Does money actually grow on trees?

Alexia P. Head Girl, analyses the historic and future impact of trees on the economy.

‘Money doesn’t grow on trees’. A cliché I’m sure most people will have heard when they were younger; when they had no understanding of the true value of money.  However, is this cliché wrong – are there economic benefits to trees?

As of 2020, there are approximately 3.04 trillion trees on the planet, made up of 60,065 different species. Their uses vary, from being produced into something tangible, such as paper or furniture, or providing intangible services, such as the carbon cycle or retaining nutrients in biomass to aid farmers in growing crops. Over time, although their uses may have changed, trees have always been a vital part of our economy, in ways that at first, may not be apparent.

Let’s jump back in time. The year is 1690, and the global dominance of the British Empire is growing. In Britain, most of the population are in the primary sector of employment, particularly in agriculture, growing trees to help build houses, or to trade for an animal to increase income for the household. As timber and fruits were traded amongst farmers, incomes increased. However, as more villages were established, space that was previously forestland was cleared of trees, and the supply started to diminish. The navy – at the time, the biggest in the world – relied on the timber for their ships; to continue to expand their fleet, they had to travel further abroad. Ships then travelled to America, India, and Europe to gain resources, power, and valuable influence to create trading alliances that are still in place today. This extra money and resources gave Britain an advantage when The Industrial Revolution hit in 1760. This allowed for a quick and smooth integration of the new, more efficient way of life that asserted Britain further as a global power and further boosted its economy. And all of this stemmed from the reliance and resources of trees, without which, the roots of our economy would not stand today.

However, as countries developed, their reliance on single resources and tangible products have decreased, particularly in ‘advanced’ countries in favour of services and jobs in tertiary and quaternary sectors. As a result, agriculture – such as timber production – has steadily decreased.

But trees still play a vital part in the growth of our economy today. In LIDCs and EDCs, such as Brazil, logging and mass production of wood has become part of the economy. Although the industry is environmentally frowned upon, it has an estimated worth of $200 billion annually, allowing many developing countries who produce this material to place money into developing infrastructure and technology further. There are not only economic benefits. In some societies, such as in parts of Indonesia, trees and wood have been used as currency on a local scale, allowing people to trade wood for farming animals, or clothes, encouraging economic movement in smaller villages, that may not have reliable national trading routes. Paper, furniture and fuel are just some other ways that trees have become so heavily relied on in people’s lives, with few other ways to substitute the valuable resources they produce.

However, the rate at which tree resources are exploited is becoming too high. In the quest to become economically developed, forest sustainability has been forgotten. Increasing tropical deforestation rates account for loss of biodiversity and reduction in carbon intakes,affecting further tree growth in surrounding areas as nutrients are removed.

There have been recent attempts, however, to preserve the trees and rainforests. In a recent study by Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, it was determined that rainforests store around 25% of carbon dioxide, with the Amazon alone strong 127 billion tons. To release these gases would heavily increase the enhanced greenhouse effect, changing the balance of the Earth’s ecosystems.

Sustainable income from trees is becoming more apparent, particularly in countries where deforestation rates are highest. In Bangladesh, where fuel industry relies on 81% wood, the logging industry has been encouraged to collect dead trees, wood waste and pruning rather than felling increased sections of forest. This still allows for an income, whilst ensuring trees remain part of the ecosystem. Furthermore, there has been a global effort to move away from the use of wood entirely. Reusable energy, such as solar power, makes up 26% of the global energy used and is expected to rise to 45% by 2045. Although this means the usage of trees in the economy will decline, it allows for new income sources, such as eco-tourism that encourages more environmentally aware holidays; for example, Samasati lodge, Costa Rica. The lodge uses rainwater instead of transporting water through pipes; is built on stilts rather than the ground as not to disrupt run-off water to rivers; and blends in with surroundings to ensure not to disturb local wildlife in attempts to make holidays more environmentally sustainable, whilst still taking economic advantages of trees.

‘Money doesn’t grow on trees’. Well, since 2016 in the UK, it hasn’t. Our bank note system changed from paper to plastic, showing the progression from a society that once relied on a single produce, to a new, man-made source. This well represents our economy today and our declining reliance on trees: what was once the roots of our economy will soon become a thing of the past.

How did the 2016 EU Referendum come about?

Cara H, Editor of Unconquered Peaks, looks at the key reasons that led David Cameron to hold the 2016 EU referendum.

In this essay I focus on the factors which led to the 2016 Referendum being held, rather than the result. David Cameron called the 2016 EU Referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union (EU) in 2015, giving the British public the right to decide whether their future would be in or out of the EU. They chose to leave the EU by a margin of 51.9% leave, versus 48.1% remain. The UK-EU relationship has always been complicated and fraught, ever since joining in 1973. Factors analysed are ‘important’ as they led to Euroscepticism in British politics or the British public, and/or led to political pressure on Cameron to hold a referendum on EU membership.

I argue that the UK’s historic relationship with the EU contrasts sharply with their current aims. As for immigration, general anti-immigration sentiment, and the rise of UKIP (which are very much linked) strongly contributed to Euroscepticism and political pressure on Cameron. I also touch on Cameron himself, and his decision making around quelling his backbenchers.

A transactional vs political relationship

Britain has always viewed the EU differently to our European friends. Whilst most of Europe see themselves as European, Britons are the least likely to have Europe form part of their identity (see graph below), and do not have the same allegiance to Europe in comparisons to the German or French. Instead, we view our relationship with the EU as transactional, through a cost-benefit, economic analysis. This can be clearly traced back to our original reasons for joining.


(Eurobarometer, 2015)

In the late 1950s, Britain was experiencing a post-war economic rut, while Germany and France were experiencing strong growth. Britain’s spheres of influence were declining, and trade with the USA and Commonwealth had decreased. This led to the belief that joining the bloc might remedy the UK’s economic problems. Macmillan, the UK Prime Minister at the time, “saw the European Community as an economic panacea… here was a way in which the British economy could overcome so many of its problems without resorting to a radical and painful domestic economic overhaul” (Holmes, n.d.) This analysis of Britain’s reasons for joining contrasts sharply with the EU’s increasingly political aims. Though Britain arguably shares the aims of the European Project, it does not share the same desire to become one with Europe and is interested in the EU only economically. Having joined the EU for economic reasons, and later being faced with political integration, increased tensions.

These tensions between an economic, free trade-based union and a political integratory one, have been the backdrop of the UK’s interactions with the EU. For example, the Eurozone Crisis in the UK especially damaged views towards Europe, not simply because of what happened, but because the ‘cost’ of remaining a member became highlighted. The heightened tensions within the political establishments of the UK and the EU have seeped into the general public psyche. Therefore, the dual nature of the EU as a trade-bloc and a political union had a negative impact on the UK’s relationship with the EU, by increasing Euroscepticism, and in turn increasing political pressure on Cameron to hold a referendum in 2016.

Immigration concerns conflated with EU

Freedom of movement is enshrined in the EU’s ‘DNA’. As stated in 1957 in the Treaty of Rome, it can be defined as ‘EU nationals having the right to move freely within the European Union and to enter and reside in any EU member state’ (Bundesministeriums des Innern, 2015). Non-EU immigration levels have always been higher than EU immigration levels. Meaning that the argument around freedom of movement as a cause of unsustainable immigration has been greatly exaggerated. It is the perception of EU immigration that has stuck; the EU became synonymous with immigration of any kind, whether this is misguided or not.

