So, we are in the midst of an energy crisis. The whole fossil fuel thing is not as permanent as some people would like. And we are in the midst of a global warming thing because CO2 is accumulating and making the planet hotter. And we're having some food crisis because food prices are going up partly because the cost to transport the food is going up quickly (the fossil fuel thing) and partly because we've decided it would be a good idea to use our food to fuel our cars. And then there's the economy. I'm not going to touch that because I'm far from an expert (notice that not being an expert has never stopped me before... this may be the beginning of something new, although I doubt it).
I had this incredible idea today. I was thinking of the crisis that we're facing and wanted to find a solution (as if I'm the one with the answers). So what are the fundamental problems. Too much CO2, not enough energy and not enough food. The solution that I came up with was to find a way to use CO2 as a means of producing energy and food. That would kill all three problems with a single solution.
As I thought about it, my mind drifted back to chemistry classes. CO2 has carbon in it (that's the C). Fossil fuels are long carbon chains that burn. Food is made up of fats and carbohydrates, both of which are long chains of carbons with some hydrogens and oxygens stuck to them. The problem is that we have to come up with the energy to make the carbons stick together, that doesn't just happen.
I figured that solar power is the only way to go for an energy source. The wind just isn't reliable enough, so we're going to use solar. Then we get into all the really difficult stuff. How do you get the fuel and food to the people? I'm thinking they will each need a little production plant of their own so we don't have to transport stuff and thus deplete the energy that we are producing.
I hereby patent the plant. You know, those green things that are all around that use solar energy to convert CO2 into starches (can plants make fats? I'm guessing they can based on the avocado, but I'm not positive).
Here's how it works. You find seeds for plants that grow things that you like to eat. You put the seeds in the ground and provide water and dead plants as fertilizer. The plant grows and provides you food which will also provide you the energy you need to accomplish your tasks. If you have extra food you can give it to friends. You may also want to grow larger plants like trees so that you can use that stored energy to heat your house. You won't need fuel for your car, that's why you have legs (the food you grow acts as the fuel for your legs). Any extra money earned from food grown you can go ahead and send to me. I did just patent the idea so I do deserve a little kickback.
Isn't it interesting how we have taken a principle that has been so simple from the very beginning of life and we've complicated it. We've made it this complex mess of politics, pollution and money, yet the solution is at our fingertips. We've had the solution since the beginning of our existence. Why is it so difficult to go back to the solution? Why do we seek to further complicate things?
I realize that if we were to truly simplify I wouldn't have this computer. And my schooling would be a total waste (I study obesity management and weight issues, which would be nonexistent if people actually had to work for their food). Still, I think I'm ready to take a progressive step toward the solution. I'm ready to take a step toward the past.
Showing posts with label simple living. Show all posts
Showing posts with label simple living. Show all posts
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
How to make big bones
I hate creating titles for blogs. I just don't think I'm good at it. But today I'm excited for the multiple meanings of this title. First, if you want to become 'big boned' it's really easy, stop exercising, watch lots of television and eat what is advertised on the television. That wasn't one of the main meanings that I was thinking of.
One topic that I want to address is how to make big 'bones', you know, like money. So how do you make a lot of money? OK, so maybe the title wasn't that great because I don't want talk about get rich quick schemes or finding the job that pays a lot of money. I want to talk about how to pad your savings account and accumulate money. Here's the secret, make more than you spend. I hope that was obvious to everyone. Here's a little video to illustrate the point (A friend and his little family recently brought this clip to my attention). You may want to visit that site, his family is going 'car lite' for the next month and sharing their experiences. Provide them encouragement.
Generally when we talk about getting rich, we talk about making more money, but I don't think that's how it is done. If you look at the sports and music stars that file for bankruptcy after their moment of fame it becomes evident that making a lot isn't the whole story. You also have to spend less. I would even argue that being conscious of what you are spending and working to minimize your expenses will work better to save money than making more money. I know that it doesn't make sense, and while I understand the math of it and know that if you make more you have the potential of saving more, but I don't think that's is the way human nature works. When we start making more we feel entitled to more stuff, so we spend more. So what I'm saying is that if you want to be a millionaire (and I don't know why anyone would want to be), the secret is to spend less, not necessarily earn more.
Now comes the final part of making big bones. This is quite literally about how to make your bones stronger. When you think of building strong bones what is the first thing that you think of? Probably calcium. The milk industry has gone through great efforts to encourage us to associate milk and calcium with bone health. It has been effective, although not entirely true. While calcium is certainly a major contributor to bone health and milk is a great source of calcium, there is far more to the equation. Did you know that you can lose calcium from your bones? Of course you can. Just like with saving money, it's not only about making more (taking more calcium), the key really lies in spending less (losing less calcium from the bones). So how do you lose less calcium? Two things, diet and exercise.
First, I will talk about diet. Your body goes through extreme lengths to maintain the pH at a neutral level. If the body becomes too acidic it can use calcium bicarbonate to neutralize the acidity. Calcium bicarbonate comes from bone. That means less bone and weaker bones, osteoporosis, you know the deal. So what foods are acidic? Let's start with the obvious, colas. caffeinated or not, the carbonation in sodas renders them fairly acidic. Less obvious, but also quite potent foods that acidify the body are processed meats like Salomi, Bologna, hot dogs, lunch meats, etc. Other contributors to an acidic diet are processed foods like all of the packaged garbage that fill the supermarkets. While these foods are not as acidic as other foods, it is important to consider the quantity of these foods that people eat. People live on instant dinners, potato chips and processed foods from the store.
So what is basic? What foods contribute to an alkaline diet? I'll give you two words. Fruits and vegetables. I know that the old 5-a-day bit is getting old and we've heard it all before (and continue to ignore it), but here is yet another reason to consumer at LEAST 5 servings of fruits and vegetables a day.
The other major contributor to bone health is weight bearing exercise. The important part of that is that it needs to be weight bearing. As much of an advocate I am for cycling, cycling is actually really bad for bone health (but easily compensated if you do other exercises and eat right). So what are the good exercises? Walking, running, weight training (probably the best), tennis, racquetball, jumping. My wife hurt her back recently and as soon as she's back in proper working order we're going to institute a 10 jumps morning and night routine. It's nothing big, but when is the last time you jumped? Most people just don't jump much after childhood. What better way is there to provide an impact to the bones in the body? OK, there are other great ways, but I think that jumping 10 times in the morning and 10 times at night will provide far more of a bone building stimulus than most of us currently get. They actually tried to conduct a research project on that here, but they couldn't get middle aged women to conform to the protocol (jumping 20 times a day).
So here are the two points I wanted to make in this post. #1 Don't believe everything that you hear in advertisements, in schools or from friends. Many companies make a lot of effort to keep you spending money and buying their products, they want you thinking in a specific manner and have many powerful tools to do so. There are lots of ways to do without products. #2 Life isn't always about more, bigger, better. There are times (MANY times) when less is actually more. Less expensive, more simple foods are healthier (not the junk 'health' foods that are marketed in stores). Doing with less actually can have big dividends in the end.
