Two recent posts on HuffPost caught my attention, one by Arianna Huffington and the other by Marcus Buckingham. Both had to do with the general decline in perceived happiness among women in the U.S. over the last thirty years or so. Meanwhile the men seem to have gotten happier over the same period. My first question was "Why?" and my first clue was the difference between the genders. Of course the late sixties and early seventies saw the rise of "Flower Power", the mass burning of bras and free sex; all of which was supposed to make life a lot better and happier than before. It seems to have worked for the guys but not so much for the girls and I thought maybe it would be wise to back up a little to help understand why.
It turns out I had to back up a lot. Men and women are hard wired to perform different roles, both necessary to the survival of the species and both leading humans to become the dominant species on the planet. Men are trained by evolution to be the protectors and the leaders in every group from the family to the largest enterprise yet constructed by humans. Women have evolved as the producers and nurturers of the next generation. For the success of the species, both roles are necessary and each has resulted in the imposition of certain imperatives at the core. What we might term "common practice" is now more truly instinct. What this leads to is the sense among men that she will look after the cave and the kids and he will do the hunting and protect the entrance to the cave.
I do realise that I am painting this picture with a very wide brush and perhaps ignoring the fact that the instinctive skill set in women does have value in the wider world. Organising a modern home is no walk in the park and requires attention to detail and thoroughness that most men just don't have naturally. Even in a modern office it is mostly the women who do the heavy lifting, the detail work required to make the boss and the company look good. Women bring order and logic to almost every task they are given and men take the credit and the big salaries. In other words, most women in the work place are seriously undervalued and exploited. Were men treated that way, they would aggressively look for a better position and usually find it.
Therein lies the difference. Men are hard wired to be aggressive and women are hard wired to be submissive. What that does is put the responsibility for a woman's happiness in the hands of a man who is woefully ill equipped to give it except occasionally. My advice to women is to take back that responsibility. The truth is that only one person has the ability to give you lasting happiness and that is you! I can hear the outcry now from every woman in a close relationship; "That's his job!" Sorry, but it is not and it is not your job to make him happy!
So, how does anyone fix being unhappy?
Step 1, You must acknowledge within yourself who you are. That involves and honest appraisal of you as a person. You will find that there are parts of you that you like, parts you don't like and parts you absolutely hate. Let me make it clear that I am not talking about those things you can see with your eyes. There may be things about yourself that don't look good to you, that you may want to change. For now, put all of those on the back burner and think more about how you might come across to another, family, friends, acquaintances or people you are meeting for the first time. Figure out what it is about you that will attract most other people and what will repel them. Keep the former, change the latter and change how you act and react to others. Do not seek perfection, but never give up improving yourself.
Step 2, Understand the difference between being "In Love" and "Loving". Being "In Love" is a condition where you feel the need to have another say "I love you". True love is the irresistable desire to give to another with no expectation of a gift to you. If true love is not returned, it will die. What can save true love is open, honest communincation between two people. Love includes mutual respect both ways and frequently demonstrated. If a woman asks her lover if the slacks she bought make her botoom look big, she should expect an honest appraisal from him. Taking him to task for honesty is a love killer.
If you can successfully do those two steps, you are more likely to be happy and to get even happier over time. You can also use variations of those two steps looking for a job or career, What do you have to bring to the job and can you give those talents freely? Of course a reasonable salary must be a part of that agreement as well.
Wether or not an individual is happy is about the choices that individual makes which seems to indicate that women have been making bad choices since the late sixties. Men seem to have been doing somewhat better.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Sunday, July 12, 2009
National Health Systems
In Canada we do not have a National Health Care System, ours is in the hands of the Provincial governments and so is not exactly equal across the country. While this does lead to some minor annoyances, it is working not too badly for now. The system in Quebec is in fact split such that basic health care is included as well as some financial support for prescription drugs and diagnostic services in government funded hospitals or clinics. Problems arise because of delays for out-patient needs for services and waiting times for diagnostics and procedures considered to be less than life-threatening can be long and frustrating for patients. Emergency wards are generally packed solid, though this is partly due to people arriving who do not have a family doctor they can contact and see outside the hospital system. Public education on the system and how to use it seems to be lacking.
There is also a wide diversity in the funding for hospitals and clinics because private donations make up part of the funding for all of them. While all should continue to have the right to raise funds from the community, all patients must recognize that some will continue to be better funded than others. The government does need to recognise that there are occasional cases of errors that can be traced back to a lack of funds and take steps to correct those situations.
The problem is that a correction here and there is not going to do much toward fixing a system that is essentially cracked to the foundation.
