Opening remarks by Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma, Chairperson of the African Union Commission, at the EU-Africa Summit on 3 April 2014 in Brussels.

The following is a full transcript of the opening remarks made by Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma, Chairperson of the African Union Commission, at the press conference of the EU-Africa Summit. She spoke quietly, but put forward some strong ideas for joint progress:

Thank you very much; I’ll just say a few things because I agree with what has been said by the Presidents and the President of the EU Commission. First I think it’s important to just recall that Europe and Africa have a very long history. We also are neighbours. We also have complimentary comparative advantages that can be used, to strengthen growth for the EU and Africa. And so the discussions under the theme “peace, prosperity and people” was very appropriate. The comparative advantages that I will mention are just a few:

One; Africa has 60% of arable land that is still available in the world, and so it means we have a lot of land that can be utilised for agriculture in particular, and this, and at the same time Europe has had a long experience of growing, processing, adding value to agricultural products. So these are two comparative advantages, we have the land, they have experience, we can put them together and we can both win, and we can both take advantage of this.

The second comparative advantage that we have is our population. Our population pyramids are in reverse. The African pyramid is standing on its base; the European pyramid is standing on its head. So it means Europe is ageing, Africa is young, and will continue to be young and will be probably the only continent by 2050 which will have a young labour force; the biggest young labour force. So this can be also used to our comparative advantage. We have this young population and if we invest in it as every continent, and all of us, humanity, our most precious resource is our people. So if we invest in this resource, and we can work together to invest in it, and as the president of the council said, at the moment we’re getting young people who are professional who come to Europe to work. They are welcome and they have no problem and nobody wants to send them back. Then we have many young people who die on the desert or across the Mediterranean who are not skilled, but who are trying to find greener pastures in Europe, and those are the ones that create challenges.

But if we concentrate on skilling our people, on investing in them, they will not have to come through Lampedusa, they’ll come through the airports and the ports and they’ll be welcome. And they will actually drive the development in Africa, but they can also contribute because young professionals are always mobile so they will still come as they are coming even today.  So I think that’s also something that we can look at in the fullness of time and see how we can work together and increase the investment in the young people.

And of course an Africa that is modernising needs infrastructure, and we’re not asking so much for grants for infrastructure, you can get a lot of return for your money, from your sovereign wealth, from business; they can get returns from our infrastructure. The infrastructure development in Africa will also assist integration, will assist trade, and will assist in modernising. It will also assist in tourism. So, that’s another area we have of comparative advantage. Our beautiful landscapes, our amazing sunsets, our shores, are just waiting to be explored. So we can work together to build, invest, joint ventures in the hospitality industry. And of course there is lots more to see in Africa that you don’t have in Europe and we, we understand that, that patrimony is not only ours but it’s the patrimony of humanity, and therefore, you are welcome to come as Europe to enjoy what we have that you may no longer have in Europe. So that’s another comparative advantage in that I think both the EU as a Union but also business can take advantage of.

The other comparative advantage is that we have huge oceanic spaces that we have not really explored. But we want to explore them to ensure that we build and we grow our blue economy. We want legal exploitation of our fish, of other resources in the oceans. And I think we can work together, transfer technology, but share also, what we get from there fairly, and we can sell to Europe a lot of what we get from our oceans. So there is a lot of comparative advantage that is complimentary that can be really exploited, then trade, as we industrialise whether through agriculture or adding value to our mineral resources, through energy, rebuilding our energy because: the only time I agree with people who call us “the dark continent” is when we look at our energy generation, we don’t have enough to light up a continent sufficiently, but we are working on that, and that’s another area we are industrialising now. You have industrialised over a long time but you have technologies that can leap-frog us from the fossil fuels to cleaner renewable energies if we transfer technology that also can help, and it will help both, we can also generate enough to also send across the Mediterranean.

So these are  some of the things that really in this partnership in addition  to what we are already doing and of course we can share how we can make full use of the other half of the population, women. We have some success stories   in Africa, you have some success stories in Europe which we can share. Rwanda has the biggest number of women parliamentarians in the world. They have more than 60% of women in parliament so; I think, in Europe there is another, one country that has more than 50%. So we can share all these experiences and build a very strong and enduring partnership. The partnership is there, it can be strengthened, it can be enriched, it can be widened and go deeper. So we think we've had a lot of constructive discussion around these issues. Now it’s up to us to really implement together. And together we can be two great continents.

And of course, I'm not saying much about peace because a lot has been said about it, but I just want to say, they are connected. If we can ensure that our young people have a stake in the future, they have jobs, they've got professions, it will be very difficult to entice them to go into crime, drugs or to be trafficked, or even to go and be recruited to, to kill. It will be very difficult. So I think both things go together, the one side all the development issues and on the other, peace. And I also agree that good governance, respect for human rights, is also very critical, and transparency in the way we do business and without corruption, without anyone corrupting another, all of us. And our citizens will understand if we are not corrupt even if there are still challenges, but the problem is if they see corruption then they think there is more than there is. So I think we can really work together on all these issues and Africa is open, and it’s a continent of enormous opportunities, but opportunities in themselves are not enough. We have to turn them into real wealth for the people. Thank you.