One topic that I want to address is how to make big 'bones', you know, like money. So how do you make a lot of money? OK, so maybe the title wasn't that great because I don't want talk about get rich quick schemes or finding the job that pays a lot of money. I want to talk about how to pad your savings account and accumulate money. Here's the secret, make more than you spend. I hope that was obvious to everyone. Here's a little video to illustrate the point (A friend and his little family recently brought this clip to my attention). You may want to visit that site, his family is going 'car lite' for the next month and sharing their experiences. Provide them encouragement.
Generally when we talk about getting rich, we talk about making more money, but I don't think that's how it is done. If you look at the sports and music stars that file for bankruptcy after their moment of fame it becomes evident that making a lot isn't the whole story. You also have to spend less. I would even argue that being conscious of what you are spending and working to minimize your expenses will work better to save money than making more money. I know that it doesn't make sense, and while I understand the math of it and know that if you make more you have the potential of saving more, but I don't think that's is the way human nature works. When we start making more we feel entitled to more stuff, so we spend more. So what I'm saying is that if you want to be a millionaire (and I don't know why anyone would want to be), the secret is to spend less, not necessarily earn more.
Now comes the final part of making big bones. This is quite literally about how to make your bones stronger. When you think of building strong bones what is the first thing that you think of? Probably calcium. The milk industry has gone through great efforts to encourage us to associate milk and calcium with bone health. It has been effective, although not entirely true. While calcium is certainly a major contributor to bone health and milk is a great source of calcium, there is far more to the equation. Did you know that you can lose calcium from your bones? Of course you can. Just like with saving money, it's not only about making more (taking more calcium), the key really lies in spending less (losing less calcium from the bones). So how do you lose less calcium? Two things, diet and exercise.
First, I will talk about diet. Your body goes through extreme lengths to maintain the pH at a neutral level. If the body becomes too acidic it can use calcium bicarbonate to neutralize the acidity. Calcium bicarbonate comes from bone. That means less bone and weaker bones, osteoporosis, you know the deal. So what foods are acidic? Let's start with the obvious, colas. caffeinated or not, the carbonation in sodas renders them fairly acidic. Less obvious, but also quite potent foods that acidify the body are processed meats like Salomi, Bologna, hot dogs, lunch meats, etc. Other contributors to an acidic diet are processed foods like all of the packaged garbage that fill the supermarkets. While these foods are not as acidic as other foods, it is important to consider the quantity of these foods that people eat. People live on instant dinners, potato chips and processed foods from the store.
So what is basic? What foods contribute to an alkaline diet? I'll give you two words. Fruits and vegetables. I know that the old 5-a-day bit is getting old and we've heard it all before (and continue to ignore it), but here is yet another reason to consumer at LEAST 5 servings of fruits and vegetables a day.
The other major contributor to bone health is weight bearing exercise. The important part of that is that it needs to be weight bearing. As much of an advocate I am for cycling, cycling is actually really bad for bone health (but easily compensated if you do other exercises and eat right). So what are the good exercises? Walking, running, weight training (probably the best), tennis, racquetball, jumping. My wife hurt her back recently and as soon as she's back in proper working order we're going to institute a 10 jumps morning and night routine. It's nothing big, but when is the last time you jumped? Most people just don't jump much after childhood. What better way is there to provide an impact to the bones in the body? OK, there are other great ways, but I think that jumping 10 times in the morning and 10 times at night will provide far more of a bone building stimulus than most of us currently get. They actually tried to conduct a research project on that here, but they couldn't get middle aged women to conform to the protocol (jumping 20 times a day).
So here are the two points I wanted to make in this post. #1 Don't believe everything that you hear in advertisements, in schools or from friends. Many companies make a lot of effort to keep you spending money and buying their products, they want you thinking in a specific manner and have many powerful tools to do so. There are lots of ways to do without products. #2 Life isn't always about more, bigger, better. There are times (MANY times) when less is actually more. Less expensive, more simple foods are healthier (not the junk 'health' foods that are marketed in stores). Doing with less actually can have big dividends in the end.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
The 19th century
I had a friend recently asked if my ideas would take us all back to the 19th century (to save you all the confusion or embarrassment of having to ask, that's the 1800s). First, I want to be clear that I'm not against technology or development. Automobiles are fundamentally good, ambulances save lots of lives. Cell phones have the potential of being quite helpful when used for emergencies. And mcmansions have served to pad the wallets of Freddy Mac and Fanny May employees at the expense of taxpayers. The point is that much of the development that has occurred over the last hundred years has drastically improved the quality of life. My images of ideal developments and societies is not devoid of developments that we've made since the 19th century.
My friend was, however, correct in suggesting that most would do without many of the modern conveniences that we currently take for granted. I blogged recently about the cost of our standards and I think this is a similar principle. We have certainly developed as a country and a civilization, but what has the cost been? While we certainly may have longer life expectancies, and many more conveniences, what has it cost us? I think in many situations it has cost us our health. The modern conveniences make us lazy and take from our health (like the obesity epidemic). In my ideal image of things we could have the medical opportunities that we currently enjoy, but go back to actually doing things for ourselves rather than relying on gadgets to do things for us.
In the last sentence that I wrote, I used the phrase, "go back". I want to be clear that I'm referring to going back in time, this is not regressing or going back to a worse time, just a past time. What is really important in your life? What puts value in your life and makes this time on earth worth living? Is it how many gadgets you can collect so that you can do less and less? Or is it time spent with family and friends doing things? I don't know what 'things' are, but when I think back to memorable experiences they involve people and activities, not modern conveniences. I see how cars and cell phones detract from personal interaction. People talk to the same group of friends on the cell phone rather than interacting with the people around them and making new friends. And cars just seem to make people mad at each other. I have no doubt that these new inventions can help improve our relationships and make more things accessible to us, but is that how we are using them?
In fact, I want to question whether we are using the gadgets or are we becoming a slave to them? How much is your car payment? Credit card payment? mortgage? income? Are the 'things' in our life bringing us happiness or are they pulling us away from our friends and family because we are stressed about finances or in order to work more and make more money to buy more stuff? In the 19th century, people owned stuff and they spent time with friends and family. Sure, things were hard and it was a struggle to produce food to eat and diseases were bad, but they built meaningful relationships with family and friends and enjoyed life. (OK, I really don't know how the 19th century was, how old do you think I am?) My point is that many of our developments have been for our good, but others (or our overdependence on some) may be actually leading us away from where we really want to go.
People will often ask my wife what she does with the kids since we don't have a TV. This may be hard to believe, but she spends time with them. They help clean and cook. They play and she plays with them. Try turning the TV off and see just how entertaining your kids can be, really it's incredible. If we didn't have a car, we would be further 'confined' to the home or nearby. Would that limit us from seeing things and exploring? Maybe. Would it also give us more time as a family and enable (force?) us to live a slower, more deliberate life? Probably.