We need a national system for health care. We have the technology now to establish, maintain and run such a system. We need to set up a patient database, accessable to any medical practitioner simply by swiping a patient's medical ID card. This would allow any hosptial, clinic or doctor's office full access to all the details of my medical history including the names and locations of any specialists I have had occasion to visit. Where and when it may be necessary, a specialist in Vancouver could contact and consult with another in Montreal over a specific issue concerning my health should the need arise during the 2010 Winter Olympics, as an example. That could lead to a five or ten minute discussion that might save my life. To top it all off, a quick and accurate diagnosis is also likely to save money. There can be no question that the right job done right is less costly than the wrong job done over wether we're talking about health care or plumbing.
I should also point out the this proposal does not remove authority over the system from the provincial to the federal. If anything it would be a federal service that runs under provincial authority and recognises the differences from one province to the other. Obviously it is everybody's interest to coordinate across the country with regard to services and medications covered by the plan and specific extra needs for the disabled and aged.
But why should we do this? Because by centralising and modernizing the system it becomes more efficient and less costly, not simply for the governments but also for the hospitals, clinics and even doctors in private practice. Better health for less money sounds like a win win to me!
There is also a wide diversity in the funding for hospitals and clinics because private donations make up part of the funding for all of them. While all should continue to have the right to raise funds from the community, all patients must recognize that some will continue to be better funded than others. The government does need to recognise that there are occasional cases of errors that can be traced back to a lack of funds and take steps to correct those situations.
The problem is that a correction here and there is not going to do much toward fixing a system that is essentially cracked to the foundation.
We need a national system for health care. We have the technology now to establish, maintain and run such a system. We need to set up a patient database, accessable to any medical practitioner simply by swiping a patient's medical ID card. This would allow any hosptial, clinic or doctor's office full access to all the details of my medical history including the names and locations of any specialists I have had occasion to visit. Where and when it may be necessary, a specialist in Vancouver could contact and consult with another in Montreal over a specific issue concerning my health should the need arise during the 2010 Winter Olympics, as an example. That could lead to a five or ten minute discussion that might save my life. To top it all off, a quick and accurate diagnosis is also likely to save money. There can be no question that the right job done right is less costly than the wrong job done over wether we're talking about health care or plumbing.
I should also point out the this proposal does not remove authority over the system from the provincial to the federal. If anything it would be a federal service that runs under provincial authority and recognises the differences from one province to the other. Obviously it is everybody's interest to coordinate across the country with regard to services and medications covered by the plan and specific extra needs for the disabled and aged.
But why should we do this? Because by centralising and modernizing the system it becomes more efficient and less costly, not simply for the governments but also for the hospitals, clinics and even doctors in private practice. Better health for less money sounds like a win win to me!
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Money and Value
Niall Ferguson's "The Ascent of Money"
This two hour program, shown on PBS yesterday, is one of the most well researched and presented takes on the history of money and how it has evolved over the centuries right up to what is happening today around the globe. I have only two small complaints about this presentation; what was the origin of money and how is money related to value?
To answer the first of these questions let me suggest the following. You are a hunter living in a small extended family community and you are preparing to go out to get some game for the village. You realise that the spear you have is pretty much finished so you go to your cousin and ask him to make you a new one, because he has proven that his spears are the best. He does that. He cuts the tree with a stone knife he made himself, removes the bark and small branches, sharpens one end and hands you the finished product. He has made something for you that has a certain value to you as the hunter and you determine that you will give him something of value to him; perhaps some of the game you will bring back from the hunt. You return with a bunch of wild pigs and you give him one of the younger ones, not so big but wonderfully tender.
What has happened is the simplest form of transaction with no exchange of money, obviously barter. What has exchanged is two items which have value. What could be said is that the pig is worth one spear or the spear is worth one small pig. But it goes deeper than that. Before any of this took place the spear was just a tree, free to anyone with the tools and the skill to covert it into a spear and of no real value just standing there. The same thing applies to the pig. What created the value in each was the knowledge and skill of the spearmaker and the hunter and the agreement between the two that the two values were equal.
Obviously the world of today is vastly different from that ancient village and the way we establish value has changed. What has changed is, of course, the introduction of money. But all money, whether shiny pebbles or golden discs or pieces of printed paper, is the same. Each is a financial promise of an agreed upon value.