The increased level of non-EU and EU immigration put pressure on aspects of British culture which are not so open to those perceived as ‘non-British’. Integration is often difficult for those of a different culture. For example, differences in language, traditions and skills, can lead to those with a strong sense of British national identity perceiving immigrants negatively, as they threaten what some see as British culture. And yet this immigration concern is incorrectly conflated with the EU, as the majority of immigration to the UK has little to do with the European Union (though one could also argue that all British anti-immigration sentiment is largely unfounded, regardless of the place of origin). An excellent paper by Chatham House presents a cross analysis of people’s voting choices (leave vs remain), compared to their attitudes towards immigration (both non-EU and EU). The trait that most divided the ‘leavers’ from the ‘remainers’ was their attitudes towards immigration and British culture: nearly ¾ of ‘outers’ agreed that ‘Immigration undermines British culture”.


Social background of ‘inners’, ‘outers’ and undecided voters. (Chatham House, 2015)

Therefore, this cultural negativity towards immigration manifests itself in many ways, one of which is opposition to the EU, through the conflation of (any) immigration with EU membership. One of the EU’s most sacred principles is freedom of movement, and the growing number of immigrants since the UK’s membership of the EU has only increased this Euroscepticism, which increased the likelihood of EU-UK referendum.

UKIP’s sudden rise

UKIP was founded in 1991 and can be categorised as a single-issue party, with the sole aim of bringing the UK out of the EU, via a referendum. Once Nigel Farage became leader of UKIP in 2006, it grew in popularity, with gains in the 2013 local elections (22% of the vote), two Conservative Party defections to UKIP in 2013, and impressive results in both the 2014 European Parliament elections (largest number of seats with 24) and the 2015 General Election (12.5% of the popular vote). They were most certainly on the up.


Table to show distribution of seats in the European Parliament in 2014.

UKIP’s rise led to Cameron’s electoral position becoming increasingly threatened: UKIP is a right-wing party, whose voters were more likely to be white and older than that of Labour’s electorate. Therefore, UKIP was able to split the Conservative vote (Martill, 2018). In 2014, UKIP managed to gain over a quarter of votes in European Parliament elections, outnumbering the Conservatives. Understandably, this was a clear threat to the Conservative Party at the time. Though support for UKIP was clearly influenced by other factors, (i.e factors that pushed voters towards UKIP), UKIP managed to harness Euroscepticism in the general public, and transform this into meaningful political pressure on David Cameron to hold a referendum. The nature of UKIP’s rise – sudden, large, and at a time when the Conservatives did not have a majority (pre-2015 General Election), was a very important factor in leading to the referendum. Arguably, UKIP’s pressure on Cameron led him to hold an election, lest he lose public and potentially party support, and inevitably, a general election. Therefore, due to the rise of UKIP, a party based on support for a referendum on the EU, Cameron was incentivised to put a referendum promise in his party’s manifesto in 2015 and hold one in 2016, in order to keep his Conservative Government in office.

Cameron’s desire for a quick fix

The Prime Minister is by far the main source of authority over whether to hold a referendum or not, so analysing Cameron is important in answering this essay’s question. Cameron’s decision around party management was an impactful factor in leading to the 2016 EU Referendum.

The promise of a referendum can be seen as a ‘quick fix’ method of appeasement to the Eurosceptic backbenchers. As is clear from the rise of the Conservative Eurosceptic faction, heightened tensions were forming in the Conservative Party from 2013 onwards, and this threatened the Party’s ability to govern. Hence, Cameron felt compelled to manage his party over Europe, by delegating the decision to the public. When the referendum was initially promised in June 2013, Cameron was concerned with stopping the backbenchers rebelling in the coalition. He wanted to silence the Eurosceptic wing of the party that had caused so much trouble for the party over the years; an ‘easy fix’ to a longstanding problem (Martill, 2018). A comment that encapsulates this, is from Donald Tusk (former President of the European Council), recounting his meeting with Cameron after the referendum was announced in 2013:

“Why did you decide on this referendum, [Tusk recounts asking Cameron this] – it’s so dangerous, even stupid, you know, and he told me – and I was really amazed and even shocked – that the only reason was his own party… [He told me] he felt really safe, because he thought at the same time that there’s no risk of a referendum, because his coalition partner, the Liberals, would block this idea of a referendum” (BBC, 2019).

Clearly, party management was very influential in Cameron’s decision-making. Therefore, the decision desire to repair the divide in his party, was hugely impactful in leading to the 2016 EU Referendum.

In conclusion, the nature of our relationship with the EU, immigration sentiment, UKIP and Cameron’s decision making were the most important factors in leading to the EU Referendum. Especially impactful was UKIP’s ability to harness Euroscepticism into political pressure. But arguably, the end of our EU membership was spelt out from the beginning.


Works Cited

BBC, 2019. Inside Europe: Ten Years of Turmoil. [Online]
Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0c1rjj7
[Accessed 29 06 2021].

Bundesministeriums des Innern, f. B. u. H. B., 2015. Freedom of movement. [Online]
Available at: https://www.bmi.bund.de/EN/topics/migration/law-on-foreigners/freedom-of-movement/freedom-of-movement-node.html
[Accessed 29 06 2021].

Chatham House, 2015. Britain, the European Union and the Referendum: What Drives Euroscepticism?. [Online]
Available at: https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/publications/research/20151209EuroscepticismGoodwinMilazzo.pdf
[Accessed 9 20 2021].

Eurobarometer, 2015. National versus European identification, s.l.: s.n.

Holmes, M., n.d. The Conservative Party and Europe. [Online]
Available at: https://www.brugesgroup.com/media-centre/papers/8-papers/807-the-conservative-party-and-europe
[Accessed 9 20 2021].

Martill, B., 2018. Brexit and Beyond: Rethinking the Futures of Europe. London: UCL Press.

Is globalisation a new phenomenon?

Andrea T, Academic Rep, looks at the nature of globalisation and whether with the context of our history we can consider it a ‘new phenomenon’

Globalisation is an ever-present force in today’s society. Scholars at all levels debate the extent of its benefits and attempt to discern what life in a truly globalised world would entail. But where did it all begin? A comparison of the nature of colonialisation and globalisation aid our understanding of this phenomenon’s true beginning, yet no clear conclusion has been reached. This leads us to the matter of this essay, an attempt at answering the age-old question: “Is globalisation a new phenomenon?” Though there are striking similarities between both colonialisation and globalisation, I do not believe we can see them as them one and the same. Due to the force and coercion that characterised colonisation’s forging of global cultural connectivity, and the limitations of colonial infrastructure, we cannot consider it true globalisation. Therefore, though imperfect, the globalisation of the modern world is its own new phenomenon.

Before I can delve into the comparisons of colonisation and globalisation, we must first gain a common understanding of the characteristics of both. There is no set definition for globalisation, though most definitions portray it as an agglomeration of global culture, economics and ideals. Some also allude to an ‘interdependence’ on various cultures and an end goal of homogeneity. (One could certainly debate whether this reduction of national individuality is truly a desirable goal, but that is sadly not the purpose of this essay.) Furthermore, for the purpose of this argument, homogenisation is taken on the basis of equality; equal combination of culture forming a unique global identity. And the focus of this essay will be the sociological aspects of globalisation, as opposed to the nitty gritty of the economics.