I don't want to go back to the 19th century, but I really think we need to look at our goals in this life. My goals aren't about collecting stuff, they are about developing relationships and I think that I can do that (and am forced to do that) as I do without some of the modern conveniences. While some will always consider this a 'step back', I'm going to call it a step forward as long as they are helping me to build and strengthen relationships.
My friend was, however, correct in suggesting that most would do without many of the modern conveniences that we currently take for granted. I blogged recently about the cost of our standards and I think this is a similar principle. We have certainly developed as a country and a civilization, but what has the cost been? While we certainly may have longer life expectancies, and many more conveniences, what has it cost us? I think in many situations it has cost us our health. The modern conveniences make us lazy and take from our health (like the obesity epidemic). In my ideal image of things we could have the medical opportunities that we currently enjoy, but go back to actually doing things for ourselves rather than relying on gadgets to do things for us.
In the last sentence that I wrote, I used the phrase, "go back". I want to be clear that I'm referring to going back in time, this is not regressing or going back to a worse time, just a past time. What is really important in your life? What puts value in your life and makes this time on earth worth living? Is it how many gadgets you can collect so that you can do less and less? Or is it time spent with family and friends doing things? I don't know what 'things' are, but when I think back to memorable experiences they involve people and activities, not modern conveniences. I see how cars and cell phones detract from personal interaction. People talk to the same group of friends on the cell phone rather than interacting with the people around them and making new friends. And cars just seem to make people mad at each other. I have no doubt that these new inventions can help improve our relationships and make more things accessible to us, but is that how we are using them?
In fact, I want to question whether we are using the gadgets or are we becoming a slave to them? How much is your car payment? Credit card payment? mortgage? income? Are the 'things' in our life bringing us happiness or are they pulling us away from our friends and family because we are stressed about finances or in order to work more and make more money to buy more stuff? In the 19th century, people owned stuff and they spent time with friends and family. Sure, things were hard and it was a struggle to produce food to eat and diseases were bad, but they built meaningful relationships with family and friends and enjoyed life. (OK, I really don't know how the 19th century was, how old do you think I am?) My point is that many of our developments have been for our good, but others (or our overdependence on some) may be actually leading us away from where we really want to go.
People will often ask my wife what she does with the kids since we don't have a TV. This may be hard to believe, but she spends time with them. They help clean and cook. They play and she plays with them. Try turning the TV off and see just how entertaining your kids can be, really it's incredible. If we didn't have a car, we would be further 'confined' to the home or nearby. Would that limit us from seeing things and exploring? Maybe. Would it also give us more time as a family and enable (force?) us to live a slower, more deliberate life? Probably.
I don't want to go back to the 19th century, but I really think we need to look at our goals in this life. My goals aren't about collecting stuff, they are about developing relationships and I think that I can do that (and am forced to do that) as I do without some of the modern conveniences. While some will always consider this a 'step back', I'm going to call it a step forward as long as they are helping me to build and strengthen relationships.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Speed limits
A commenter recently questioned whether the upcoming generations are really apathetic and claimed that I'm in a location where people really don't care, but elsewhere it is growing trend. That could be true, there are signs as you enter Utah that read, "Welcome to Utah, please set your watches back 20 years and 10 minutes". Anyway, I don't doubt that there are differences depending on locale, but I want to take this point a little further.
I want to take speed limits as an example. There is currently a movement by some to reduce the speed limit to 55 mph in order to reduce gas consumption and vehicular emissions. I think it's a great idea, reducing the speed limit may reduce the speed of drivers a little, but it would certainly increase the size of the ticket for the select few who were actually pulled over for exceeding the speed limit.
Here's the thing, it is currently not illegal to drive 55 on highways. I am unaware of studies on the safety of it, but I could see potential hazards. Here's the point that I want to make. We are debating a reduced speed limit when everyone on the road has the option of reducing their speed, saving money and reducing their CO2 output by slowing down. Why do we have to change the law for that to happen? I drive 55 on the highway, I accelerate very slowly and I make sure that I never leave my car idleing. I would guess that I get ~30% better gas mileage than someone who excedes the speed limit, accelerates quickly and spends a lot of time idling in the same car.
I hear people complain about gas prices, but I hear those same people complaining about the 'idiot' who drives the speed limit in the fast lane (suggesting that they are generally exceding the speed limit). I hear almost everyone complaining about gas prices, yet on the corner where I live, almost everyone accelerates quickly, even when there's no traffic coming. I see lines of people waiting in drive thrus, all with their engines idling. When are we going to take personal responsibility for the amount we are paying for gas rather than asking for the government to impose regulations? The pedal on the left is the brake, it is not illegal to use it.
I see similar things with recycling. Sure, recycling is becoming more popular. I think that's great, but do you know what would be better? It would be better if consumers would demand products with less packaging so the stuff that we currently recycle never had to be produced in the first place.
The apathy that I see, may not be apathy, but rather a lack of initiative. Rather than making the environment into a personal matter, we are waiting for the government, or for our place of employment to act. The government and businesses are waiting for it to be financially adventageous. Do you know what makes items with little packaging financially advantageous for the producer? CONSUMERS THAT WON'T BUY STUFF WITH LOTS OF PACKAGING. It's the individual choices that change the world, and upcoming generations (and by that I mean people under 40)aren't taking the initiative to improve the world we are inherritting.
I want to take speed limits as an example. There is currently a movement by some to reduce the speed limit to 55 mph in order to reduce gas consumption and vehicular emissions. I think it's a great idea, reducing the speed limit may reduce the speed of drivers a little, but it would certainly increase the size of the ticket for the select few who were actually pulled over for exceeding the speed limit.
Here's the thing, it is currently not illegal to drive 55 on highways. I am unaware of studies on the safety of it, but I could see potential hazards. Here's the point that I want to make. We are debating a reduced speed limit when everyone on the road has the option of reducing their speed, saving money and reducing their CO2 output by slowing down. Why do we have to change the law for that to happen? I drive 55 on the highway, I accelerate very slowly and I make sure that I never leave my car idleing. I would guess that I get ~30% better gas mileage than someone who excedes the speed limit, accelerates quickly and spends a lot of time idling in the same car.
I hear people complain about gas prices, but I hear those same people complaining about the 'idiot' who drives the speed limit in the fast lane (suggesting that they are generally exceding the speed limit). I hear almost everyone complaining about gas prices, yet on the corner where I live, almost everyone accelerates quickly, even when there's no traffic coming. I see lines of people waiting in drive thrus, all with their engines idling. When are we going to take personal responsibility for the amount we are paying for gas rather than asking for the government to impose regulations? The pedal on the left is the brake, it is not illegal to use it.
I see similar things with recycling. Sure, recycling is becoming more popular. I think that's great, but do you know what would be better? It would be better if consumers would demand products with less packaging so the stuff that we currently recycle never had to be produced in the first place.