Let's say I decide to build a small sail boat and I have the tools and the skill to do that. I go to a supplier to purchase the raw materials I will need to build the boat. Even though what I buy is classed as "raw material" it isn't really raw. By the time it reaches my supplier's warehouse that material has passed through many hands and each has put time and effort and expertise into getting it that far. I make my selection and load it all into the back of my trusty pick-up and pay the supplier a sum of money that we agree is sufficient to properly account for the effort of all those hands that touched it from the forest to his warehouse. At home I get busy and get the boat built. The day after I finish the boat, my neighbour offers to buy it. We agree on a value of the finished boat, he gives me that amount of money and takes the boat. I ask him for more than the amount I gave the supplier to account for my time and effort and expertise.
The theory is that nothing has any intrinsic value, not wood in the form of trees, not iron in the form of ore, not the oil underground nor the air above. The other part of the theory is that all things have value equal to what one person, or group of people, is willing to pay for it. Having said that, we can also say that money is the way we set the value of any product or service.
But money has another purpose that has nothing to do with value or products or services. Over the centuries money has become a way of measuring personal power within our society. This evaluation of power in terms of money was originally limited to the amount of money an individual actually had in his purse or coffers and that stood as the only serious measure through the centuries of kingdoms and empires. As we know the merchants began to take over as world trade expanded and even more so with the industrial revolution. Out of this grew the practice of selling shares in companies, at first to family, then trusted employees and finally the public in general. Today the head of a public company can wield much more power than his personal wealth would seem to justify. The reason is that he has control over much more than his own bank account.
The biggest problem with this kind of power is that it is addictive. Of course every CEO will be held responsible for the welfare of the company he is guiding and all tend to be fearful of a drop in the share price of that company that goes on for more than a month or two. What they, and the rest of us, really need to understand is what the share price of any company on any stock exchange really measures. What that price figure represents is what a single share in the company can be sold for right now! Supposedly the analysts base their buy and sell recommendations on educated guesses concerning the future health of the company and on past performance. History shows that time and again these guys miss as often as they hit. A few years ago the best stock market advice around was coming from a monkey and I am sure there are many analysts out there who have chosen to not remember that.
Of course the other source of problems with this market is the practice of purposely manipulating those indicators that the analysts are relying on and creating investment vehicles that are outside the reglatory boundries or too complex to be subject to serious scrutiny. We know that human beings must be held accountable for their actions and we have an enormous body of law set up to do exactly that. Why, then would we diminish the powers of those whose job is to enforce those laws? Should we also lay off half of the police in the country? Why not dismiss half of the military and mothball half of their equipment? I'm sorry, but any one of those options makes about as much sense as the others.
I don't have a problem with those among us with the education, the experience and the guts to control and guide millions of dollars of wealth as long as that guidance is founded in a deep commitment to the greater good. Thank God that most are.
This two hour program, shown on PBS yesterday, is one of the most well researched and presented takes on the history of money and how it has evolved over the centuries right up to what is happening today around the globe. I have only two small complaints about this presentation; what was the origin of money and how is money related to value?
To answer the first of these questions let me suggest the following. You are a hunter living in a small extended family community and you are preparing to go out to get some game for the village. You realise that the spear you have is pretty much finished so you go to your cousin and ask him to make you a new one, because he has proven that his spears are the best. He does that. He cuts the tree with a stone knife he made himself, removes the bark and small branches, sharpens one end and hands you the finished product. He has made something for you that has a certain value to you as the hunter and you determine that you will give him something of value to him; perhaps some of the game you will bring back from the hunt. You return with a bunch of wild pigs and you give him one of the younger ones, not so big but wonderfully tender.
What has happened is the simplest form of transaction with no exchange of money, obviously barter. What has exchanged is two items which have value. What could be said is that the pig is worth one spear or the spear is worth one small pig. But it goes deeper than that. Before any of this took place the spear was just a tree, free to anyone with the tools and the skill to covert it into a spear and of no real value just standing there. The same thing applies to the pig. What created the value in each was the knowledge and skill of the spearmaker and the hunter and the agreement between the two that the two values were equal.
Obviously the world of today is vastly different from that ancient village and the way we establish value has changed. What has changed is, of course, the introduction of money. But all money, whether shiny pebbles or golden discs or pieces of printed paper, is the same. Each is a financial promise of an agreed upon value.
Let's say I decide to build a small sail boat and I have the tools and the skill to do that. I go to a supplier to purchase the raw materials I will need to build the boat. Even though what I buy is classed as "raw material" it isn't really raw. By the time it reaches my supplier's warehouse that material has passed through many hands and each has put time and effort and expertise into getting it that far. I make my selection and load it all into the back of my trusty pick-up and pay the supplier a sum of money that we agree is sufficient to properly account for the effort of all those hands that touched it from the forest to his warehouse. At home I get busy and get the boat built. The day after I finish the boat, my neighbour offers to buy it. We agree on a value of the finished boat, he gives me that amount of money and takes the boat. I ask him for more than the amount I gave the supplier to account for my time and effort and expertise.