Though we are far from a truly homogeneous world, we certainly see aspects of it in the modern day. With an increase in international travel and trade, catalysed by the rise of technology and international organisations, we have seen the emergence of mixed cultures and economies. Take for example the familiar ‘business suit’. Though it is seen as more of a western dress code, all around the globe officials and businesspeople alike don a suit to work, making them distinctly recognisable. One might however consider how truly universal this article of clothing is. Its first origins are found in the 17th Century French court, with a recognisable form of the ‘lounge suit’ being seen in mid 19th Century Britain, establishing it firmly as a form of western dress. We then later see, with its rise to popularity in the 20th century (as international wars brought nations closer), the suit and many other western trends adopted across the globe (see picture below). Considering the political atmosphere of the time, and the seeming dominance of the West, we may doubt that the adaptation of the suit was an act of mutual shared culture. And yet we see the ways in which the suit has been altered as it passed to different cultures. Take the zoot suit, associated with black jazz culture, or the incorporation of the Nehru jacket’s mandarin collar (Indian origin) into the suits popularised by the Beatles. Though it still remains largely western, with the small cultural adaptations we can see how something can be universalised and slowly evolve towards homogenisation. In this way, a symbol as simple as the suit can be representative of a globalising world.

This is also where we start to see the link between colonisation and globalisation form. Trade formed an essential part of each colonial empire – most notably, the trade of textiles. Through the takeover of existing Indian trade (India in fact formed 24% of world trade prior to its colonisation), British-governed India exported everything from Gingham to tweed, and had a heavy influence on the style of the society’s elite, taking inspiration from the traditional Indian methods of clothes-making. Furthermore, this notion of the business suit can be seen as early as when Gandhi arrived in Britain (seeking education on law), dressed in the latest western trends. However, though the two do certainly share characteristics, we must consider the intent behind this blend of culture. The ideal of globalisation suggests an equality that is not echoed in colonisation. Gandhi did not wear western styles because of his appreciation of British fashion trends, but instead knew that it was far easier to assimilate if you looked and acted the same. Similarly, influence of Indian dress on British dress was not from a place of appreciation either, but from one of exploitation. Therefore, though the sharing of culture is present in both globalisation and colonisation, one cannot consider them to be the same due to the underlying intent. Furthermore, as the intent in modern day globalisation is in some ways similarly exploitative, one cannot consider the world truly globalised, but rather globalising, through a process one could still consider a new phenomenon.

Another aspect of globalisation we can consider is the role of the media. McLuhan, a 20th century Canadian professor, capitalised on this by proposing the idea of a ‘global village’ that would be formed with the spread of television. His theories went hand-in-hand with the ideas surrounding ‘time-space compression’ that have come about due to travel and media. And McLuhan was right, with a newly instantaneously connected world we have become more globalised. With the presence of international celebrities, world-wide news and instant messaging we have the ability to share culture and creed, and though far from homogenous we can certainly see small aspects of global culture beginning to form. Due to this dependence of globalisation on technology it is therefore hard to view colonisation as early-stage globalisation. But one can make one distinguishing link. One could argue: the infrastructure implemented for trade routes served as the advancements in technology of the imperial time. Similar to air travel, with the creation of the Suez Canal and implementation of railways, it was easier to traverse the globe. This is what further catalysed open trade and contact between different nation states, one of the most recognisable traits of globalisation. However, despite this, the trade routes did not improve communication anywhere near to the level we see today, and the impact technology has had on the connectivity of our globe is too alien to colonisation for the two to be considered the same. In terms of interconnectivity, the form of globalisation we see today is entirely novel, and though they have the same underlying features, the difference between the two remains like that of cake and bread.

Another aspect of globalisation we can consider is the spread of religion. Religion is an incredibly important aspect of a country’s culture, defining law and leadership for hundreds of years. The American political scientist Huntington explored religion and globalisation in his work: ‘The Clash of Civilisations’ (1996) in which he put forward the following thesis: due to the religio-political barriers, globalisation will always be limited.

But events have challenged this. There has been a rapid spread of religion around the world due to the newfound (relative) ease of migration and the access to faith related information through the internet. From London (often dubbed a cultural ‘melting-pot’) to Reykjavik (rather the opposite), we see Mosques and other religious institutions cropping up. With the lack of religious geographical dependence, we see the homogenising effect of globalisation. This is also to some extent echoed in colonisation. During the years of the British Empire, colonisation followed a common narrative of the white saviour. Missionaries preached a new and better way of life, supposing that the application of Christian morals and values would help develop the ‘savage’ indigenous tribes. This attempt at integrating western Christian culture into the cultures present across Africa and Asia shows an early attempt at a homogenised culture. However, though there was certainly some success in the actions of the missionaries (as seen with the establishment of many churches across South Africa), the aggressive nature of this once again contradicts the fairness implied in the concept of a homogenous culture, and globalisation remains a new phenomenon.

One cannot dispute that colonisation does share a number of characteristics with globalisation. From free trade to new infrastructure to the mixing of culture through religion and fashion, we can certainly see aspects of a globalising world. And yet the forceful intent of the homogenisation of cultures seen in the colonial era, removes it from being the true interconnectivity of nations. This is not to say that the world today is free of this intent, but the way in which our world today is globalising is approaching the ideal of globalisation more closely than colonisation ever did, and there is a distinct enough difference between the two that one cannot consider colonisation to truly be an early-stage globalisation. Furthermore, the world today relies so heavily on technology as a facilitator of globalisation that any notion of globalisation in the 19th century cannot be considered one and the same. Therefore, the globalisation of our day and age can be considered its own new phenomenon.


Bibliography

“Cultural Globalization.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., www.britannica.com/science/cultural-globalization. 

“Globalization Is a Form of Colonialism.” GRIN, www.grin.com/document/287753. 

“Globalization versus Imperialism.” Hoover Institution, www.hoover.org/research/globalization-versus-imperialism. 

Steger, Manfred. “2. Globalization and HISTORY: Is Globalization a New Phenomenon?” Very Short Introductions Online, Oxford University Press, www.veryshortintroductions.com/view/10.1093/actrade/9780199662661.001.0001/actrade-9780199662661-chapter-2. 

“What Is Globalization?” PIIE, 26 Aug. 2021, www.piie.com/microsites/globalization/what-is-globalization. 

Maddison, Angus “Development Centre Studies The World Economy Historical Statistics: Historical Statistics” OECD Publishing, 25Sep. 2003,

Chertoff, Emily. “Where Did Business Suits Come from?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 23 July 2012, www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/07/where-did-business-suits-come-from/260182/. 

Our coding Journey with Bit and Byte (our school robots)

Isabelle, Lauren, Olivia and Homare (the WHS Social Robots team) describe how they are working on using the school’s social robots Bit and Byte as reading buddies in the Junior School, and update us on the progress made so far. 

We are the Social Robots team, and we would love to present our project, which is robot reading buddies, to you. This club started in 2018 and we work with the 2 robots which we have at school. Since then, we have taken part in competitions (such as the Institut de Francais’ Night of Ideas competition[1] – which we won!) and other projects and challenges within the school. Currently, we have been working on how we could use these robots in the Junior School to help encourage reading practise.