The apathy that I see, may not be apathy, but rather a lack of initiative. Rather than making the environment into a personal matter, we are waiting for the government, or for our place of employment to act. The government and businesses are waiting for it to be financially adventageous. Do you know what makes items with little packaging financially advantageous for the producer? CONSUMERS THAT WON'T BUY STUFF WITH LOTS OF PACKAGING. It's the individual choices that change the world, and upcoming generations (and by that I mean people under 40)aren't taking the initiative to improve the world we are inherritting.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Apathy
I heard the advertisement for a radio program (Radio West) on NPR about how upcoming generations are generally apathetic and that is causing many problems. I wanted to listen to it, but I missed it. So I figured I would blog about it, even though I don't know what it was about.
My last post on 'standards' generated some comments. I want to address those. One comment (which I will approach gingerly because it was from my mother-in-law) was about the difference between a 'standard' and a commandment in the religious sense. I suppose that I see some difference. For example, the ten commandments come to mind. Thou shalt not kill. That is one of my standards that would take a very high price for me to sell (like a severe threat to my family).
That is a straight forward religious standard, but I feel that most of my standards have a religious twist. For example, my standard to not drive comes from the fact that I believe that God gave us this earth and expects us to protect it and use it in a sustainable manner. There are certainly scriptures to support that and that is the source of my standard. I also believe that God gave us creativity and intelligence that lead to the invention of the automobile. For that reason I have a relatively low selling point for driving. I mentioned last time that I was more than happy to have my parents drive out to visit. That is a good use of a car and I'm fine with that. This week my wife hurt her back and we have been driving more than normal to get to doctor's visits and such. That is the purpose of a car. An able bodied person driving half a mile to pick up a gallon of milk...is that contributing to the stewardship that I feel that God gave me over this earth? I say no.
The point of this post is not to argue over what standards should be, but rather to point out that they need to be thought about and argued over. It is the lack of interest, the lack of questions, the apathy of the upcoming generations that is going to cause the greatest problems the world has ever faced. I have talked to many people about why they drove relatively short distances and one of the frequent responses was, "Oh, well I guess I never even thought about it". That's how you get places, you hop in the car and drive. My point is that we need to step back and think about it. Are our every day choices in line with our standards? I know that in my life the answer is often no, I do sell my standards at a certain price and I am sometimes OK with that, and sometimes I regret it. I don't care what the price is for your standards, we are all in different situations and while I am completely against the idea of moral relativism, people do find themselves in different situations and different situations are needed. The point is that we need to ask the questions.
One friend suggested that I was being too hard on myself. Sure, I'm critical of my decisions, but I don't see it as a bad thing (although it could be). I don't beat myself up over it, but I do think about it and try to make changes. I still love the quote by Hermann Hesse, "I want only to live in accord with the promptings of my true inner-self. Why is that so very difficult?" I center my life around living 'in accord with the promptings of my true inner-self'. First, I work to center my true inner-self with the desires of my God. Then I try to live in accord with what I have found. While I'm far from perfect, it is only through questioning that I could ever see where I need to be (will of God) or what I need to change to get there. I believe that it is the apathy of the upcoming generations that is leading to moral relativism that says that everything is OK. It is apathy that leads people to mindlessly spend money without ever knowing or caring the consequences of their actions. It is apathy that leads to the unquestioning destruction of the environment. I think that life is to be questioned. Why are we here and what are we doing? What are the consequences of our actions? Yes, we need to question all of our actions, even the small stuff. Without questioning we will never know if we are going in the desired direction. Without questioning we may not even know the desired direction.
My last post on 'standards' generated some comments. I want to address those. One comment (which I will approach gingerly because it was from my mother-in-law) was about the difference between a 'standard' and a commandment in the religious sense. I suppose that I see some difference. For example, the ten commandments come to mind. Thou shalt not kill. That is one of my standards that would take a very high price for me to sell (like a severe threat to my family).
That is a straight forward religious standard, but I feel that most of my standards have a religious twist. For example, my standard to not drive comes from the fact that I believe that God gave us this earth and expects us to protect it and use it in a sustainable manner. There are certainly scriptures to support that and that is the source of my standard. I also believe that God gave us creativity and intelligence that lead to the invention of the automobile. For that reason I have a relatively low selling point for driving. I mentioned last time that I was more than happy to have my parents drive out to visit. That is a good use of a car and I'm fine with that. This week my wife hurt her back and we have been driving more than normal to get to doctor's visits and such. That is the purpose of a car. An able bodied person driving half a mile to pick up a gallon of milk...is that contributing to the stewardship that I feel that God gave me over this earth? I say no.
The point of this post is not to argue over what standards should be, but rather to point out that they need to be thought about and argued over. It is the lack of interest, the lack of questions, the apathy of the upcoming generations that is going to cause the greatest problems the world has ever faced. I have talked to many people about why they drove relatively short distances and one of the frequent responses was, "Oh, well I guess I never even thought about it". That's how you get places, you hop in the car and drive. My point is that we need to step back and think about it. Are our every day choices in line with our standards? I know that in my life the answer is often no, I do sell my standards at a certain price and I am sometimes OK with that, and sometimes I regret it. I don't care what the price is for your standards, we are all in different situations and while I am completely against the idea of moral relativism, people do find themselves in different situations and different situations are needed. The point is that we need to ask the questions.
One friend suggested that I was being too hard on myself. Sure, I'm critical of my decisions, but I don't see it as a bad thing (although it could be). I don't beat myself up over it, but I do think about it and try to make changes. I still love the quote by Hermann Hesse, "I want only to live in accord with the promptings of my true inner-self. Why is that so very difficult?" I center my life around living 'in accord with the promptings of my true inner-self'. First, I work to center my true inner-self with the desires of my God. Then I try to live in accord with what I have found. While I'm far from perfect, it is only through questioning that I could ever see where I need to be (will of God) or what I need to change to get there. I believe that it is the apathy of the upcoming generations that is leading to moral relativism that says that everything is OK. It is apathy that leads people to mindlessly spend money without ever knowing or caring the consequences of their actions. It is apathy that leads to the unquestioning destruction of the environment. I think that life is to be questioned. Why are we here and what are we doing? What are the consequences of our actions? Yes, we need to question all of our actions, even the small stuff. Without questioning we will never know if we are going in the desired direction. Without questioning we may not even know the desired direction.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Selling Your Standards
What is the price for your standards? How much would I have to pay you to sacrifice something that you feel strongly about in your life? Usually when we are posed questions like that we want to say that we absolutely would NOT compromise our standards for any price, and in some instances that is true, but I think most people sell their standards daily at a very low price. Me included.
What standards do you have that you absolutely would not sell? For me, the first thing I think of is my reliance on Jesus Christ as a savior. I don't want this to be a religious post, so I'll give another example too. I will not drink alcohol. No matter what, even if my boss offers me a drink and it seems rude to turn it down, I will not drink alcohol. It's a promise I made to myself years ago having seen alcohol do bad things to a family, and I intend to keep that promise as long as I live.