The theory is that nothing has any intrinsic value, not wood in the form of trees, not iron in the form of ore, not the oil underground nor the air above. The other part of the theory is that all things have value equal to what one person, or group of people, is willing to pay for it. Having said that, we can also say that money is the way we set the value of any product or service.
But money has another purpose that has nothing to do with value or products or services. Over the centuries money has become a way of measuring personal power within our society. This evaluation of power in terms of money was originally limited to the amount of money an individual actually had in his purse or coffers and that stood as the only serious measure through the centuries of kingdoms and empires. As we know the merchants began to take over as world trade expanded and even more so with the industrial revolution. Out of this grew the practice of selling shares in companies, at first to family, then trusted employees and finally the public in general. Today the head of a public company can wield much more power than his personal wealth would seem to justify. The reason is that he has control over much more than his own bank account.
The biggest problem with this kind of power is that it is addictive. Of course every CEO will be held responsible for the welfare of the company he is guiding and all tend to be fearful of a drop in the share price of that company that goes on for more than a month or two. What they, and the rest of us, really need to understand is what the share price of any company on any stock exchange really measures. What that price figure represents is what a single share in the company can be sold for right now! Supposedly the analysts base their buy and sell recommendations on educated guesses concerning the future health of the company and on past performance. History shows that time and again these guys miss as often as they hit. A few years ago the best stock market advice around was coming from a monkey and I am sure there are many analysts out there who have chosen to not remember that.
Of course the other source of problems with this market is the practice of purposely manipulating those indicators that the analysts are relying on and creating investment vehicles that are outside the reglatory boundries or too complex to be subject to serious scrutiny. We know that human beings must be held accountable for their actions and we have an enormous body of law set up to do exactly that. Why, then would we diminish the powers of those whose job is to enforce those laws? Should we also lay off half of the police in the country? Why not dismiss half of the military and mothball half of their equipment? I'm sorry, but any one of those options makes about as much sense as the others.
I don't have a problem with those among us with the education, the experience and the guts to control and guide millions of dollars of wealth as long as that guidance is founded in a deep commitment to the greater good. Thank God that most are.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Conventional Wisdom
The Oxymoron of the Century
I see this particular phrase all over the place and it strikes me as being a particularly meaningless combination of words. Most of the time when it is used, the phrase "Common Knowledge" would be more correct. The word "Wisdom" refers to some knowledge or idea that is not well known and is passed to the rest of us by individuals we generally agree are wise people. Let me make that a little clearer. A "Wise" person is not necessarily well educated but is likely to be intellegent and curious; a thinker, one who frequently breaks barriers that the rest of us consider unbreakable. The fact of the matter is that almost anyone who has that drive to ask questions could easily come to be considered wise. There is also a tradition that wisdom and truth are somehow linked, though that is not always the case.
Some may consider that those involved in research of almost any kind are in the process of searching for wisdom. There again, I disagree. Research of whatever kind is the hunt for facts. The wisdom of research comes from what we do with those facts once they are found and proven.
One of the causes of the financial crisis we are experiencing today was the "conventional wisdom" that said giving tax breaks and other goodies to large corporations and rich people would pump money into the pockets of the nation. It didn't work! So was it wise? Obviously not! Our government in Canada did the same thing as did most of the rest of the world, which is a big part of the reason the crisis became global.
So what should we do about this term "conventional wisdom"? My preference is we ignore it in others and stop using it ourselves. We could replace it with things like "the experts say" or "It is generally agreed" or similar phrases. Anything including the word "wisdom" should be reserved for those ideas or actions that have been proven to work out well.
I will never forget something my Grandfather told me many years ago. He said, "Never forget that true wisdom often comes from the most unlkely sources and is lost on those who are not listening".
I see this particular phrase all over the place and it strikes me as being a particularly meaningless combination of words. Most of the time when it is used, the phrase "Common Knowledge" would be more correct. The word "Wisdom" refers to some knowledge or idea that is not well known and is passed to the rest of us by individuals we generally agree are wise people. Let me make that a little clearer. A "Wise" person is not necessarily well educated but is likely to be intellegent and curious; a thinker, one who frequently breaks barriers that the rest of us consider unbreakable. The fact of the matter is that almost anyone who has that drive to ask questions could easily come to be considered wise. There is also a tradition that wisdom and truth are somehow linked, though that is not always the case.