What we want to achieve and how

At Wimbledon High School we are lucky enough to have two Miro-E robots. They are social robots meaning they can react to touch, noise and other actions due to the sensors and cameras that they have. We can then code the robots into changing colours, wagging its tail, pricking up its ears and many other possibilities! The Miro-E robots are designed to mimic a pet.  But we are not the only one’s coding Miro-E robots for a social cause: they are also used for the elderly to combat loneliness.[2] We hope they will have a similar calming effect on children.

We all know how important it is to learn how to read since it broadens knowledge and vocabulary, as well as opening doors for future learning; therefore, we want to include the Miro-E robots in the Junior School as reading buddies. In addition, reading improves presentation skills and develops confidence and independence. Enjoying reading from an early age will help to support these skills.

To encourage this crucial development in the child’s life, we believe that it is vital to make those learning to read feel comfortable and stimulated. As a social robotics team, we realised that one way to achieve this was by creating a robot reading buddy that helps young children at school to practise reading whilst also being motivated by a cute robot dog (cat, kangaroo, cow, bunny, or whatever animals you think the robots resemble)! If we can compel children to read with our social robots, as well as to teachers or parents, this might change the amount they read or the difficulty of the books they attempt; therefore increasing the speed of reading development, as it is encouraging in a non-judgmental environment.

Our research about reading buddies

Research has shown that it is beneficial for children who are learning to read to have a companion who just listens, rather than correcting them, as we know that reading can be a challenging and sometimes daunting experience for some students. Of course, it is equally important for a teacher to help the child when reading and correcting them so that they can learn and improve. But we also think it is crucial for children to enjoy the reading experience, so that they have the motivation to keep learning.

Therefore, Miro-E robots are perfect for this job as they can help find the balance between learning to read, and practising to read. Also, we can code the robot to adapt to the situation and make the reading experience the best it can be. As we have 2 of these robots at the school, it will also enable the Junior Staff to have multiple reading sessions at once. Finally, as we mentioned, the robots can react with sounds, movement, and lights which we are hoping will engage the students and keep the experience enjoyable. 

While researching, we did also find many studies and papers regarding the effects of animals such as dogs on learning. However, we found little about robotics and coding to achieve the task we set out to complete, making it no mean feat. As school-aged children ourselves, what we are trying to do is pioneering and exciting but also has its challenges. We look forward to introducing Bit and Byte to the Junior pupils and inspiring them to get involved, not only with reading but also to get them excited about robotics and coding! 

Our progress so far

We have been working on this project since the start of 2021, and we have been focussing on research, as well as some coding. At first, we had a discussion with some Junior School pupils, and we sent a survey to parents to see what their top priorities would be for the reading buddy and what their opinions were. We find it really important that the users of the robot reading buddy can contribute their ideas and opinions so that the reading buddies are as beneficial for them as possible. 

An example of these results is that both the students and the parents wanted the robot to guide the child through nodding. Because of this, we set up 5 key stages of the reading process, with different coding programs (and therefore different emotions and actions shown in the robot) for each. We have coded these 5 key stages separately already. These stages are: 

  1. Starting to read, so when the students have just started their reading session or when they continue after a break. We have coded this to have an excited emotion, through tilting the head up towards the child, for example.
  2. While reading, so while the robot can detect someone speaking through the microphone. We have coded this to have a motivational emotion, through slow nods and opening the angle of the ears.
  3. A pause in reading, so when the robot is unable to detect someone reading for a fixed amount of time (for example, 10 seconds). We have coded this to have a questioning emotion, such as with a tilting head position. 
  4. Session finish, which is when the teacher says that the reading session is over. This could be a fixed time (for example, after exactly 10 minutes) or a different action which the robot could sense. We have coded this to have a celebrating emotion, such as moving in a circle.
  5. Early finish, which is when the student decides to stop their reading session before the finishing time. We are still thinking about how the robot could sense this: either if no sound has been heard for over a minute, for example, or if the student does a specific action, such as clapping three times. We have coded this to have a sad emotion, with the robot looking down and the tail not wagging any more. Here is the example code of this:

Social Robots as Reading Buddies sample code

Throughout all these stages, we have also made use of the lights on the robots to portray what stage the students are on.  This will allow the teachers to see the same.

We have learnt a lot in the project so far. For example, through the opportunity to talk with the younger students, we practised gathering data interactively, and how we can use this information. We also learnt a lot of new skills through our research, such as how we can receive papers from the writers and how we can use these effectively. Finally, we have experimented lots through coding by finding out how we can use the new functions in the miro2 library, as well as how we could use different libraries to overcome challenges such as not having a function to sense consistent sound, such as someone reading.

Our next steps

Our next steps for next year and beyond are to successfully complete the coding of this project and run a test with students in the Junior School, before finalising the code to make the robot reading buddy as effective as it can be. There are still a lot of problems that we need to solve for us to code the program successfully.

A key problem that we are facing now is that our robot currently cannot distinguish between a human voice (which can be constant) and a machine whirring away in the background. This is because the robot can only “hear” the difference between fluctuating noises and constant noises. There are many factors that contribute to this problem that we still need to test. Is it because the microphone is not good enough? Is it simply that the communication between the laptop, robot and lights is too slow for the robot to reflect what it is hearing? And how could we adapt our code to work with this? 

It is problems like these which slow down the coding process. For example, there were times where the program would not send to the robot, which we struggled to fix for weeks. Or smaller problems, such as when I thought the program was not running but it was simply that the movements on the simulator that I had coded were not big enough for me to notice the impact of my code.

When all our coding works for each of the 5 stages, we are going to link this all into one bigger program, which will decide which stage the reader is at. For example, if no reading has been detected for x seconds, then the robot may go into the “pause” phase. We will need to experiment to see what timings suit these decisions best. While we continue to develop the coding, we will also need to constantly test and receive more feedback to improve. For example, how could we find the balance between distractions and interactions? 

As you can tell, we have made progress, but we also have lots to do. We will continue to try to find effective solutions to the problems that we may encounter.

Reflection

We have all thoroughly enjoyed this project, and we also think that it has, and will continue to, help us build up several skills. For example, we have learnt to collaborate well as a team, being able to work both independently and with others. However, as previously mentioned we have encountered many challenges, and in these cases perseverance is key. Finally, we appreciate the project because it has been really rewarding and lots of fun to work with the robot and see our progress visually. 


However, we cannot do this project alone. As mentioned, we know it is vital that we receive feedback and act on it. This is why we would also really appreciate any feedback or suggestions that you may have for us! Feel free to complete this form with any comments: https://forms.office.com/r/3yNJZEHBfy. Thank you so much!


[1] Our video entry for Night of Ideas 2020: https://youtu.be/RlbzqTKAOTc

[2] Details about using Miro-E robots to combat loneliness for the elderly: https://www.miro-e.com/blog/2020/4/14/the-isolation-pandemic

Is technology advancement really eating away at your future job?

Charlotte, Year 10, looks into the impact advancements in technology will have on future job opportunities.

Will technology only aggravate inequality, or provide healthier societies?