Extraterrestrial Life in Modern Science

In recent years there have been a number of scientific discoveries that have gotten the scientific community thinking seriously and realistically about the possibility of life beyond our planet. In 2005 the European Space Agency announced the discovery of ice on Mars. "Earth-like" planets have also been discovered in nearby solar systems such as Kepler-62 (which contains two solid planets in its habitable zone) and the planet Kepler-22b. Although they may be unimaginatively named after the Kepler Telescope, the discovery of these planets has led many to believe that there may be life beyond Earth. In order to understand the possibilities of life on other planets, scientists aim to understand life and the requirements for life by studying living organisms here on Earth.

So let’s start by looking at the creation of planet Earth. More than four and a half billion years ago the planets in our solar system were formed when objects formed of ice, rock and dust, called planetesimals collided with one another. The bigger planetesimals drew in the smaller ones with a gravitational pull until the planets were formed. Earth would have started as a ball of molten rock too hot to support organic material. So where did all this life come from?

There is a growing field of science that aims to answer this question; Astrobiology. That’s right, biology... in space. There are two astrobiological concepts that aim to answer our questions about life on Earth and in space; Panspermia and abiogenesis. The Panspermia Hypothesis is the theory that basic but tough living organisms can travel between planets on comets and meteors, seeding new planets with life. Abiogenesis, on the other hand, is a process by which biological life evolved from simple organic compounds that were created when the Earth began to cool and form a crust roughly 3.9 billion years ago. Since the discovery of extremophiles both of these theories have been gaining credibility. They attempt to explain life on Earth, but also to promote the idea of the possibility of extra terrestrial life.

Extremophiles

Extremophiles are basic life forms that are incredibly tough. As their name suggests, it literally means “lovers of the extreme”. They thrive in conditions that we would consider uninhabitable, but also suffer in conditions we deem necessary for life, such as high levels of oxygen. There are many different types of extremophile, for example there are: thermophiles which thrive at 45-122 °C, xerophiles which can survive the driest of conditions including the driest desert on Earth, the Atacama Desert, piezophiles which thrive in extreme under-water pressure and even radioresistants which can survive ultraviolet and nuclear radiation. Amongst the most interesting of these are the polyextremophiles, which as their name suggests, can survive a range of these conditions.  

Tardigrades, also called water bears or moss piglets, are polyextremophiles that can survive temperatures from absolute zero to almost 150°C. They can also withstand pressures up to six times stronger than those in the deepest oceans on Earth, and can even live through a huge amount of radiation exposure.

Tardigrades range in size from 0.1mm to 1.5mm so are visible to the naked eye. Under a microscope however, they look like this.

Panspermia

The Panspermia Hypothesis has a long history. It was first discussed by the Greek philosopher Anaxagoras in the fifth century BC and has made numerous returns as a topic of interest since. In the 1960’s the theory was brought into modern science by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. In an interview broadcast by the BBC Wickramasinghe talked about the statistical probability of life on other planets. He argued that the amount of solar systems and planets in the known universe was so great that there must be life out there based on the numbers alone. On top of this he believed that life was being spread between these planets by meteors. Unfortunately for Wickramasinghe statistical probability is not proof, and there was also no evidence that any life forms could survive travel in space at the time. The idea was therefore rejected and ridiculed by the scientific community for a long time.  This was all to change though. Scientists are now discussing the Panspermia Hypothesis with new eyes. This is largely because of knowledge we now have of extremophiles, first discovered in the 1980’s, research into their impressive resistances has revived Panspermia as a credible theory.

Fast forward to 2007. NASA sent tardigrades into space and exposed them to the vacuum of space and the incredibly harmful ultraviolet rays of the sun for ten days. A similar experiment was conducted by the European Space Agency who called the experiment TARDIS (Tardigrades in Space) and it replicated NASA’s results. These experiments proved that there are life forms that can survive in space which gives The Panspermia Hypothesis much more credibility. The tardigrade brings the Panspermia hypothesis back into the realm of possibility. Whether they can survive indefinitely or not is still under question, many scientists argue that any journey between solar systems would still be too far, but one within a solar system, from Earth to Mars or vice versa, could be possible.

If The Panspermia Hypothesis is correct, then life could be much more common in the universe than we previously thought; but it also means that life on Earth could have been brought here from somewhere else, which is a tough concept for the human mind to grasp. The problem with the Panspermia Hypothesis is that even though it is all logically possible, it is quite speculative and we have no strong evidence that it has actually happened. In its defence it does not need to have happened on Earth for it to be possible in the rest of the universe, but it is not the only theory that astrobiology has to offer about life on Earth and beyond.