Some may consider that those involved in research of almost any kind are in the process of searching for wisdom. There again, I disagree. Research of whatever kind is the hunt for facts. The wisdom of research comes from what we do with those facts once they are found and proven.
One of the causes of the financial crisis we are experiencing today was the "conventional wisdom" that said giving tax breaks and other goodies to large corporations and rich people would pump money into the pockets of the nation. It didn't work! So was it wise? Obviously not! Our government in Canada did the same thing as did most of the rest of the world, which is a big part of the reason the crisis became global.
So what should we do about this term "conventional wisdom"? My preference is we ignore it in others and stop using it ourselves. We could replace it with things like "the experts say" or "It is generally agreed" or similar phrases. Anything including the word "wisdom" should be reserved for those ideas or actions that have been proven to work out well.
I will never forget something my Grandfather told me many years ago. He said, "Never forget that true wisdom often comes from the most unlkely sources and is lost on those who are not listening".
Monday, January 5, 2009
My eMail to the UN (sent today)
Just a Suggestion
I sent this email to the UN though I am not quite sure who might be reading it.
Gentlemen,
I have a suggestion that may help the UN to solve some of the critical issues we are faced with in today’s world. I have called the idea “Committees” but it would be more like a series of blogs where the UN would invite qualified people to make comments and provide possible solutions to global problems we face today. I envision multiple blog pages, each dedicated to a single situation, issue or problem. Experts in the field for each page would be invited to join the conversation by writing and posting their analysis, research and suggested solutions for the subject at issue on that page. There would also be a space provided on each posting for any individual, world wide, to submit comments.
From the point of view of the setup, there are a number of free blog sites out there that have the technology in place to get this done. It would mean that the UN would have to establish and host the site but I don’t see that as a problem for your IT people.
To get a little more specific, let me suggest what the blog for Global Warming might look like, and I would call this one “The UN Project on Global Warming”. The posts coming from the scientific invitees would be concerning what is causing the problem and what are the likely consequences of doing nothing. I would add specific and detailed recommendations from those experts to outline what needs to be done both using technology available now and new technologies that must be developed. The posts from the political invitees would concern the national and international laws that need to be developed or modified and adopted to allow and encourage progress on the solutions put forward, and ideas and suggestions for funding the efforts including how much and who.
To find the experts to be the contributors to these blogs let me suggest that the UN put out an invitation to join the discussion to known groups and associations across the globe. The Nobel Prize mailing list might not be a bad place to start.
The one issue that might be somewhat challenging to overcome is the question of jurisdiction. I say that because I see this system being put to good use for local and national as well as international issues. If all concerned can understand that the purpose of the system is to find and help implement solutions to problems and situations that are hurting people, it just might take off. Perhaps it would be prudent to get the system up and running first on international issues. That will give the system a track record that could be used to expand it into local and national situations later.
I will be copying this message onto my own blog today with a posting designed to get some support from others.
Thank you,
Lex Leighton
As I promised in the last line above, this is what I sent at about 2:00 PM EST today. If you on reading this think that it is a good idea, please raise your voice. And please feel free to add your own comments and suggestions. For those of you connected to scientific, educational or other associations of the knowledgable, please get the word out and direct your friends and associates to this blog.
Just to give all of you something to think about, lets say we took half of the money presently being spent on weapons around the globe and put it in a Sahara Desert bank account. Then we added half the money being spent finding and drilling and refining and transporting petrolium based products. Then we took that money, ripped up half of the petrolium pipe lines and pumping stations in the world and got all that equipment cleaned up to carry water. Then we got half of the equipment shipped to the Sahara and half to the Gobi desert and began drilling for water and building treatment plants and pipelines. How long would it take to begin turning those spaces green, with the equipment gathered how many square miles could be converted to grow food and what would that do to global climate patterns?
I don't know the answer but, given the environmental crisis we are now in, I sure would like to know.
In thinking about this I am reminded of the line out of that baseball movie a few years ago. I can't remember the title but the line was "build it and they will come". If only five percent of the Sahara and Gobi Deserts was turned into productive farm land, how many farmers would be clambering for plots of land? How many shop keepers would arrive looking to build the old style general store? How many major corporations involved in wholesaling and shipping farm produce or manufacturing bio-fuels would be pounding at the door, money in their pockets, ready to invest and create jobs.
At almost seventy years of age I doubt that I would see the end result of such a project, but I would love to see it started.
I sent this email to the UN though I am not quite sure who might be reading it.