The technology driven globe that we live in is one full of thrilling and stimulating possibilities for our future. However, it is sure to pose countless challenges whilst advancing in this adventure.

Space tourism, people reincarnation through AI, edible water blobs (the most exciting of them all!) and self-driving cars are some of the many developments aiming to be produced in the future. But with all these startling products being created there are inevitably some challenges posed.

A major concern is jobs. Our jobs. The thing we will be relying on for income and a more comfortable lifestyle, the thing our whole education is aimed around, the thing the economy relies on from the collection of taxes. Careers play a huge role in everyone’s lives and the economy, but how on earth could this amazing technology that is advancing us so much, have a negative impact on the economy and your future?

I’m sure you have heard this many times before, and the biggest answer is simply: automation. Here are some figures to demonstrate how much will change – 9 out of 10 jobs will require digital skills, in 10 years’ time 50% of jobs will be changed by automation, and in 2025, humans will account for only 58% of total task hours, meaning the machines’ share will rise to 42% from the current 29%[1]. These staggering figures could be perceived as a negative attribute to the technology advancement, with it consuming all of our jobs and picking away at our futures. However you have perceived those numbers, let me assure you that all of the foreboding figures can easily be overridden with the fascinating possibilities of what is to come.

Examples include the following:

  • Unexpected industries will boom, not just the predicted boom of the IT industry; these include healthcare, veterinary science, social assistance, engineering, geology and history;
  • The share of women in the workforce is projected to reach 47.2% in 2024, and the number of men in the workforce is expected to slightly decrease to 52.8% in 2024;[2]
  • 85& of the jobs that will exist in 2030 haven’t even been invented yet.[3]

Personally, the last opinion excites me the most with the possibilities that are to come and will impact us. What jobs will be invented? How will they be invented? Who will invent them?

So, no matter how many articles and reports you see in the future about this topic, there are many positives that willoverride things reported as potential negatives. Change might be coming, as we have seen with the development of the internet over the last 40 years, but that does not mean that people will lose the ability to train, learn and adapt to use these new technologies in their day-to-day work. Creativity, critical thinking and complex problem solving – all things that automation currently finds challenging – have been identified as the top soft skills required by companies in 2020, and it is these areas which we need to promote in our learning.[4]

If you take one thing out of this brief article, let it be that creativity and your limitless imagination are the passport to the future.


[1] See https://www.weforum.org/press/2018/09/machines-will-do-more-tasks-than-humans-by-2025-but-robot-revolution-will-still-create-58-million-net-new-jobs-in-next-five-years/

[2] See https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/85140562.pdf

[3] See https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/85-jobs-exist-2030-havent-been-invented-yet-leo-salemi#:~:text=According%20to%20a%20report%20published,t%20even%20been%20invented%20yet.

[4] See https://www.prca.org.uk/Creativity-is-the-number-one-skill-2020#:~:text=Creativity%20was%20identified%20by%20LinkedIn,’Future%20of%20Jobs’%20study.

Should prisoners on Death Row be accepted as Organ Donors?

Isobel, a Year 10 pupil at WHS, assesses the ethics and logistics of accepting death row prisoners as organ donors.

Disclaimer: This piece is based on the US death row and does not highlight my own views on capital punishment.

From a Utilitarian standpoint, there may appear to be a simple answer to this question: organ donation should be permitted because there is a global shortage of transplantable organs and those in dire health condition are unable to receive the medical care they need. However, as more research is done numerable practical and ethical barriers arise. One country that already utilises organs from death row inmates is China. Reports state that more than 5,000 prisoners are executed in China annually, and organs are harvested for transplantation from suitable prisoners. These prisoners are executed via a temporal gun shot wound and are declared dead secondary to execution. They are not declared brain dead which causes many ethical headaches because the physicians removing the organs are then put in the position of executioner. This brief case study begins to highlight some of the major opposing arguments to organ donation from death row prisoners.

Picture from showing surgery https://pixabay.com

The numerous practical barriers surrounding organ procurement from death row prisoners begin to pile up after closer inspection. The first issue is the low yield of transplantable donor organs from these prisoners due to the potential high likelihood of alcohol or drug abuse. Whilst this is a potential stereotype, these factors can drastically impact the quality of the organs being donated.

For example, alcoholism is the leading cause of liver disease in the US because heavy drinking can cause irreversible cirrhosis. Approximately 10-20% of heavy drinkers develop this disease and it is the ninth leading cause of death in the US, killing around 35,000 people a year. Prisoners in long term facilities will not live on nutrition rich diets, will most likely be malnourished because of the (often) poor-quality food they have consumed and will not get the adequate exercise to build up strong organs such as hearts and lungs. These reasons could also impact the quality of their organs for transplantation.

The second practical barrier preventing condemmed prisoners from being organ donors is the logistics on the day of execution. The surgeon performing the operation cannot kill the patient by removing their organs as it breaches the Hippocratic oath of ‘do no harm’. The patient must already be dead or pronounced brain dead before they are put under general anaesthesia because when the transplant team cross clamps the aorta, resulting in a cardiectomy and takes the patient of the ventilator, they are then declared dead. Many physicians’ groups, including the American Medical Association, have prohibited physician participation in state executions on ethical grounds.

Looking through a utilitarian lense the death of an organ donor means dozens of lives saved and the donation is there simply to help those suffering from end stage organ disease, not for any other ulterior motives. The two documents that set out the rules around organ donation in the US are the National Transplant Act of 1984 and the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act. Neither of these documents explicitly prohibits organ donation by death row inmates which means there is no law preventing it from happening. The National Transplant Act states that organ donation cannot be made for ‘valuable considerations’, including exchange of money, material benefit, or a shortened sentence.  This would not be an issue for death row inmates as they have already been condemmed until the end of their life and they have little access to the wider society.

Christian Longo went public with his idea to donate organs as a condemmed prisoner and joined the organisation G.A.V.E (Gifts of Anatomical Value from Everyone). He came up with the idea himself so there is no fear of coercion and he approached the New York times with his story on a voluntary basis. There have been 14 other publicised instances of death row inmates and their lawyers attempting to seek their respective opportunities to donate their organs. They were denied on the grounds of current knowledge on the matter. As popularity surrounding capital punishment begins to dim the public’s sympathy for those stationed on death row is increasing. The conversation surrounding a prisoner’s ability to choose to have one good action in the world before their execution is becoming ever louder.

When a person in incarcerated many of their free rights no longer apply. This can make the ethical arguments considered in organ donation heightened or just too confusing to comprehend.  Two seemingly opposite arguments: fear of coercion, (insinuates the death row inmates are not being adequately protected) and the intention to preserve the morality of capital punishment (death row inmates rights are given too much protection) begin to represent this.

There is a fine line between coercion and free choice when it is made in a heavily pressurised situation like a prison. The emotional stress on the donor can be intense because of the need to make right. Also, the patient who is accepting the donor should be notified that the organs they are receiving came a person on death row. Those who oppose capital punishment are then forced to choose between their life or their personal morals. Many say that the idea of capital punishment is to achieve retribution and deterrence in society. The action of donation is not consistent with either of these aims. Making a hero of the person at the end of their life could have detrimental impact on the family and friends of the victim to the prisoner’s crime. For many, the death of the perpetrator of their pain can bring closure and end to the cycles of grief. To see them be glorified in their last days could have the opposite effect.

https://pixabay.com

It is important to consider the impact that organ donation from death row prisoners will have on the overall practice. The number of potential organs recovered from condemned prisoners would be small. The conceivable stigma that would be attached to organ donation from its coupling with execution could lead to decreases in donation rates. This may especially be true within certain minority groups.

