hence, a matter of debate. Similarly, the ethics of the disparity between the world’s rich and the world’s poor is, obviously, debated. In fact, though many may argue that inequality is “unfair” it is probably safe to assume that few of the richest 20% are willing, or able, to trade their wealth for “fairness” to the extent to which it is necessary to significantly reduce inequality. The same can be observed with respect to the environment. Most may agree that something needs to be done, and anything goes as long as it doesn’t touch my wallet. That solutions to the problems of ecological limits and of fair global wealth distribution would somehow come without a price tag to us 20% is, I’m afraid, wish thinking.

I think there has been a fair amount of discussion on identifying what has “gone wrong” with respect to global justice and the environment. Probably even the most fervent technology-optimists begin to wonder about the consequences at the prospects of China, India, and Africa gradually achieving the level of affluence expected in the OECD nations, an economy that would have to be 15 times the size of today’s economy by 2050 [1] or, in other words, an economy that supports 72 billion people at present consumption rates. Something needs to be done, we sense that. Much has also been discussed about what could be done. Instead, what it precisely entails for us 20% rich, i.e. those who would face the biggest cuts and those who predominantly drive the academic discussions, has been discussed far less, if at all.

What it entails for us 20% rich is politically so unpalatable that we intuitively know no democracy is going to vote for, or keep in office, politicians that would force upon a nation’s people the severe cuts that ecological limits and fair global wealth distribution truly entail. Just look at what happens when governments on the verge of bankruptcy announce austerity measures: people riot, new governments are formed. Whether or not one thinks those austerity measures are necessary, they still are for — the, current or future, advantage or disadvantage of — the people of a nation. Imagine the reaction if austerity would be forced upon the people of a nation for the sake of the global environment, or the world’s poor.

Unless we 20% rich wake up one morning and, miraculously, equally value the global environment and the global poor’s welfare I am, currently, of the opinion that it is only through a semi-totalitarian global government — which imposes (1) regulation upon national economies to keep the aggregated world economy within ecological limits (assuming we can define those) and (2) regulation to globally transfer wealth such that “everybody” has employment and a minimum wage, similar security, health care, education, social safety nets, etc. — that we might achieve the dramatic changes that ecological limits and egalitarian access to global wealth entail. Such regulation would not just come with a staggering price tag to the 20% rich but it would dramatically reduce the democratic freedoms that the 20% rich have been enjoying in historically unprecedented ways since the end of World War II.

I don’t believe there is an easy exit strategy when it comes to the issues discussed here. Our current freedom will be reduced if and when the music of the party ends, either by a world government, which likely won’t be democratically legitimate, or by nature, if and when we overshoot. I do not underestimate the impact that groundbreaking discoveries and technology will have in delaying the stop of the music but I’m skeptical that we will manage to decouple our economic activity from resource input and waste output sufficiently to lift 80% of humanity to the level of the 20% richest, or, to echo a currently popular slogan, 99% to the level of the 1% richest.

[1] Tim Jackson. Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet. ISBN 978-1-84407-894-3.

The Time Of The Year That ...

2011-10-26T00:00:00Z

Together with spring, fall is the time of the year that sees a spectacular natural phenomenon unfolding here in Kuopio, Finland. The city has a total area of 2,317.24 square kilometre and water area of 719.85 square kilometre. Thus, about a third of the total area is water. That is a fair amount of water. In comparison, water area in Washington, D.C. is just about 10% of the total area.

The specific heat of water is high, which means that adding heat to water changes temperature relatively little, which is important to organisms living in water bodies at tropical latitudes. With the end of winter, due to increased solar radiation also beyond 50 degrees north latitudes the water temperature of lakes can increase dramatically, in Kuopio from just slightly above zero to around 25 degrees Celsius. Though, the mass of the water of many lakes here in Kuopio is not huge, the amount of heat necessary for such a temperature increase is of course substantial. Water has also high latent heat of freezing. This means that water releases a lot of heat while freezing.

Hence, a third of the surface of the city of Kuopio absorbs a lot of heat between spring and early fall and releases a lot of heat before it freezes, cooling only slowly. Instead, during fall air cools relatively fast here at 60 degrees north latitudes. Due to the large water masses, however, the air does not cool as fast as it would without the beautiful lakes. As a consequence, the period during fall that air temperature in Kuopio hovers around freezing point is relatively long, I would argue well beyond a month. There is a relative steep drop in air temperature between end of August (+15) and the end of September (+5) and then it might take two months until it drops from just below zero to well below -10, or -20, degrees Celsius. That is when a layer of ice covers the lakes. In spring something similar occurs, while the ice cover melts, due to water’s high latent heat of melting. Once solar radiation increases end of February, air temperature rises relatively fast from a nice -20, or -30, to just below 0 degrees Celsius. Then, the period while air temperature hovers around freezing point is relatively long, again, as a lot of heat goes into melting ice. Only when snow melted and lakes are free of ice cover air temperature rises again.