Abiogenesis

Abiogenesis is the process by which the building blocks of life (probably amino acids) are naturally created from non-living organic compounds. It has been suggested that it starts with self replicating molecules, possibly created by extreme doses of radiation or heat. By showing that life can sprout on a planet with the right conditions it simultaneously argues for the possibility of extra terrestrial life, but without all of the messy space travel issues. If it can happen on Earth, then logically it should be possible on the “Earth-like planets” we have discovered. Abiogenesis is easier for us to grasp than Panspermia because it argues that life on Earth actually started on Earth. In logical terms it has similarities with Evolution Theory so we can relate it to knowledge that we are already comfortable with. There is also some experimental evidence.  Amino acids have been created synthetically in conditions similar to those on Earth roughly 4 billion years ago.  There have been multiple experiments which have done this and many scientists believe that this is how life starts on planets as they begin to cool.

Even as the Earth began to cool, it was still far too harsh for complex life forms, or even most basic life forms to flourish. This is why extremophiles were most likely some of the first living organisms. It is thought that they may have started deep in the oceans (making them piezophiles) and that this could happen on other planets too, even within our own solar system. It doesn’t just have to be piezophiles in the deep oceans though. Remember that xerophiles can survive in extremely dry conditions meaning that the whole idea of needing liquid water on a planet for there to be life could be wrong. By changing the requirements that we place on planets in order for them to bear life, it becomes much more likely that there is life beyond Earth; especially considering that abiogenesis could occur on a large number of planets.

The discussion of extra-terrestrial life is now at a rational and reasonable stage, no longer constricted to conspiracy and science fiction. Aliens now are no longer the large headed, grey stereotype of the 20^th century. Scientific discussion of aliens is now about those that live in the world we see through a microscope.  Both the Panspermia Hypothesis and Abiogenesis have experiments which back up their theories, but neither have empirical proof. The thing is, in order for aliens to exist neither of those things need to have happened on Earth. They only need to be possible. As long as they are possible life could be seeded all over the universe. 

The Armed Attack in Woolwich... not the Machete Attack

Social media websites have blown up over the terrible attack in Woolwich yesterday. There have been generalised, anti-Muslim comments and a strong backlash against those comments coming from the less ignorant side of the population. Oddly, the energy company EDF has received hate on Twitter from those confusing them with the English Defence League, who made trouble in Woolwich last night. Thankfully there have also been many who try to remind people to think more of the victim than of the killers.

This is something that the media makes very hard to do. It can be seen in the name that the BBC has given the attack. It is a small and seemingly insignificant detail, but calling the incident a 'machete attack' rather than an armed attack raises a couple of issues. Firstly it is incorrect, the men carried two knives, a meat cleaver and a gun, no machete.

More importantly it changes the way the attack is perceived. The word 'machete' adds a level of brutality to the attack and makes it far more intimidating.  Machetes have a bloody reputation. Over half a million of them were imported into Rwanda from China in 1993 for use in the Rwandan genocide. Machetes were previously known as an agricultural tool, or one used to cut through rainforest undergrowth. That's how they were used by Americans in the Vietnam War; but since the Rwandan genocide they became known as a tool of brutal violence.

The fact that the men wanted to be recorded and caught makes it clear that they wanted attention for what they had done. Exaggeration of the the already brutal attack only gives them what they want. Unfortunately this is what the media does every time there is a public killing. The media's priority is no longer to report the straight facts (if it ever was). Media companies are in such strong competition with one another that they aim to sensationalise and scare in order to get our attention. After massacres like Columbine and Sandy Hook in America the lives of the killers were examined with a fine tooth comb, and the details shown to the public. In Britain we all remember Raoul Moat, but his victims names are forgotten. The victims of public murders are too often reported as a number, they become a statistic.

Take the power away from the killers. Call the incident in Woolwich an 'armed attack' or a 'knife attack'. 'Armed attack' is accurate and less brutal, while 'knife attack', though less accurate as a gun was used, softens the blow even more as it is a term more commonly found in the British media. Remembering the victim does exactly the opposite of what the killers want; it denies them and their statement attention, while supporting the government forces that they aimed to hurt.

The Day I Became Poseidon

It was "one of those days".

You know those days; when the four elements swing against your favour at every turn. It seems as though  the gods of past and present, from Anubis to Mars, from Buddha to L. Ron. Hubbard, have devised a chain of self perpetuating events determined to make you stub your toe and stuff.  The world is against you and its plans to ruin your day consist purely of incrementally worsening incidents of annoyance until the final straw breaks. There is always a broken final straw.