Gentlemen,
I have a suggestion that may help the UN to solve some of the critical issues we are faced with in today’s world. I have called the idea “Committees” but it would be more like a series of blogs where the UN would invite qualified people to make comments and provide possible solutions to global problems we face today. I envision multiple blog pages, each dedicated to a single situation, issue or problem. Experts in the field for each page would be invited to join the conversation by writing and posting their analysis, research and suggested solutions for the subject at issue on that page. There would also be a space provided on each posting for any individual, world wide, to submit comments.
From the point of view of the setup, there are a number of free blog sites out there that have the technology in place to get this done. It would mean that the UN would have to establish and host the site but I don’t see that as a problem for your IT people.
To get a little more specific, let me suggest what the blog for Global Warming might look like, and I would call this one “The UN Project on Global Warming”. The posts coming from the scientific invitees would be concerning what is causing the problem and what are the likely consequences of doing nothing. I would add specific and detailed recommendations from those experts to outline what needs to be done both using technology available now and new technologies that must be developed. The posts from the political invitees would concern the national and international laws that need to be developed or modified and adopted to allow and encourage progress on the solutions put forward, and ideas and suggestions for funding the efforts including how much and who.
To find the experts to be the contributors to these blogs let me suggest that the UN put out an invitation to join the discussion to known groups and associations across the globe. The Nobel Prize mailing list might not be a bad place to start.
The one issue that might be somewhat challenging to overcome is the question of jurisdiction. I say that because I see this system being put to good use for local and national as well as international issues. If all concerned can understand that the purpose of the system is to find and help implement solutions to problems and situations that are hurting people, it just might take off. Perhaps it would be prudent to get the system up and running first on international issues. That will give the system a track record that could be used to expand it into local and national situations later.
I will be copying this message onto my own blog today with a posting designed to get some support from others.
Thank you,
Lex Leighton
As I promised in the last line above, this is what I sent at about 2:00 PM EST today. If you on reading this think that it is a good idea, please raise your voice. And please feel free to add your own comments and suggestions. For those of you connected to scientific, educational or other associations of the knowledgable, please get the word out and direct your friends and associates to this blog.
Just to give all of you something to think about, lets say we took half of the money presently being spent on weapons around the globe and put it in a Sahara Desert bank account. Then we added half the money being spent finding and drilling and refining and transporting petrolium based products. Then we took that money, ripped up half of the petrolium pipe lines and pumping stations in the world and got all that equipment cleaned up to carry water. Then we got half of the equipment shipped to the Sahara and half to the Gobi desert and began drilling for water and building treatment plants and pipelines. How long would it take to begin turning those spaces green, with the equipment gathered how many square miles could be converted to grow food and what would that do to global climate patterns?
I don't know the answer but, given the environmental crisis we are now in, I sure would like to know.
In thinking about this I am reminded of the line out of that baseball movie a few years ago. I can't remember the title but the line was "build it and they will come". If only five percent of the Sahara and Gobi Deserts was turned into productive farm land, how many farmers would be clambering for plots of land? How many shop keepers would arrive looking to build the old style general store? How many major corporations involved in wholesaling and shipping farm produce or manufacturing bio-fuels would be pounding at the door, money in their pockets, ready to invest and create jobs.
At almost seventy years of age I doubt that I would see the end result of such a project, but I would love to see it started.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Predator
Who and What are we?
Quick answer - We are the most successful predator on the planet, period. And that begs the question; how did that happen?
One point six million years ago Homo Sapian appeared on the scene having evolved from one branch of apes, according to those who research such things. By that time we had already developed the behavioural patterns common to all predators except that we had also begun to use tools and weapons extensively to help us survive. That does not mean that we did not occasionally become lion lunch, but it does mean that we were on the road to becoming what most other predators would avoid at all costs. It wasn't until approximately five thousand years before Christ that we began to form what we now refer to as civilisation.
So, let's see. We were already predators one point six million years ago which means that being a predator was pretty much instinct even then. We have been more or less "civilised" for about seven thousand years and have not had a serious threat to the species since before then. That doesn't seem to me nearly enough time to breed predatorial behaviour out of our genes, and, in fact, it is not.
So, what is predatorial behaviour? It is any action that will allow one to gain an advantage over another, in other words, any action that results in a winner and a loser.
The predatorial model has also made its way into how we organise our civilisations and this is a common thread that runs through governments, corporations and, in fact every type of human grouping we construct the world over. We think of our government as a democracy, as Lincoln said, "Of the people, by the people, for the people". On the other hand Mr. Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst kind of government in the world, unless compared to all others". The fact is that both are right.
I should point out that in my opinion the US has created the best yet, but we've still got a long way to go.