This phenomenon in fall is also a main factor and reason why permanent snow cover in Kuopio starts rather late, possibly only mid-end of December. Naturally, I’m simplifying things here because in reality a range of factors affect the time of freezing or permanent snow cover, such as solar radiation in summer (intensity and duration) and precipication. However, if you check out this figure you can spot the periods I discussed here (notice the almost flat, gray-colored, 5-year average of November and, similarly, the practically flat average of the black-colored plot [for 2011] of March).

Connection

2011-09-02T00:00:00Z

British novelist Samuel Butler wrote in Life and Habit (1878) that “[I]t has, I believe, been often remarked, that a hen is only an egg’s way of making another egg”.

When you eat an apple and leave behind, or eat, its core, from the perspective of the tree that brought into existence your apple you disperse its seeds. The tree is, in essence, using you as a vector for seed dispersal. There is a interrelated interest at play here. You eat the apple because you are hungry, or because you like to eat apples, or because you have otherwise a reason to do so. The tree brings its fruit to ripeness—an energy-demanding process largely consisting of sugar accumulation—to make it pleasurable to you. Unless you are very hungry, if the tree would not bring the apple to ripeness you would be less likely to eat it and, thus, to behave in the plant’s interest.

In my opinion, drawing boundaries between self and not-self is largely arbitrary, and to reduce the distance between self and not-self is a life-long exercise towards an awareness that connection, relatedness, can be shared with just about anything.

An idea that in my experience has been, time and again, one of the most powerful source of happiness.

Offsetting My Own Flight Emissions

2011-07-26T00:00:00Z

Practice what you preach.

My own birthday present this year goes for an idea. I have suggested its practical implementation in a previous post.

This weekend I’ll be traveling. From where I currently live this often translates into traveling by plane. According to myclimate.org the journey (return) will be 4,205 km long, with an estimate for carbon dioxide emissions at 0.907 t. Thus, the estimate for the tree area necessary to offset the flight emissions, over 20 years of tree protection, is 198 m2. I visited Treems to pick and protect a tree of approximately that area. I found Uirapuru 5437 of area 191 m2.

Therefore, by adding 96 Euro to the ticket, Uirapuru 5437 is going to offset the carbon dioxide emitted by my seat.

Happy birthday.

Offset Emissions By Protecting A Tree

2011-07-17T00:00:00Z

Many of us fly, nowadays. If not everybody, the vast majority engages in a number of activities with, among others, carbon dioxide emissions. Flying is an example. Have you ever thought of offsetting the carbon dioxide emissions of your flights by protecting a tree? To do so is, in principle and in an approximative way, not as difficult as it may sound.

There are a number of ways how you can estimate carbon dioxide emissions for different activities. You could, for instance, use the myclimate service and its simple calculator. Let’s assume you fly, alone, from Helsinki to Zurich, return. The service estimates carbon dioxide emissions at 0.724 t. Now you need a way to protect a tree. Treems could be an option. You basically pick a tree somewhere in Brazil and ensure the tree’s protection by paying for it. Treems gives you some information about the tree you pick, including it’s area. As far as I understand, Treems protection is, generally, for 20 years.

The question is how big should the tree you pick be, area wise, to offset a certain amount of carbon dioxide, here 0.724 t, over the period of 20 years. Assuming the data given by myclimate and Treems, and some information on net carbon uptake by plants in tropical forests I came up with the formula A = E * 218 to calculate the area (A) of the tree in square meters required to offset a certain amount (E) of carbon dioxide in tonnes, over 20 years. It will cost you C = A * 0.5 Euro. For our example here, given E = 0.724 t we need a tree area of A = 158 m2. The cost is C = 158 * 0.5 = 79 Euro. So, basically you add about 80 Euro to your Helsinki – Zurich return flight. The formula can be used for carbon dioxide emissions with source other than flying, for instance driving.

