I’m pretty keen to see some of Te Araroa maybe this summer. Of course, any attempt at the entirety of this New Zealand long walking track is likely to take many months so tackling a couple of interesting sections at a time would seem wise (or cheating in some books).

Here’s a couple of photos from the last few weeks. One from a tramp I did with Andy, Kath and Katrina up at Field Hut and the other two from Ruapehu

Also checked out some local theatre with a showing of The Raft at the Downstage Theatre. Gripping stuff with powerful acting. Didn’t know us Kiwi’s could be such darn good actors. Recommended.

This weekend we drove to Paraparauma to catch the ferry out to Kapiti Island. The boat departed at 9am making the short hop over to Rangatira in no time. We spotted Takahe, Hihi, Tieke (Saddleback) and maybe some Kaka. There are so many birds there and it is hard to belive the island once had over 22,000 possums on it! I thought it was a great day trip, very educational and a good showcase for DOC’s restorative efforts. No snowballs though.

Brad from the USA was of a more bi-polar mentality having spent months wintering over at one of the most remote places on earth – the Greenland ice cap. He shared thoughts on what might have happened to the man who almost died recently working at the same base. Brad also enlightened me on another recent awareness raising event. This being the fastest circumnavigation of the globe by a powerboat, and bio-diesel to boot. He was on it for a month or so while it circled Aeoteroa.

So enough talk of inspired travellers, what have I been up too? A couple of local tramps, a birthday/flatwarming party for both myself and Andy and a smudge of Monet and the Impressionists. Fighting my way through the hordes of ravenous literati I was able to catch a glimpse of the impressionistic vision from the continent. Spine tingling stuff.

How many lightbulbs does it take to save the planet is less of an oxymoronic question than it sounds. The answer is a collection of ideas about things governments and organisations can legislate and change. The tragedy of the commons is an old economics metaphor; one which explains why the individual is very limited in the impact they can make. Andy’s post delves into a bit more. Great book though.

After two months of relatively solid reading I reached the final pages of that ripping Indian adventure Shantaram. David Gregory Robert has crafted an incredible novel weaving street philosophy, boys own adventure and a love story (of sorts).  It’s a struggle to find adjectives to describe the book’s incredible power and depth; it just seems a book like no other. You can really feel that the author has experienced life in a really vivid sense with experiences in places people only think are concocted in novels (well it is a novel I guess). Read it!

Since Wellington has been weaving it’s bohemian spell on my sorry artless mind for the last two months, this blog kept me amused for at least ten minutes today. Despite what the author says about Moleskine notebooks, I do feel that the smooth oilskin on these gems contributes to the smug smile after putting two lines down. My fake, polyester clad notebook just does not exude the same creativity. According to the description given here, left leaning, city dwelling white folk such as I spend far too much time fashioning this socially conscious, anti-corporate hipster image. Then whining about it.

Oh, I finished a North African cooking class a week or two ago at the Community Education Center. Tagine is something i’m sure my flatmates would be willing to test if only I could the motivation to prepare. Almonds and dates are good. Also thinking about starting Yoga course soon. I will try to separate myself from those mainstream Doga people of course.

Israel criticism caused delegates from a number of countries to walk out of the UN. Interesting that the following day they refused to be part of a Gaza war enquiry started by the UN.

Interesting dicussion about the benefits of a maximum wage. I was told at University in a management lecture that a reasonable multiplier for lowest wage to top wage in an organisation was fourteen. Above this was deemed to be ‘counter-productive’. How this would work in practice I have no idea but I like the principle.

Pakistan is going to be a place to watch in the next few months. Taliban from the Swat valley (which a few weeks ago came under official sharia law) have moved into neighbouring provinces, exerting their influence by threats and violence. The US are worried but is this really our battle (again)?

Last week I blogged about politics, referencing a couple of good editorials to paraphrase the ideas of the week. This past weekend I was lucky enough to go tramping with some new friends, to discover North Island bush (here) while enjoying some quality conversation and card time (the most important ingredients of a good tramp along with a dilapidated kiwi hut). On the way down, stumbling over gnarled tree roots while trying to keep down from the rain lashed ridge, we started talking animal ethics and progress vs status quo. Is was not the sort of place to inspire such talk but at least it took the mind off the chill. Do we need to sacrifice progress in order to keep such ideals as keeping balance in the ecosystem and ethical behaviour toward each other? Intensive farming for meat was the example which triggered the question this post asks. The diary and poultry industry have long used such methods as hormone injections, selective breeding and increasing yield by carefully balancing the animals environment. This is not natural. The ever increasing demands of both consumers demanding lower prices and companies pushing for increased profits for shareholder have meant this endless cycle of productivity increase continued.

How much faster can chickens grow than the current 30 odd days required for supermarket sized packages? What is the most milk a cow can produce daily? While the industries have made compromises (ban on hormones in chickens and decreased stocking densities) to satisfy animal rights groups, yields in both [kg chicken/kg feed] chickens and [milk fat] for diary continue to improve year-on-year. Why does a chicken farmer have to double the size of his farm every ten years to maintain his standard of living? How can we introduce a framework of ethics for industries such as this? Good old fashioned capitalism with its emphasis on bottom lines seems to have done away with corporate responsibility. The problem is that we are over nourished, selfish consumers with no wish but to buy cheap, fresh product – organic would be nice but it seems it is not essential for those of us stuck to the price equilibrium. Farmers simply grow what they are told to while being forced to ever increase yield from their animals; not because they want to but because if they don’t they will simply be swallowed up by competitors or marginalised by their inability to keep up. A framework has to allow for the healthy ethical responsibilities in growing livestock, the needs of the consumer and keep the farmer sustained. Yet on top of this there is the need for the producing company’s shareholders to be kept happy as well. Hmm any ideas?

Polly Toynbee had some excellent insight into the state of UK politics with her scathing attack on the Conservative’s new economic policy. In a nutshell, the Tory’s idea to cut, sack and reduce debt comes at the worst possible time. This means that Labour is the only realistic choice yet again for voting next year. I think this disparaging of the Tory idea is overly simplistic but her point was that because we have this 19th century idea of the two party system, we can never vote for something we really believe represents our ideology. I could see this in our election of National this year in the NZ ballots; it was a vote simply for the sake of change. The Compass group aims to be not a party but a framework for disparate groups. No one has enthusiasm for political parties these days because the self interest has become so self-evident as to be bordering on farcical. Why are party member numbers a small fraction of what they were fifty years ago? We need a forum for policy discussion that has more inclusion of the masses. The UK needs more than two choices.