So what is behind our continued predatorial behaviour. Two things; wealth and power. By amassing one or the other or both an individual or a group can move up the food chain and find a more secure existance.
Conflicts involving weapons designed to maim or kill are all part of the predatorial instinct, regardless of the stated justification. Nobody in their right mind would say that people like Hitler and Bin Laden shouldn't be taken out of the picture. Both went way beyond any hope of redemption, and it is sad to say that we will probably encounter others like them in the future.
In that regard, what about the individuals and corporations that walked away from unsuspecting people with pockets stuffed with their money and leaving the rest of us teetering on the edge of financial disaster? Are they not also predators, totally uncaring of who gets hurt as long as they get the wealth? Of course they are, and that should tell us that among us are those who will take deregulation as a license to steal.
So, what is the answer? As a first step regulation needs to be reinstated for all financial transactions and expanded to allow for a full review and approval of new financial vehicles as they appear.
On the international front the approach needs to be different. I'm not sure who said it but a very wise person said, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer". Getting close to those with whom you differ gives you two major advantages. First it gives both parties an opportunity to understand the other in more depth and the better you know someone the less likely you are to perceive him as a threat. That goes both ways and it has nothing to do with agreement. Agreement is only needed in determining what to do next. Expanding democracy by coersion or force is no different from what Hitler wanted to do with his dictatorship.
Let's not forget that dictatorships can be the preferred form of government for some people. Citizens of dictatorships are free from worrying about who is in charge and who to put in when his term runs out and a whole load of other issues that fall to the government. Taxes are often included in the price of goods and services because the government owns most of it anyway. It may not be the same kind of freedom that we have in a democracy, but they are free from some of our worries and we are free of some of theirs.
The other advantage to keeping your enemies closer is that if he attacks you know much more about him than otherwise. That can be a huge advantage from a tactical point of view because you will know much more about his vulnerabilities than would be otherwise possible. We also need to understand that wars are conflicts between leaders with ordinary citizens on the front lines. If we know this country well there is a much better chance of finding those among their citizens who are dead set against the armed conflict. In other words, it gives us a much better chance of finding friends among the foe.
But enough of doom and gloom. The vast majority of people around the world are not active predators and most of them are horrified by what is happening around the world at the moment. This is a vast voice that needs to be heard on a continuing basis. In my opinion the first thing that needs to be said is, "Stop what you are doing and sit down and talk."
Quick answer - We are the most successful predator on the planet, period. And that begs the question; how did that happen?
One point six million years ago Homo Sapian appeared on the scene having evolved from one branch of apes, according to those who research such things. By that time we had already developed the behavioural patterns common to all predators except that we had also begun to use tools and weapons extensively to help us survive. That does not mean that we did not occasionally become lion lunch, but it does mean that we were on the road to becoming what most other predators would avoid at all costs. It wasn't until approximately five thousand years before Christ that we began to form what we now refer to as civilisation.
So, let's see. We were already predators one point six million years ago which means that being a predator was pretty much instinct even then. We have been more or less "civilised" for about seven thousand years and have not had a serious threat to the species since before then. That doesn't seem to me nearly enough time to breed predatorial behaviour out of our genes, and, in fact, it is not.
So, what is predatorial behaviour? It is any action that will allow one to gain an advantage over another, in other words, any action that results in a winner and a loser.
The predatorial model has also made its way into how we organise our civilisations and this is a common thread that runs through governments, corporations and, in fact every type of human grouping we construct the world over. We think of our government as a democracy, as Lincoln said, "Of the people, by the people, for the people". On the other hand Mr. Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst kind of government in the world, unless compared to all others". The fact is that both are right.
I should point out that in my opinion the US has created the best yet, but we've still got a long way to go.
So what is behind our continued predatorial behaviour. Two things; wealth and power. By amassing one or the other or both an individual or a group can move up the food chain and find a more secure existance.
Conflicts involving weapons designed to maim or kill are all part of the predatorial instinct, regardless of the stated justification. Nobody in their right mind would say that people like Hitler and Bin Laden shouldn't be taken out of the picture. Both went way beyond any hope of redemption, and it is sad to say that we will probably encounter others like them in the future.
In that regard, what about the individuals and corporations that walked away from unsuspecting people with pockets stuffed with their money and leaving the rest of us teetering on the edge of financial disaster? Are they not also predators, totally uncaring of who gets hurt as long as they get the wealth? Of course they are, and that should tell us that among us are those who will take deregulation as a license to steal.
So, what is the answer? As a first step regulation needs to be reinstated for all financial transactions and expanded to allow for a full review and approval of new financial vehicles as they appear.