Sounds like internalizing, some of, the costs of flying has the potential to significantly increase our ticket price, which is not entirely surprising. In economics this type of cost is known as an externality and I would argue that the ticket price difference might to some extent reflect some of the environmental changes of recent history, including the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration since the industrial revolution. Depending on the magnitude of our impact, it may be debatable whether or not, for practical purposes, ecosystem services, such as the uptake of carbon dioxide by plants and oceans, can be considered free. However, they are not. The air we breathe must have a certain oxygen concentration, within a range of a few percent, to enable life as we know it, including our own. For the sake of argument, imagine removing ecosystem services and private industry would keep oxygen concentration within the acceptable range. You bet there would be a monthly fee flattering in your mailbox for the service. The value of ecosystem services is estimated to have been about $33 trillion in the late 1990s [1], which is just about half of current world GDP.

Are you going to add 80 Euro to your flight ticket the next time you fly 3540 km?

I admit, I don’t have a conclusive answer myself to this question.

If you wonder how I came up with the formula, here are the details. I used the estimate for net carbon uptake by Amazonian plots given by Phillips et al. [2], namely 0.62 t C ha-1 year-1. Per square meter we get 0.000062 t C m-2 year-1. This is tonnes of carbon but our emissions are tonnes of carbon dioxide. The weight ratio of carbon in a molecule of carbon dioxide is 12/44. Now we basically equate carbon emissions with net carbon uptake. Using the same notation as above, this leads to 12/44 * E = A * 20 * 0.000062, for the running period of 20 years. You should get A = E * 218. After a quick check, I think Treems asks 50 cents Euro for a square meter. This gives the formula for the Treems price. Let’s check this with an example. Assuming the emissions for our flight from Helsinki to Zurich, return, E = 0.724 t CO2, the formula would predict a tree area of 158 m2 and, thus, a cost of 79 Euro. If we pick the tree Uirapuru 40 of A = 219 m2 = 0.0219 ha we can estimate net carbon uptake at 0.62 * 0.0219 = 0.013578 t C year-1 = 13.6 kg C year-1. Flight carbon emissions are estimated at 12/44 * 0.724 = 0.197 t C = 197 kg C. Thus, we would need to protect Uirapuru 40 for 197 / 13.6 = 14.5 years. Treems asks 110 Euro to protect Uirapuru 40 for 20 years. The price for 14.5 years could be 14.5 * 110 / 20 = 79.75 Euro. That’s basically the cost we predicted using the formula above. Even if I got the math right, this is of course just a rough estimation. In reality, carbon uptake by plants depends on an array of variables, including carbon dioxide concentration, light intensity, availability of water and other nutrients, plant health. Those variables influence the actual time it takes to offset our carbon dioxide emissions.

[1] Robert Kaufmann and Cutler Cleveland. Environmental Science. McGraw-Hill (2007)

[2] Oliver L. Phillips, Yadvinder Malhi, Niro Higuchi, William F. Laurance, Percy Núñez V., Rodolfo Vásquez M., Susan G. Laurance, Leandro V. Ferreira, Margaret Stern, Sandra Brown, John Grace. Changes in the Carbon Balance of Tropical Forests: Evidence from Long-Term Plots. Science 16 October 1998: 439-442.

Biomimicry In Economic Systems

2011-07-13T00:00:00Z

If I say algae what comes to your mind? The green color? Slippery stones on a lake shore? Sushi?

Typically autotrophic, and some unicellular, I say they are rather fascinating organisms. I quote,

In the morning, photosynthetic production of ballast carbohydrate increases cell density [compared to water] and the algae begin to sink. [...] The carbohydrate ballast is used up overnight by respiration and for the synthesis of new cells. The algae become lighter, and the buoyancy provided by the relatively permanent gas vacuoles causes them [the algae] to float up nearer to the lake surface. [1]

Gas vacuoles are, in essence, compartments filled with nitrogen gas that reside in algae cells (sort of a buoy inside a cell with the effect of keeping the cell afloat). The product of photosynthesis are carbohydrates, basically sugars, stored inside the cell. Those sugars are relatively heavy and, thus, can be considered to be ballast that lets the algae sink (sort of like a cargo ship when it is loaded with containers). So, in the morning thanks to sunshine, i.e. light, photosynthesis starts, sugars are produced, the cell becomes heavier, it sinks well below water surface. With no light, deeper in the water column and during the night when photosynthesis is not an option, cellular activities draw energy through the consumption of sugar reserves, the cell becomes lighter and by the next morning it is back at water surface.