Now comes the interesting part. What is the price of the standards that you would, or do sell? I'm going to start with an example that I'm a little ashamed of. I often catch (or am caught) by another rider while commuting and I like to ride with them and talk a little. One of my standards is to obey the rules of the road while riding a bike because I always want to ride in a way that reflects well on cyclists and helps improve our image. I ALWAYS stop at stoplights. Anyway, yesterday I was riding with a guy and we came to a red light. I stopped, but he just slowed, looked to see nobody was coming and proceeded through the red light. I followed. The light turned shortly after and there certainly weren't any cars coming, but I sold my standard and my image in order to... I'm not sure why. In order to continue a conversation? In order to keep up in the 'race'? In order to not offend my riding partner? I don't know exactly why I didn't wait for the light to turn, but I sold my standard, and it didn't cost much. That is a situation that I'm ashamed of.
There are also situations where I think we sell our standards, but it's worthwhile. For example, I like to minimize the air pollution that I cause whether it is due to me driving or people driving to see me. A few weeks ago a friend wanted to borrow a backpack that we have. He offered to drive down and pick it up, but I wouldn't let him because I was perfectly capable of bringing it up on my bike, so I did. OK, that's a good example. My parents have both visited recently and spent time with my family. They drove to get here. I wish they hadn't had to drive, although I recognize that it was certainly better than flying. it was against my standard, but well worth it. I will sell my 'anti-air pollution' standard for my kids to be able to know their grandparents and great-grandparents. I think that is a fair sale as long as we live hundreds of miles apart. Sure, I wish we lived close enough that visits could be done by bike or public transportation, but that just isn't the case, so I will sell that standard for that price.
When my parents visited, I think I sold that standard at too low of a price. While I feel that their travel to get to our home was a well valued sale of my standards, during their visits we drove more than we ever do. I feel that much of the driving that we did while my parents were here was a very poor sale of my standards. Not driving most places is a HUGE part of our life and extremely important to us. While my parents were here, we sold that 'not driving' standard to do 'special' things. Essentially we sold our standard in order to prevent my parents from seeing how we really live and knowing who we really are. Another of our standards is living a slow paced, local life centered around our home. So we sold one standard for the price of selling another. I don't think that was a good deal. Instead, I wish we had spent more time at home doing the things we always do with my parents. That would have helped them know who we really are. At the same time, it was fun to go out and do different things, but I don't know that was the best sale of my standards. I also think it was important to make some sacrifice of standards in order to include my grandmother in some activities that would have otherwise been difficult for her (like the many miles of walking we generally do each day).
Here's another example that is difficult for me to admit. I have a standard of minimizing water usage. I'm fine using water to water my garden, that is a good use, but I have a pretty big lawn that I have to water to keep it somewhat green. Why do I do that? I have sold that standard for the resale of my home (since we will likely be moving within the next year or two). Ouch, that was the sale of a standard for money. I don't like that. Not only did I sell the standard for money, but I will be encouraging the next home owner to have a pretty big lawn that they too will have to waste water on. It would cost a lot of money and work to change the landscape and likely not help the resale value of the house so I have sold those standards for money and I'm not proud of that.
Last example, this one hasn't happened yet. As my wife and I think of moving we talk about our dream house. Both of us like the idea of rural living with land to grow a really big garden. We like the idea of having space and not being in a city, but close enough for convenience. My standard (and part of my studies in school) is to prevent sprawl. Rural living just outside of a city is sprawl. Will I sell that standard? Or will I be able to 'settle' for a house in the city that is a little noisier, has a little less room and will have a smaller garden. What is the price of my standard?
What is the price of some of your standards?
I want only to live in accord with the promptings of my true inner-self. Why is that so very difficult? --Hermann Hesse
What standards do you have that you absolutely would not sell? For me, the first thing I think of is my reliance on Jesus Christ as a savior. I don't want this to be a religious post, so I'll give another example too. I will not drink alcohol. No matter what, even if my boss offers me a drink and it seems rude to turn it down, I will not drink alcohol. It's a promise I made to myself years ago having seen alcohol do bad things to a family, and I intend to keep that promise as long as I live.
Now comes the interesting part. What is the price of the standards that you would, or do sell? I'm going to start with an example that I'm a little ashamed of. I often catch (or am caught) by another rider while commuting and I like to ride with them and talk a little. One of my standards is to obey the rules of the road while riding a bike because I always want to ride in a way that reflects well on cyclists and helps improve our image. I ALWAYS stop at stoplights. Anyway, yesterday I was riding with a guy and we came to a red light. I stopped, but he just slowed, looked to see nobody was coming and proceeded through the red light. I followed. The light turned shortly after and there certainly weren't any cars coming, but I sold my standard and my image in order to... I'm not sure why. In order to continue a conversation? In order to keep up in the 'race'? In order to not offend my riding partner? I don't know exactly why I didn't wait for the light to turn, but I sold my standard, and it didn't cost much. That is a situation that I'm ashamed of.
There are also situations where I think we sell our standards, but it's worthwhile. For example, I like to minimize the air pollution that I cause whether it is due to me driving or people driving to see me. A few weeks ago a friend wanted to borrow a backpack that we have. He offered to drive down and pick it up, but I wouldn't let him because I was perfectly capable of bringing it up on my bike, so I did. OK, that's a good example. My parents have both visited recently and spent time with my family. They drove to get here. I wish they hadn't had to drive, although I recognize that it was certainly better than flying. it was against my standard, but well worth it. I will sell my 'anti-air pollution' standard for my kids to be able to know their grandparents and great-grandparents. I think that is a fair sale as long as we live hundreds of miles apart. Sure, I wish we lived close enough that visits could be done by bike or public transportation, but that just isn't the case, so I will sell that standard for that price.
When my parents visited, I think I sold that standard at too low of a price. While I feel that their travel to get to our home was a well valued sale of my standards, during their visits we drove more than we ever do. I feel that much of the driving that we did while my parents were here was a very poor sale of my standards. Not driving most places is a HUGE part of our life and extremely important to us. While my parents were here, we sold that 'not driving' standard to do 'special' things. Essentially we sold our standard in order to prevent my parents from seeing how we really live and knowing who we really are. Another of our standards is living a slow paced, local life centered around our home. So we sold one standard for the price of selling another. I don't think that was a good deal. Instead, I wish we had spent more time at home doing the things we always do with my parents. That would have helped them know who we really are. At the same time, it was fun to go out and do different things, but I don't know that was the best sale of my standards. I also think it was important to make some sacrifice of standards in order to include my grandmother in some activities that would have otherwise been difficult for her (like the many miles of walking we generally do each day).