Any notion that groups of people were receiving increased numbers of death sentences to provide organs for the rest of society would clearly make it difficult to attempt to obtain consent for altruistic donation from these groups.

Overall, the bad outweighs the good so although it may seem like an easy solution to a difficult problem, donation from death row inmates would cause more problems than it could hope to solve.

Coronavirus and the economy

Calculator and pen economics

Lily in Year 13 wrote this article just before the start of Lockdown 2 in November 2020 in the UK. As we now gradually come out of Lockdown 3 some 7 months later, how much of the article rings true?

As of the 23rd March 2020 the UK was placed under lockdown and has been moving in and out of lockdowns and restrictions ever since. This is likely to cause an economic slowdown and possibly plunge the UK into recession over the coming years because when people are in lockdown consumption and aggregate demand in the UK is likely to fall. There will be impacts on workers and the UKs supply of goods domestically and from abroad which is also likely to negatively impact the economy. Overall, the UK and its economy is likely to suffer as a result of Covid-19.

Possible impacts

Firstly, aggregate demand in the UK will be hit by the virus as when people are quarantined they will be unable to go out and spend, especially as recently all shops selling non-essential goods along with bars and restaurants have been told to close meaning this spending in these sectors won’t be possible anymore. This will be added to by the low consumer confidence that is currently present as in uncertain times people save their money as a safety net so they will be able to support themselves in uncertain times.

Consumption patterns will also change, meaning goods with an income elasticity of demand between 0 and 1 are likely to see little change in demand as these goods are classed as necessities. Some might even see a rise in demand in the short term as people panic buy (think back to scenes of toilet roll panic buying in April 2020).

However, goods with an income elasticity over one are likely to see a decrease in demand as these are classed as luxuries so people won’t be prioritising purchasing these items when economics conditions are uncertain. This means that overall consumption will decrease as people don’t have the opportunity to spend as much out shopping or on luxuries and are also likely to be more cautious with their spending by nature. This fall in consumption will also be exacerbated if people’s incomes are negatively impacted, such as if they were previously working in the gig economy, perhaps on zero hour contracts or with irregular, situation-based income.

These people would be relying on their savings or help from the government for their money, meaning their spending and consumption is likely to fall. To encourage more spending the bank of England has dropped interest rates to a new record low 0.1% to encourage people to go out and spend instead of save as they will be receiving very little gain from letting their money sit in a bank account. Also, as if demand falls whilst there is still a constant level of supply prices of goods and services are likely fall. This can be seen through the drop in the price of flights as airlines suffer a shortage in demand. For example a flight from California to London would have previously cost $1000 can now be purchased for as low as $246 dollars. However, this drop in prices is likely to have a limited effect on demand because of the uncertainty currently which also means low interest rates are likely to have a limited effect in changing people’s behaviour. Recent travel bans will also limit the impact lower prices in the airline industry since people are unable to take advantage of these lower prices when they are unable to travel or will be deterred by quarantine times. This means that overall aggregate demand and consumption in the UK is likely to fall because there will be fewer opportunities for people to spend but mostly because of consumer uncertainty. This will negatively impact the UK economy.

Aggregate supply in the UK will also be impacted by the virus, impacting costs along with exports if less is being produced domestically. A fall in domestic supply could result in cost push inflation as if demand levels for some products remain steady prices would have to rise to make up for the limited stock or production due to covid-19 restraints on supply. This fall in supply could be caused if workers have to self-isolate and cannot go to work, meaning a company cannot operate at full capacity causing a shift inward on their PPF.

Companies might also have trouble receiving stock from other countries if their production has been impacted by the virus which could prevent production in domestic businesses. This is likely to hit the manufacturing industry especially hard as these rely on parts from abroad, such as the car company Jaguar which is now running out of parts it would usually ship from China[1], and people coming to work as it is very difficult to work from home if you worked in a factory. This effect on supply could be decreased depending as the UK has a flexible labour market, meaning people can easily move from job to job meaning businesses won’t be hit as hard by the shock as resources (people) can be reallocated more easily compared to France where the labour market is very inflexible.

This effect on supply also depends how flexible the product markets are as if a company could switch supplier there would be minimal effect especially if this new supplier was located domestically instead of abroad. There might also be a time lag if producers had stockpiled meaning it would take longer to run out of stock however is still likely to happen in the long term. In the long run this outbreak could cause LRAS curve to shift inwards if there is less investment as companies will be working harder to keep afloat rather than investing or spending on R&D meaning less will be invested into the countries long term productivity.

This can be seen though the fall in the share prices of the FTSE 100 as on 9th March 2020 the average prices of shares fell 8%[2], the worst day since the 2008 financial crisis with £144bn wiped off its combined value. These top 100 companies were likely to be some of the largest investment spenders. Although, as the UKs economy is mainly based on financial services, many can work from home meaning domestic supply issues may not affect the economy as much as countries that rely heavily on manufacturing such as China and Germany shown as Chinese economy shrank by 6.8% in the first quarter of 2020, the first contraction since 1976. The government could also reduce the effect on domestic supply by subsidising companies so they are able to invest in the technologies they need and keep production lines running, or as interest rates are low companies could take out a loan to invest. Meaning there are options for companies to try and uphold supply and investment. However, there is still the underlying issue of people not being able to go to work because of self-isolation. This will have a huge impact on supply in the UK and therefore the economy as if products aren’t being made they cannot be consumed and if they aren’t being consumed profits will fall leaving companies to have less money to invest, impacting supply in the short term along with productivity in the long term.

Overall, the impact of the virus is going to be wide-ranging across the world and in the UK, impacting both supply and demand. Impacts of the fall in supply in the short term will be slightly counteracted by the fall in aggregate demand as if both curves shift inwards there will be a new equilibrium point of production and cost push inflation is likely to be limited. However, the nation’s productivity and output will decrease which means the UKs GDP is likely to fall significantly, plunging the UK into a recession. The British government are spending more to combat some of the impacts however this is unlikely to cover the full economic impact and will see a rise in the government budget deficit as a result. This also makes it likely that we will see the government to following a policy of austerity over the coming years, meaning people in the UK and the UKs economy are likely to be hit hard by this crisis. However, as the virus is a global pandemic, it is likely that its impact will also be mirrored across the rest of the world.[3]

2021 Update

The UK Government introduced the furlough scheme to support workers and businesses who were unable to run as normal owing to the impact of the virus. Up to April 2021 this has cost over £61 billion[4], with 4.7 million jobs impacted. Government spending is at the highest figure ever seen outside of periods of war.[5]

With increasing numbers of the population having now been vaccinated against the virus, and the recently announced reopening of restaurants from 17 May 2021[6], there is a feeling that we are gradually moving out of the crisis and that normality is becoming closer.