As a phototrophic organism, our algae relies on light for photosynthesis. Thus, it must be at the water surface where light intensity is greatest at least for some time every now and then, especially in turbid waters. The question is why not always? Why does our algae take a daily dive? One of the main reasons is because the afternoon sun is too intense, in particular in UV radiation which may damage, even kill, cells. Thus, just before it gets too hot, the ballast (sugars) accumulated by photosynthesis while at the water surface in the morning, forces the algae to take a dive to escape the dangerous radiation, and guarantees enough energy reserves to survive for the rest of the day. The ballast gets depleted just in time to get back to the water surface, build up new ballast through photosynthesis, and dive again. Note that the rate of photosynthesis correlates positively with light intensity (logarithmic light response curve). Thus, the more intense the light the faster the necessary ballast for the next dive is built (in particular at the lower end of light intensity). On a cloudy day it would simply take longer to build up ballast and, thus, our algae stays longer at the water surface. This is just fine as UV radiation, too, correlates positively with light intensity. Obviously, on a sunny day our algae wants to stay up less.

Fascinating, uh?

The simple and elegant feedback mechanisms are indeed fascinating, in my opinion. We are talking here about cells, vertically moving up and down the water column by increasing and decreasing cell density, perfectly synchronized to be at the water surface when it is safe and to take a dive when it is not.

This made me think about human-built economic systems.

Imagine such well-timed feedback mechanisms implemented in our economic systems. Dangerous bubbles may build up but the system would correct and take a dive well ahead of bubble burst avoiding, thus, damage, crises, losses. You may argue, the bubble burst is the feedback. Perhaps, but the algae seems to get it more timely by diving ahead of damage and resurfacing ahead of death. Further, our algae seems to pefectly balance both increase and decrease in density while our monetary policy pushes for constant inflation, calling deflation a curse. I get that our economic systems are more complex than the activity of an algae yet I keep wondering if we could take some inspiration here.

[1] Alexander J. Horne and Charles R. Goldman. Limnology. McGraw-Hill Inc., 1994

It’s A Human-Built World. Not.

2011-06-19T00:00:00Z

Jeffrey Tucker of the Ludwig von Mises Institute (LvMI) recently posted a message with a link to the Timelapse—The City Limits video by Dominic Boudreault noting that “it’s a human-built world”. Provocatively, I’m adding here not. Jeffrey’s post has drawn a few comments, including from me.

We probably agree, the video, photography, and music are arguably stunning. Perhaps we also agree that the subjects of the video are equally breathtaking. The nurturing ground of the built world shown in The City Limits is, doubtless, human ingenuity. Nothing like this would exist on Earth as we know it without the human mind. Yet, the “it’s a human-built world” view seems to, perhaps, excessively underscore human exceptionalism, a sentiment that may be driven by the framework of thought underlying the economics promoted by the LvMI.

Consider an ant or termite colony, or a beehive. I don’t think it is clear that, from the perspective of an ant, a termite, or a bee, the constructions that emerge as a result of colony behaviour are less exceptional than, say, New York City as a result of human ingenuity. Just like New York City to individual human beings, the complexity, functioning, and grade of organisation of a termite mound is not understood by any of it’s inhabitants. Would an ant be conscious, it would probably state “it’s an ant-built world”. Think it further and one could conclude that, as primary producers, plants could state “it’s a plant-built world”. After some of my recent courses I could be tempted to conclude that “it’s a soil microorganisms-built world” but I remain sympathetic to the integrative view of a world that is built by the activity of the living and the processes of the non-living.

To contrast The City Limits, and perhaps give some perspective to the “it’s a human-built world”, I suggest The Mountain by a passionate landscape photographer and filmmaker from Norway.

The music to The City Limits—Time by Hans Zimmer (Inception Soundtrack)—and The Mountain—Nuvole Bianche by Ludovico Einaudi—can be found here and here, respectively.

To close on a curious note, The City Limits ends with the non-human built.

Italian Referendum

2011-06-09T00:00:00Z

Awhile ago an Italian friend sent me an email referring to the upcoming abrogative referendum held in Italy on 12 June and 13 June 2011, which I had not heard of before. The referendum includes questions on the privatisation of water services, a return to nuclear energy, and criminal procedure (specifically immunity of the Prime Minister from prosecution). I consider the yes to say no to special legal treatment for certain people obvious. Thus, I’m discussing only the first two areas, to which my friend votes yes to say no, too.