Here's another example that is difficult for me to admit. I have a standard of minimizing water usage. I'm fine using water to water my garden, that is a good use, but I have a pretty big lawn that I have to water to keep it somewhat green. Why do I do that? I have sold that standard for the resale of my home (since we will likely be moving within the next year or two). Ouch, that was the sale of a standard for money. I don't like that. Not only did I sell the standard for money, but I will be encouraging the next home owner to have a pretty big lawn that they too will have to waste water on. It would cost a lot of money and work to change the landscape and likely not help the resale value of the house so I have sold those standards for money and I'm not proud of that.
Last example, this one hasn't happened yet. As my wife and I think of moving we talk about our dream house. Both of us like the idea of rural living with land to grow a really big garden. We like the idea of having space and not being in a city, but close enough for convenience. My standard (and part of my studies in school) is to prevent sprawl. Rural living just outside of a city is sprawl. Will I sell that standard? Or will I be able to 'settle' for a house in the city that is a little noisier, has a little less room and will have a smaller garden. What is the price of my standard?
What is the price of some of your standards?
I want only to live in accord with the promptings of my true inner-self. Why is that so very difficult? --Hermann Hesse
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Technology to save the day
I often hear the argument that technology is going to solve the problems of global warming, food shortages, peak oil, etc. While I am amazed at the rate at which mankind can come up with impressive solutions to problems, we have thus far not proven that we have actually 'solved' anything.
Let's use the problem of feeding the billions of people on the earth as an example. We have lots of people to feed, so we have come up with ways of increasing yield and minimizing the amount of labor needed at harvest. We have developed pesticides that prevent our crops from being destroyed by insects, we have developed herbicides so that our crops don't have to compete with weeds, we have developed fertilizers to make our foods grow faster and we have genetically modified foods to better deal with the pesticides and herbicides that we have developed as well as increasing yield. Now we have foods covered with petroleum products so that we can have more. Most of these products have not been tested on human health and those that have, well the outcome was generally not positive. Genetically modified foods have been tested on humans (at least partially) with little adverse outcomes (and honestly, I think the protein structures in the foods are not different enough to cause major problems). The problem with genetically modified foods is that they make for a field full of plants with identical DNA. What happens when a disease adapts to this new engineered plant and suddenly can kill the plant? Not only can it kill 'the plant', but now it can kill the entire field because all the plants are identical. We are removing the diversity from the system that protects the system.
And now we are looking for alternative sources of fuel (partly because we use a lot of 'fuel' to cover our plants so that they aren't eaten, weeds don't grow and the crop grows better). One of the leading ideas is plant based ethanol. Suddenly our means of making more of a crop is directly competing with our food supply. Oops, something went wrong with the planning in that process and now we find ourselves in a worse position than we were originally. Organic food production, if done correctly, can be cost effective and compare with the industrialized version of food production. But that is not where the money is.
Actually, I didn't write today to complain about the system. I found a great talk on TED.com (if you don't know about it, you should, go there). This is Janine Benyus (who I also read about the other day in Reader's Digest) and she has real solutions to problems. Do you know where she looked for solutions? Nature. Nature holds the answers to our problems. Not human made, more complex stuff, but the simplicity of nature. If we actually take the time to look around and learn from nature, we may find the answers to life's questions. The main point that she made is that we have to follow the example of nature by taking care of the place that will take care of their offspring. They have to do what they do by taking care of the place where they live. Thus far technological 'advances' have been working against nature, this lady provides workable solutions where we can work with nature. Watch and enjoy. It's long, but really good.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Ethiopia
I always struggle to keep up on sporadic bloggers... I am one of them. Hopefully I will gain some consistency after June 5 (written and oral comps will be over). Today I had something that has been on my mind so I'm going to post, despite the fact that I should really be studying.
I'm a child of the 80's. Well, I was born in the 70's, but most of my childhood memories are from the 80's. I remember vividly the commercials on TV asking for donations to help the people of Ethiopia who were starving because of a drought that had lasted a long time. There were pictures of sad kids and mothers who looked really hungry. I never donated, but some of those images really stuck with me. Here in the Western world, we have it really well. I have never been deprived of food (except for long bike rides when I'm not bright enough to bring enough food to get me home).
You're right, I don't blog about Ethiopia or droughts in Africa. I blog about bike related stuff and simplicity. Today I'm going to add ethics to the mix and talk a little about ethanol as a fuel. For some time the US government has subsidized farmers who grow (or don't grow) crops such as corn. This keeps cost of US corn low and makes it so poorer countries can't compete with our prices (like most of Africa). Most Americans don't concern themselves too much with that idea because the subsidies do keep many farmers in business who would otherwise really be struggling. I don't know what makes US farmers better than Africans, but that isn't the point that I want to address today.
Currently corn prices are sky rocketing (along with other grains that can be used to make fuels such as bio diesel) and the farmers are in a better situation. I don't think the subsidies have stopped, but I could be wrong on that. The reason prices are rising is because we are developing technologies to turn these crops into fuel. While it may help us beat peak oil (which I think is approaching quickly), I think it could have some catastrophic consequences.
It's simple economics (I say that, but I'm really not an economist). Demand for corn is high because it is now not only a food, but also a fuel. So the prices go up for foods that contain corn. (try to find a processed food that doesn't contain corn syrup...there aren't many.) And this turns into a great ethical decision.
The free market economy that we live in allows supply and demand to regulate prices (with a little intervention). Now we have the wealthy who can afford fuel for their cars and the poor who can't afford food. Is it OK (ethical) for the wealthy to have luxuries that directly result in others starving? Oh, I just found a cool website. Put in your income and it will tell you how rich you are compared to the rest of the world. I'm in the top 13%. The next time you go to fill up hour car with gas, think that when you pull that nozzle out of the holder, you are pulling a cob of corn out of the mouth of someone who is hungry.
The big problem with the whole thing is that like many things in the US, the consumer will be distanced from the consequence of their consumption so that the consumer doesn't see the harm. I really think we need to get rid of that practice. How much would it influence your choices if you could see the landfills and the pollution and the division of wealth that come from our consumption? I think that it would affect many people greatly, but people don't want to worry about it (and the companies that produce stuff certainly don't want you thinking of it). It's that separation that keeps us making consumption choices that are bad for the environment and bad for other people.
Did I miss something on this, like I did with the China thing? I don't think so, but let me know if you disagree.
I'm a child of the 80's. Well, I was born in the 70's, but most of my childhood memories are from the 80's. I remember vividly the commercials on TV asking for donations to help the people of Ethiopia who were starving because of a drought that had lasted a long time. There were pictures of sad kids and mothers who looked really hungry. I never donated, but some of those images really stuck with me. Here in the Western world, we have it really well. I have never been deprived of food (except for long bike rides when I'm not bright enough to bring enough food to get me home).
You're right, I don't blog about Ethiopia or droughts in Africa. I blog about bike related stuff and simplicity. Today I'm going to add ethics to the mix and talk a little about ethanol as a fuel. For some time the US government has subsidized farmers who grow (or don't grow) crops such as corn. This keeps cost of US corn low and makes it so poorer countries can't compete with our prices (like most of Africa). Most Americans don't concern themselves too much with that idea because the subsidies do keep many farmers in business who would otherwise really be struggling. I don't know what makes US farmers better than Africans, but that isn't the point that I want to address today.