On this day the chain of events culminated in the washing machine stopping mid-cycle. I didn't notice and opened the door only to be greeted by a miniature tidal wave of inky water. I instinctively shut the door, but could not open it again. The machine was broken with my clothes still inside it. It held them prisoner in a glass cage (or plastic, whatever). I decided to restart the cycle to see if it would free them. It did not. On the third attempt (around 1 AM) I decided that I would open the floodgates with a ten litre bucket under the door to catch the water. I soon discovered that the washing machine held considerably more than ten litres of water.

"Shit."

As the bucket filled I tried to empty it into the sink as quickly as possible so I could get it back under the door. The speed with which the water hit the sink made it erupt upwards like a volcano, and only slightly less infernal. There comes a point during days like these that you must make a decision. You will inevitably end up either exploding with rage hitting everything in sight like a confused Pokemon, or taking it all in stride and laughing. On this occasion I laughed maniacally like a rapper (namely Mike Jones)  introducing his latest track as I threw half boiling water around the kitchen.

The clothes were also hovering around fifty degrees Celsius. They were also still in need of a rinse out that could compete with the entire collection of 90's Drum and Bass. I figured it'd be best to do this in the bath, but because of the way it was built I couldn't reach the taps without actually getting in the bath with the clothes. This meant that I had to rinse them out naked under the running tap like a time travelling troglodyte.

Getting to bed felt like drinking a crisp pint of cider after a trek through the desert.

Orchestragasm Part 1

I hate portmanteaus, and I hate myself for titling this post with one, but it is done.

Today I'm discussing performances with a twist. They each have something out of the ordinary about them that adds to the visual and audio experience, making the whole thing bloody amazing.

Firstly a concert performed by Metallica and the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra in 1999. Watch out for Michael Kamen; the conductor who works with some very unorthodox tools. Instead of using the usual batons, he uses his middle fingers, mindfully telling his orchestra to buggar off  as he guides them through the piece. This can be seen in the background at around 1:35, and in full clarity at 3:49.

Well fuck you too Mr. Kamen

Next we have a performance of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture by various bands from the Japanese army with the 1st Artillery Brigade who use 105 mm cannons as an instrument. The piece is typically performed with cannons but these go the extra mile... pun intended. According to Wikipedia this regiment does not even use 105mm cannons when deployed for combat which means one of two things. Either that they definitely do use them for combat; or, that on this occasion Wikipedia is actually correct and the 1st Artillery Brigade has specific cannons that they only use to play music. Badass.  If you're in a rush skip to ten minutes in for the explosive climax. Don't forget to turn the volume down, or up, depending on your desire to hear anything ever again.

I'll be back.

"Taquila Sunrise" part deux

No, I didn't spell tequila wrong... not by mistake anyway

It is currently 4:14 AM and I meant to go to sleep around five hours ago. Instead I started working on this. Figuring out which names would work until the most obvious thing in the world came to mind. I have quite a rare surname and can pretty much use it for any on-line purpose without it already being taken... Unless I have already taken it myself.

It turns out that in 2005 I had started a blog with the title "taquila sunrise". I have no idea if I'd meant to misspell tequila at the time, but I did; and now it just sits there, with no posts, occupying magic invisible internet space. There are many sites like it, so I decided that this one would not become one of them. So as the hours went by and the sounds of Canterbury wildlife (seagulls, and a student throwing up outside my building) occupied the background of my mind I found myself a seemingly adequate name and domain.

And then the door bell rung. Twice.

"Can I ask you for a favour mate?" I heard over the intercom. "What is it?" I replied. He wanted a glass of water. I figured that if he was dehydrated enough to ring on a random doorbell and bang on the door for five minutes he needed it. I got a glass and went down and gave it to him. He thanked me, downed it in one and asked if he could roll a joint in the stairwell. I let him in but he didn't have any tobacco and neither did I; and this being England, that joint wasn't getting rolled without some bacci. So he made to leave and I started walking upstairs when with audible urgency he suddenly said "HANG ON". Enough, I'm done, it's time for this guy to go home I thought.

"You aren't gay are you mate?"

Charming.

"No, why do you ask that?" I replied; he said "oh just checking" and left. Now, gay or not, it doesn't matter. The odd thing is that even though he had asked for help he was so surprised that it was given to him that he thought there may have been an ulterior motive. This is entirely fucked. Especially coming form a guy who, instead of wearing his hat, had decided to balance it on his head in a manner that pushed the laws of physics to their limits.

So that little encounter went slap, bang into the middle of the construction of this blog, and therefore into it's first post. But what of the future? Well, somewhat unlike this post the future posts of this blog will be a sequence of armour piercing bullets of fun and knowledge aimed directly at your cerebrum. It will include books that you should read (and why) and music that you can do whatever you like with. Burn it all to a CD and then set that on fire if you like. It'll also include some discussions on science, history, current events and may be written under the influence of political rage and alcohol.