On the international front the approach needs to be different. I'm not sure who said it but a very wise person said, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer". Getting close to those with whom you differ gives you two major advantages. First it gives both parties an opportunity to understand the other in more depth and the better you know someone the less likely you are to perceive him as a threat. That goes both ways and it has nothing to do with agreement. Agreement is only needed in determining what to do next. Expanding democracy by coersion or force is no different from what Hitler wanted to do with his dictatorship.
Let's not forget that dictatorships can be the preferred form of government for some people. Citizens of dictatorships are free from worrying about who is in charge and who to put in when his term runs out and a whole load of other issues that fall to the government. Taxes are often included in the price of goods and services because the government owns most of it anyway. It may not be the same kind of freedom that we have in a democracy, but they are free from some of our worries and we are free of some of theirs.
The other advantage to keeping your enemies closer is that if he attacks you know much more about him than otherwise. That can be a huge advantage from a tactical point of view because you will know much more about his vulnerabilities than would be otherwise possible. We also need to understand that wars are conflicts between leaders with ordinary citizens on the front lines. If we know this country well there is a much better chance of finding those among their citizens who are dead set against the armed conflict. In other words, it gives us a much better chance of finding friends among the foe.
But enough of doom and gloom. The vast majority of people around the world are not active predators and most of them are horrified by what is happening around the world at the moment. This is a vast voice that needs to be heard on a continuing basis. In my opinion the first thing that needs to be said is, "Stop what you are doing and sit down and talk."
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Creationist vs Scientist
OK, this post is about why this arguement is stupid and I should warn readers that if you don't like sarcasm, leave now.
This arguement rages over the origin of the universe; creationists saying that God created the universe and all that is in it and scientists saying that the universe was created many billions of years ago by something called the Big Bang. According to the biblical record God started by separating the light and the dark. essentially creating light. To anyone watching at the time there would be no sound; after all sound can only exist as pressure waves moving through a fliud medium. Since there was not yet any fluid around the very name of the theory refers to an event that is just not logical. I think we should re-name it The Big Flash Theory.
Then there are two questions concerning the timing involved. The bible says that God completed his work up to and including the creation of a man and a woman in six days. And the scientists laugh at that idea, which, I would imagine, upsets the creationists a lot. So let me ask both groups a simple question. Why would God count days based on the rotational interval of one tiny planet revolving around one tiny star in one tiny solar system on an obsure arm of a relatively insignificant galaxy in the vastness of the universe when none of it was yet created? Six days? By whose clock?
Then there is the argument over the age of the earth and, in fact the age of the whole thing. By whose calendar?
So, let me suggest that the scientists, probably mathematicians on both sides of the question figure out the conversion factor for translating Earth time into God time.
While I'm waiting for that answer I'll be re-reading the Ten Commandments.
My suggestion to both sides in this arguement is to stop bickering and get together and apply some real logic to the two theories. It wouldn't surprise me if that effort might just reveal that you have more in common than you think. I also think that we don't actually know enough on either side to come to a full agreement. But, that wouldn't stop grown, intelligent, open minded men and women from having a useful discussion, would it?
This arguement rages over the origin of the universe; creationists saying that God created the universe and all that is in it and scientists saying that the universe was created many billions of years ago by something called the Big Bang. According to the biblical record God started by separating the light and the dark. essentially creating light. To anyone watching at the time there would be no sound; after all sound can only exist as pressure waves moving through a fliud medium. Since there was not yet any fluid around the very name of the theory refers to an event that is just not logical. I think we should re-name it The Big Flash Theory.
Then there are two questions concerning the timing involved. The bible says that God completed his work up to and including the creation of a man and a woman in six days. And the scientists laugh at that idea, which, I would imagine, upsets the creationists a lot. So let me ask both groups a simple question. Why would God count days based on the rotational interval of one tiny planet revolving around one tiny star in one tiny solar system on an obsure arm of a relatively insignificant galaxy in the vastness of the universe when none of it was yet created? Six days? By whose clock?
Then there is the argument over the age of the earth and, in fact the age of the whole thing. By whose calendar?
So, let me suggest that the scientists, probably mathematicians on both sides of the question figure out the conversion factor for translating Earth time into God time.
While I'm waiting for that answer I'll be re-reading the Ten Commandments.
My suggestion to both sides in this arguement is to stop bickering and get together and apply some real logic to the two theories. It wouldn't surprise me if that effort might just reveal that you have more in common than you think. I also think that we don't actually know enough on either side to come to a full agreement. But, that wouldn't stop grown, intelligent, open minded men and women from having a useful discussion, would it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