Currently corn prices are sky rocketing (along with other grains that can be used to make fuels such as bio diesel) and the farmers are in a better situation. I don't think the subsidies have stopped, but I could be wrong on that. The reason prices are rising is because we are developing technologies to turn these crops into fuel. While it may help us beat peak oil (which I think is approaching quickly), I think it could have some catastrophic consequences.
It's simple economics (I say that, but I'm really not an economist). Demand for corn is high because it is now not only a food, but also a fuel. So the prices go up for foods that contain corn. (try to find a processed food that doesn't contain corn syrup...there aren't many.) And this turns into a great ethical decision.
The free market economy that we live in allows supply and demand to regulate prices (with a little intervention). Now we have the wealthy who can afford fuel for their cars and the poor who can't afford food. Is it OK (ethical) for the wealthy to have luxuries that directly result in others starving? Oh, I just found a cool website. Put in your income and it will tell you how rich you are compared to the rest of the world. I'm in the top 13%. The next time you go to fill up hour car with gas, think that when you pull that nozzle out of the holder, you are pulling a cob of corn out of the mouth of someone who is hungry.
The big problem with the whole thing is that like many things in the US, the consumer will be distanced from the consequence of their consumption so that the consumer doesn't see the harm. I really think we need to get rid of that practice. How much would it influence your choices if you could see the landfills and the pollution and the division of wealth that come from our consumption? I think that it would affect many people greatly, but people don't want to worry about it (and the companies that produce stuff certainly don't want you thinking of it). It's that separation that keeps us making consumption choices that are bad for the environment and bad for other people.
Did I miss something on this, like I did with the China thing? I don't think so, but let me know if you disagree.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Public opinion
I am currently in a public management class that has been quite eye opening. The question arose the other day (I may have been the person to bring it up), if 'Mom and Pop shops' and walkable communities are seen as more attractive, why don't we have policies that encourage small shops and walkable communities? In fact, cities generally give big incentives to the box stores (like free land or paying for infrastructure needs of the business) in order to come in when it is knows that they will likely destroy local businesses.
The answer was simple and true. The reason is because that is what you want. Well maybe not you personally, but I think many of us are guilty. We voted for the big box stores and against the little guy. Right, I know they didn't hold a formal vote, but that is still the way the masses vote. They vote with their dollar.
Hypothetically you want to buy a new computer. Also pretend that you know as little about computers as I do, but you hate it when yours crashes and you want to be sure you get something good. Here are your options. You can go to a big box store like Costco or Wal-mart and get absolutely no customer service, but a pretty good deal (or at least you can hope). You can go to Best Buy or another of the big box electronics places and get marginally better service and pay a little more. Or you can go to the local guy on the corner who knows everything about computers and he will sit down with you for 30 minutes or more in order to talk you through exactly what you need and the best computer to meet your needs, but you will pay a premium for the computer. Oh and there are the online deals that are a really good deal, but you're never quite sure what you'll get or if it will work.
Which would you choose? Or would you go talk to the guy on the corner, have him tell you which is the best computer for your needs and then order it online or get it from the box store at a really good price? I know small business owners who experience that regularly and it's destroying their business. Do people realize that you are taking money out of that guys pocket as you talk to him and 'waste' his time and then send your money to a big box store or other entity that offers no customer service?
Lets look at this in the context of the original problem. The 'Mom and Pop shop' now has to charge higher prices in order to put food on the table and the city gets less tax revenue from them. Eventually the 'Mom and Pop shop' goes out of business so the city can put in something that will make more money and the computer expert can get a job elsewhere so he can support his family. The city will get more money this way and the store owner will likely be able to find a reasonable job that pays pretty well.
Where does it leave us, the consumers? We end up with a limited number of people who can actually guide us on our computer buying decisions and no option but to go online or to a big box store where nobody knows what they are talking about. But I thought we wanted walkable communities and local stores with local owners. We did, but we were more worried about ourselves than our community so we outsource their jobs. Who does the outsourcing, the US or us, the consumer?
My wife and I have been talking about buying a new digital camera and here are my requirements. It has to meet my wife's demands (even though I don't know what those are). And I want to pay full price from a local guy to help keep him in business and help feed his family. Am I going to pay too much? I suppose it depends on how you look at it. My community is worth it to me.
The answer was simple and true. The reason is because that is what you want. Well maybe not you personally, but I think many of us are guilty. We voted for the big box stores and against the little guy. Right, I know they didn't hold a formal vote, but that is still the way the masses vote. They vote with their dollar.
Hypothetically you want to buy a new computer. Also pretend that you know as little about computers as I do, but you hate it when yours crashes and you want to be sure you get something good. Here are your options. You can go to a big box store like Costco or Wal-mart and get absolutely no customer service, but a pretty good deal (or at least you can hope). You can go to Best Buy or another of the big box electronics places and get marginally better service and pay a little more. Or you can go to the local guy on the corner who knows everything about computers and he will sit down with you for 30 minutes or more in order to talk you through exactly what you need and the best computer to meet your needs, but you will pay a premium for the computer. Oh and there are the online deals that are a really good deal, but you're never quite sure what you'll get or if it will work.
Which would you choose? Or would you go talk to the guy on the corner, have him tell you which is the best computer for your needs and then order it online or get it from the box store at a really good price? I know small business owners who experience that regularly and it's destroying their business. Do people realize that you are taking money out of that guys pocket as you talk to him and 'waste' his time and then send your money to a big box store or other entity that offers no customer service?
Lets look at this in the context of the original problem. The 'Mom and Pop shop' now has to charge higher prices in order to put food on the table and the city gets less tax revenue from them. Eventually the 'Mom and Pop shop' goes out of business so the city can put in something that will make more money and the computer expert can get a job elsewhere so he can support his family. The city will get more money this way and the store owner will likely be able to find a reasonable job that pays pretty well.
Where does it leave us, the consumers? We end up with a limited number of people who can actually guide us on our computer buying decisions and no option but to go online or to a big box store where nobody knows what they are talking about. But I thought we wanted walkable communities and local stores with local owners. We did, but we were more worried about ourselves than our community so we outsource their jobs. Who does the outsourcing, the US or us, the consumer?
My wife and I have been talking about buying a new digital camera and here are my requirements. It has to meet my wife's demands (even though I don't know what those are). And I want to pay full price from a local guy to help keep him in business and help feed his family. Am I going to pay too much? I suppose it depends on how you look at it. My community is worth it to me.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Electronics
I taught a class several years ago that used various means of taking physiological measures. One of the measures taken was lung volume. We had two means of measuring lung volume.