However, the vast spending seen since the crisis started in January 2020 will almost certainly mean that a return to a pre-pandemic life will be a challenge and that further austerity will be required to settle the books. The need to ‘level up’ the country, as announced by the Prime Minister on 11 May 2021[7], will be central to life as we know it for many years to come. Whether this can be achieved will be subject to criticism and debate for the significant future.


[1] See https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/coronavirus-jaguar-land-rover-suitcases-supply-chain-factories-china-a9343336.html

[2] See https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/09/ftse-plunges-to-below-6000-amid-global-coronavirus-sell-off-oil#:~:text=9%20March%202020%20Fears%20of,into%20an%20official%20bear%20market.

[3] See https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/articles/coronavirusandtheimpactonoutputintheukeconomy/december2020#:~:text=6.,declined%20by%209.9%25%20in%202020.&text=GDP%20measured%20by%20the%20output,growth%20of%201.4%25%20in%202019. The impact on the UK economy is a 9.9% fall in GDP over the course of the year.

[4] Table and reference from https://www.statista.com/statistics/1122100/uk-cost-of-furlough-scheme/

[5] See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52663523

[6] See https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/05/12/covid-lockdown-roadmap-new-rules-may-17-dates-when-end/

[7] See https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/queens-speech-2021-boris-johnson-pledges-to-harness-spirit-of-lockdown-as-he-sets-out-uks-covid-recovery-995558

Antimicrobials in agriculture: a short introduction

Leah in Year 12 explores why the use of antimicrobials in commercial livestock agricultural medicine is such a contested issue.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) as one of the Top 10 public health threats facing humanity[1]. While the use of antimicrobials has proved a huge boost to the livestock industry, in terms of faster growth in animals, the concern is that higher concentration of AMR in the food chain risks diminishing how effective antimicrobials will be in the human population.

Antimicrobials are agents used to kill unwanted microorganisms by targeting the ones that may pose a threat to humans and animals. These include antibiotics and antibacterial medication for bacterial infections, antifungal medication for fungal infections and antiparasitic medication for parasites.   

Resistance, or AMR, develops when antimicrobials are not used for their full course, so the weakest strains of bacteria are killed but the strongest ones survive. This means that the strongest strains then have the chance to adapt to the environment. Over time these variant alleles become more common in the population and the antimicrobials will become ineffective.  

As Shown in the graph below[2]from 2015 to 2019, antimicrobial use in farming has actually decreased by 45% but since then has picked up again despite the issue becoming more widespread.

Antimicrobials are used often in the production of both meat and animal product farming such as dairy cows, with two main objectives: promoting growth and preventing disease.  

The prevention of diseases in livestock are less of a contested issue as it is well understood that livestock share living spaces, food, and water. Generally, if one animal contracts a disease then the whole flock is at risk due to the proximity. Antimicrobials can help break this link.  

However, the WHO has a strong viewpoint with antimicrobials as a growth agent.[3]As stated in their guidelines to reducing antimicrobial resistance, the organization believes that ‘antimicrobials should not be used in the absence of disease in animals.’[4]This happens by helping convert the feed that the farmers are giving to their livestock into muscle to cause more rapid growth. The quicker the animal meets slaughter weight the quicker they can send them off to an abattoir and get the profit. For example, a 44kg lamb produces 25kg of meat which is the heaviest a lamb can be so farmers want their lambs to reach 44kg so that they can get the most money from each lamb.  

Image via Pixabay

Over 400,000 people die each year from foodborne diseases each year. With the rise in antimicrobial resistance, these diseases will start to become untreatable. The most common pathogens transmitted through livestock and food to humans are non-typhoidal Salmonella (NTS), Campylobacter, and toxigenic Escherichia coli.  Livestock contain all of these pathogens and so they can spread easily.

The WHO have been addressing AMR since 2001 and are advocating for it to become a more acknowledged issue. In some countries, the use of antimicrobials is already controlled. The US Food and Drugs Association (FDA) has been acting on this matter since 2014 due to the risk on human health.

Antimicrobial Resistance is a contested issue because, as much as AMR is a problem that has a variety of governing bodies backing it, there will always be the point that farmers rely on their livestock for their livelihoods meaning they are often driven by profit to ensure income. Antimicrobial Resistance has always been hard to collect evidence on, so this makes it harder to prove to these farmers that it is a growing issue.


References


[1] World Health Organization, WHO guidelines on use of medically important antimicrobials in food producing animals, 7 November 2017, https://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/antimicrobial-resistance/cia_guidelines/en/
Accessed:  24th April 2021

[2] World Health Organization, Antimicrobial Resistance in in the food chain, November 2017, https://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/antimicrobial-resistance/amrfoodchain/en/
Accessed:  24th April 2021

[3] World Health Organization, Ten threats to global health in 2019, https://www.who.int/news-room/spotlight/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019 Accessed:  24th April 2021

[4] Farm Antibiotics – Presenting the Facts, Progress across UK farming, https://www.farmantibiotics.org/progress-updates/progress-across-farming/
Accessed:  24th April 2021

Impact study: the spread of imported disease in Australia and New Zealand

Sophia (Year 13) looks at how European colonialism spread disease to Australia and New Zealand.

Although the tragedies brought by actions of colonisers such as slavery, wars and other abysmal treatment of native populations caused many deaths, one of the biggest killers of this action was the introduction of new diseases to which natives had no immunity due to their previous isolation from the European invaders.

Image from Pexels

Between 1200 and 1500 Europe itself was suffering several pandemics due to the growth of unsanitary cities, creating the perfect environment for infection, and also increasing contact with the Old World, such as through Mongol and Turkish invasions, which exposed Europe to major disease outbreaks. For example, between 1346-51, the Black Death killed off about a third of Europe’s population. As relatively disease-hardened populations in Europe emerged from this, although local epidemics emerged after 1500, none were really as bad as the years before it, rather such epidemics after this date were in colonised nations. Here I will focus on the colonisation of Australia and New Zealand, with different native peoples (the Aborigines and the Maoris) and with different effects of diseases.

New Zealand

Imported diseases began to impact many Maori from the 1790s. These diseases were those such as viral dysentery, influenza, whooping cough, measles, typhoid, venereal diseases, and the various forms of tuberculosis. Missionaries and observers reported massive death rates and plummeting birth rates. However, unlike the Americas and Australia, there is a big chance that the deaths as a result of foreign disease are widely exaggerated.

Rather, such exaggeration labelled the Maori as a dying race (a view which persisted to 1930), which helped to project the British Empire into New Zealand in 1840. One of the reasons for which the effect of disease was probably the smallest was simply the distance from Europe to New Zealand; it was a natural quarantine. The trip took 4 months or more, meaning that the sick either died or recovered; either way they were often no longer infectious on arrival. Therefore, the most pernicious European diseases – malaria, bubonic plague, smallpox, yellow fever, typhus and cholera – did not manage to transfer to New Zealand.

Image by Dan Whitfield via Pexels

Another factor which fostered the gross magnification of the demise of the Maori was the comparison in birth rates; missionary families were extremely large – the fourteen couples who went to New Zealand before 1833 had 114 children. Therefore, it was easy to amplify the decline in Maori birth rates into something far more serious than it was. The population of Maori on contact with the Europeans are very unreliable and, in most cases, wild guesses, and also allow for the misjudgement of the effect of the disease. For example, one estimate for 1769 based upon archaeological science gives an estimated pre-contact birth rate of 37 per thousand per year, and a death rate of 39[1], obviously impossible given that it leaves the Maori population in the minus-thousands. However, more moderate calculations suggest an average decline of 0.3% per year between 1769 and 1858[2]. Therefore, although the Maori population somewhat suffered as a result of these diseases, there is a tendency to exaggerate this, to portray them as ‘weaker’ peoples, and a dying race, allowing for easier colonisation.