Nuclear energy is a hot topic in Europe these days. Following Fukushima, the irrational backlash. Nuclear power is considered unsafe, though living within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant for a year has about the same radiation dose as eating a banana and is about a third the dose absorbed by living within 50 miles of a coal power plant for a year; though particulate matter emitted through combustion in energy production is a much larger risk to public health than radiation through (functioning and malfunctioning) nuclear power plants. Largely as a reaction to public pressure, the Swiss Federal Council recently voted against building new nuclear power plants. The last of the five Swiss plants will be decommissioned in about 20 years. Germany decided to close all of its nuclear plants by 2022. Italy is about to decide whether or not to “definitively close the nuclear adventure and to open a new energy season”. Meanwhile, “Sarkozy sees opportunities in German exit of nuclear energy” and the Finns are leading the way of permanent nuclear waste storage, for the next 100,000 years and beyond the next ice age—which is, at least, a fascinating thought experiment. All this is, of course, a gamble. There are opportunities, such as technological innovations propelled by redirecting capital resources towards R&D, and there are pitfalls looming on the horizon, such as the potential need to expand fossil fuel-based electricity production or the potential irony of having to import nuclear energy from other countries to meet future energy demand.

The Italian committee against the privatisation of water services marks the death of the fountain. Their slogan: water is a public good. It is important to note that the question is not whether to privatise water as a resource but, rather, water services, which includes, for instance, water purification. The Italian committee against the privatisation of water services nostalgically recalls the good old Italian fontanella, which was “public by predisposition”. Those times are gone, argues the committee, if the “management of public water goes into private hands”, I suppose the argument goes that, compared to the government, (multinational) for-profit corporations can only deliver services of inferior quality. Given the utterly dysfunctional Italian government, I wonder, trust in private enterprise must be underwater, despite that their mobile phone reliably rings upon a call. Because access to clean water for purposes such as drinking, cooking and cleaning is not as immediate as access to other fundamental resources such as, for instance, breathable air, it is clear that there exists a demand for access to clean water. This demand is met by a corresponding supply. I suppose, the question now is whether supply ought to be “guaranteed” by public or private enterprise. Of course, the anti-corporatist will say public and the free-market economist has only one answer, too, namely private, with the argument of market efficiency. The answer may depend on the problem’s context. In a country with a functioning government, public management of water resources may lead to a service that considers, for instance, ethical values or externalities, even though the cost of the service is beyond what the market would deem efficient. However, “in poor countries with private investments in the water sector, more people have access to water than in those without such investments” as “superior competence, better incentives and better access to capital for investment have allowed private distributors to enhance both the quality of the water and the scope of its distribution”.

Whatever individual beliefs and views, I hope the Italians get out and vote, a right we the people should be allowed to make use of more often.

Back Online

2011-05-24T00:00:00Z

After a virtual private server upgrade to Debian 6.0 and a magnificent 1 GB RAM, which is rather awesome from the previous 128 MB, as well as a complete redesign, the blog is finally back online.

Since the beginning, the site had been powered by Wordpress but the guys at Clark & Parsia indirectly convinced me to try something new, being the continuous Wordpress updates, the plug-ins chaos, the requirement of a database, an annoying software cake with too many layers, to run something that ought to be simple.

The site is now powered by toto and thin, and the whole thing, including the text file posts, is versioned at github. The posts are freely available on this site anyhow, so feel free to clone the whole site (some rights reserved). Cloning and pushing the posts from and to github is a rather interesting way to maintain a blog, albeit slightly geeky. The system comes, among other things, with the added benefit of having local copies of the posts, just in case the server crashes (indeed, previously I had no functioning backup of the database).

You may wonder what happened with all the gadgets, such as recommended posts, most recent comments, and other click-apps. Well, they are gone, and they won’t come back, at least not anytime soon. One of my favorite things about this minimalist blogging system is that it supports, in a cool way, what a blog is all about: writing. Indeed, I did not even activate, at least for now, comments, in toto most easily powered by disqus. The main reason is that in over two years I utterly failed to attract comments in first place, and I’m not expecting this will radically change in the near future. (Granted, with shutting down comments I definitively closed the doors.) The second reason is that integrating disqus somehow breaks the clean design, in my opinion. That said, I might consider activating them in the future. However, not all is gone. I left the Twitter button at the end of each post, which is a way for you to interact, including leaving short comments. Further, you can reach me @markusstocker, linkedin, or by email if you want to get in touch.

Finally, there are links to the archives by year for you to browse and a RSS feed for you to subscribe. The banner image has been different from the one I chose back in 2008 for awhile. The current image is a variation of a picture I took a few years ago, in Berlin.