Australia

Although Australia was initially discovered by the Dutch, it was a fleet of British ships which arrived at Botany Bay in January 1788 to establish a penal colony[3].  European disease spread to areas of Australia, even before Europeans had reached those parts. For example, there was a smallpox epidemic near Sydney in 1789, wiping out around half of the Aborigines there.[4] 

Photo by Damon Hall from Pexels

Some historians claim that this was acquired through contact with Indonesian fishermen in the far north, which then spread, and others argue that it is likely that the outbreak was a deliberate act by British marines when they ran out of ammunition and needed to expand their settlement. Indeed, unfortunately colonial thinking at the time placed Europeans as the ‘superior race’; a book written by William Westgarth in 1864 on the colony of Victoria included: ‘the case of the Aborigines of Victoria confirms…it would seem almost an immutable law of nature that such inferior dark races should disappear’. Therefore, as with New Zealand, description of the natives as a ‘dying race’ was an important tool for colonisation, meaning purposeful introduction and spread of some diseases is not too hard to believe.

Smallpox spread between Aboriginal communities, reappearing in 1829-30; according to one record killing 40-60% of the Aboriginal population.[5]  In addition, during the mid-late 19th century, many Aborigines in southern Australia were forced to move to reserves; the nature of many of these institutions enabled disease to spread quickly and many even began to close down as their populations fell.

Conclusion

Although one must be wary of statistics about native mortality rates in both countries, given the European tendency to exacerbate the decline in native populations, it is fair to say that the decline in Aboriginal populations was much higher than that of the Maori in New Zealand, although wars also massively contributed to this.

While roughly 16.5% of the New Zealand population is Maori, only 3.3% of Australians are aboriginal, and it is safe to say that disease influenced this to some extent. So why was there such a difference between the effects of diseases in these countries, seemingly close together and both colonised by the British? A very large reason was smallpox; this was by far the biggest killer in Australia, but never reached New Zealand. The nature of the existing native communities was also important; there were 200-300 different Aboriginal nations in Australia, all with different languages, but the Maori were far more united, and often seen to be a more ‘advanced’ society, and therefore were never forcibly placed into reserves; which is where a lot of the spread of disease took place.

In addition, events in New Zealand occurred much later than Australia, after slavery had been outlawed, meaning there was a slightly more humanitarian approach, and there is less evidence to suggest purposeful extermination of the Maori. This is not to discount any injustices suffered by the Maori; indeed, many did die from European disease, and in both cases the native populations were treated appallingly and were alienated from their land.

The influence of European disease was overwhelmingly more powerful in Australia. However, one must approach statistics about the effect of disease on native peoples with caution, as Europeans tended to exaggerate this area to portray such peoples as ‘dying races’, a device often used to support colonisation.


Bibliography

Ian Pool, Te Iwi Maori (New Zealand: Oxford University Press), 1991

James Belich, Making Peoples (New Zealand: Penguin Books), 1996

John H. Chambers, A Traveller’s History of New Zealand and the South Pacific Islands (Great Britain: Phoenix in association with the Windrush Press), 2003


[1] cited in Ian Pool, Te Iwi Maori (New Zealand: Oxford University Press), 1991, 35

[2] Ibid, 56

[3] wikipedia cites Lewis, Balderstone and Bowan (2006), 25

[4] Judy Campbell, Invisible Invaders: Smallpox and other Diseases in Aboriginal Australia 1780-1880 (Australia: Melbourne University Press), 2002, 55

[5] wikipedia cites Richard Broome, Arriving (1984), 27

What is a random number and what is the random number generator?

Dice

Sungmin in Year 13 looks at random numbers, explaining what they are and how they are relevant to our lives – from encrypted passwords to how games are programmed.

Random number in real life

As public and private data networks proliferate, it becomes increasingly important to protect the privacy of information. Having a random number is one of the steps which can become a core component of the computer to increase the security of the system platform. Random numbers are important for other things – computer games, for example. Random numbers will ensure there are different consequences after making different decisions during a game. The results will always be different because the given input is different. At an arcade, there are many games that rely on randomness. Falling objects fall in different patterns so that no one can anticipate when to catch the object. Otherwise, some people will be able to calculate how an object will fall and the game will no longer be loved by the people visiting arcades. It is interesting that we get some randomness as such.

The examples such as the falling object and computer games both require random numbers in order to be unique. For those games and many other situations that require randomness, private data must be encrypted. To do so, a true random number plays such a significant role and must be used. On the other hand, when we are programming games, both true random number and pseudo-random numbers can be used. As you might have noticed already, there are two types of random numbers. Random numbers are separated depending on how they are generated. One is the true/real random number and the other is the pseudo-random number.

Definitions of ‘random number’

There are several different ways to define the term, ‘random number’. First of all, it is a number which is generated for, or part of, a set exhibiting statistical randomness. Statistical randomness is a characteristic where a numeric sequence is said to be statistically random when it contains no recognisable patterns or regularities.

Secondly, a random number can be defined as a random sequence that is obtained from a stochastic process. A stochastic or random process can be defined as “a collection of random variables that is indexed by some mathematical set, meaning that each random variable of the stochastic process is uniquely associated with an element in the set.”  Moreover, a random number is an algorithmically random sequence in algorithmic information theory. An algorithm is a “process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer”. Also, the sequence which is algorithmically random can be explained as an infinite sequence of binary digits that appears random to any algorithm. The notion can be applied analogously to sequences of any finite alphabet (e.g. decimal digits).

Random sequences are the key object of study in algorithmic information theory. Algorithmic information theory is a merger of information theory and computer science that concerns itself with the relationship between computation and information of computably generated objects, such as strings or any other data structure. Random numbers can also be described as the outputs of the random number generator. In cryptography we define a random number through a slightly different method. We say that the random number is “the art and science of keeping messages secure”.

Different types of random number generators

1:

  • True random number generator (TRNG)
  • Hardware true random number generator (HRNG)

2:

  • Pseudo-random number generator (PRNG)
  • Linear Congruential Generator
  • Random number generator in C++

The major difference between pseudo-random number generators (PRNGs) and true random number generators (TRNGs) is easier to understand if you compare and contrast computer-generated random numbers to rolls of a dice. Since the pseudo-random number generator generates random numbers by using mathematical formulae or precalculated lists akin to someone rolling a dice multiple times and writing down all the outcomes, whenever you ask for a random number, you get the next roll of the dice on the list. This means that there are limitless results produced from the list. Effectively, the numbers appear random, but they are in fact predetermined. True random number generators work by “getting a computer to actually roll the dice — or, more commonly, use some other physical phenomenon that is easier to connect to a computer than is a dice”

Comparisons of PRNGs and TRNGs

As you go about your day today, consider how random numbers are being used to support your daily activities – from the passwords we use, the apps we run on our phones, and the devices and programmes we engage with. Maths is all around us.