The first was essentially an upside down bucket (it was actually a perfect cylinder) with the lip submerged in water. As you blew into the tube, it would fill the inside of the bucket with air and make the bucket rise in the water. It was well calibrated and there were some pens and a little motor attached to it. So the motor would turn some paper and the pens would mark on the paper as the bucket rose in the water. You ended up with a pattern on a piece of paper which you could use to calculate lung volume because the volume of the cylinder is known.
The second way of measuring lung volume was a little hand held device that you blew into. As you blew it would turn a fan which created an electrical current that was translated into lung volume. You could then read your lung volume on the handy digital readout.
When I asked the students which they thought was more accurate, almost all of them said that the electronic device was more accurate. Now I would certainly agree that the electronic device was more convenient, but the upside down bucket actually captured air and moved objects so that it was easily understood how much air had 'appeared' in the cylinder. Nobody could really explain how the electrical device worked, but they were sure it was more accurate because it gave a digital readout.
Just because a device is electronic and technologically advanced, does not make it better.
The first was essentially an upside down bucket (it was actually a perfect cylinder) with the lip submerged in water. As you blew into the tube, it would fill the inside of the bucket with air and make the bucket rise in the water. It was well calibrated and there were some pens and a little motor attached to it. So the motor would turn some paper and the pens would mark on the paper as the bucket rose in the water. You ended up with a pattern on a piece of paper which you could use to calculate lung volume because the volume of the cylinder is known.
The second way of measuring lung volume was a little hand held device that you blew into. As you blew it would turn a fan which created an electrical current that was translated into lung volume. You could then read your lung volume on the handy digital readout.
When I asked the students which they thought was more accurate, almost all of them said that the electronic device was more accurate. Now I would certainly agree that the electronic device was more convenient, but the upside down bucket actually captured air and moved objects so that it was easily understood how much air had 'appeared' in the cylinder. Nobody could really explain how the electrical device worked, but they were sure it was more accurate because it gave a digital readout.
Just because a device is electronic and technologically advanced, does not make it better.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Success
I've been thinking of what I want to do with my life and why (the link is a joke, but there is another versions). I've been thinking of aspirations.
I'm a doctoral student. I suppose there is some prestige in that once you get out and can be called doctor and you get a PhD behind your name... Unless you are just hanging out in school because you are afraid of leaving school and getting a real job, that just makes you sort of immature and unprepared to grow up. I don't know which I am.
I've been thinking about future jobs. What do I want to do? (Whenever I think of that, I think of the Twisted Sister videos I linked to above, I don't know why). I don't, however, want to spend my life listening to bad music from hair bands. I think that I have some good ideas that I could spend a lifetime doing research and contributing to research. I also like working with students who are deciding what to do with their lives (Since I don't know my own direction, I figure I am qualified to direct others.)
In my field the top researchers are competing for grants from the National Institute of Health (NIH). Reaching the ultimate 'success' in my field involves spending long work weeks competing for big money grants from the NIH. That is not my goal. I think that I could do it. I think that I could make lots of money and contribute greatly to 'the literature'. That's not my goal. I don't want you to misunderstand, I have come this far in my education because I want to use the information I have learned to help people, but I think there is a disconnect between the available information on health and application. I want to spend more time filling the gap than conducting new groundbreaking research. I would consider myself successful if I can teach others about how to be healthy and it makes a difference in their lives. I can do this teaching classes or in producing research that is understandable and attainable for people who have been struggling with their health.
Those are my professional aspirations. Those are secondary to my real goals in life. I want to spend lots of time with my family (I have to improve that). I want to spend real time with my kids helping them to learn the importance of integrity and hard work. I want my children to learn through real life experience how to communicate effectively and how to interact with others in a way that uplifts all involved. I don't necessarily think that I'm good at that, but I have met people who are and they are a pleasure to talk to. I want my kids to be able to contribute more to society than I have. For the time being my wife is doing a great job at working toward my real goals in my life. I hope to be able to contribute more fully to my goals soon.
This goes back a little to what other people think of you. Is this a cop out? Am I trying to enter retirement early and spend my life doing nothing but fishing and hanging out in my underwear around the house? I don't think so. I have definite goals and they take work. It just happens to be different work than a manufacturing job or even the work as a professor. I want to work at bringing my family up properly.
But can you make money raising a family? No. That's why I have to have a real job. Here's the big point that I want to make; my aspirations and true goals in life are based on family. If I spend too much time at work (like I do now), I will fall short of my true goals. In order to attain the goals that I feel are really important in this life, I will have to get by on a meager income and sacrifice financial well being for time spent with my family. In many circles I think I will be considered unsuccessful because I haven't taken the highest paying (and generally most time demanding) jobs, but 'settled' for a 'lesser' position. The thing is that I will NEVER be 'settling' for my family because I believe that there is nothing GREATER to work for than a successful family.
I'm a doctoral student. I suppose there is some prestige in that once you get out and can be called doctor and you get a PhD behind your name... Unless you are just hanging out in school because you are afraid of leaving school and getting a real job, that just makes you sort of immature and unprepared to grow up. I don't know which I am.
I've been thinking about future jobs. What do I want to do? (Whenever I think of that, I think of the Twisted Sister videos I linked to above, I don't know why). I don't, however, want to spend my life listening to bad music from hair bands. I think that I have some good ideas that I could spend a lifetime doing research and contributing to research. I also like working with students who are deciding what to do with their lives (Since I don't know my own direction, I figure I am qualified to direct others.)
In my field the top researchers are competing for grants from the National Institute of Health (NIH). Reaching the ultimate 'success' in my field involves spending long work weeks competing for big money grants from the NIH. That is not my goal. I think that I could do it. I think that I could make lots of money and contribute greatly to 'the literature'. That's not my goal. I don't want you to misunderstand, I have come this far in my education because I want to use the information I have learned to help people, but I think there is a disconnect between the available information on health and application. I want to spend more time filling the gap than conducting new groundbreaking research. I would consider myself successful if I can teach others about how to be healthy and it makes a difference in their lives. I can do this teaching classes or in producing research that is understandable and attainable for people who have been struggling with their health.
Those are my professional aspirations. Those are secondary to my real goals in life. I want to spend lots of time with my family (I have to improve that). I want to spend real time with my kids helping them to learn the importance of integrity and hard work. I want my children to learn through real life experience how to communicate effectively and how to interact with others in a way that uplifts all involved. I don't necessarily think that I'm good at that, but I have met people who are and they are a pleasure to talk to. I want my kids to be able to contribute more to society than I have. For the time being my wife is doing a great job at working toward my real goals in my life. I hope to be able to contribute more fully to my goals soon.
This goes back a little to what other people think of you. Is this a cop out? Am I trying to enter retirement early and spend my life doing nothing but fishing and hanging out in my underwear around the house? I don't think so. I have definite goals and they take work. It just happens to be different work than a manufacturing job or even the work as a professor. I want to work at bringing my family up properly.
But can you make money raising a family? No. That's why I have to have a real job. Here's the big point that I want to make; my aspirations and true goals in life are based on family. If I spend too much time at work (like I do now), I will fall short of my true goals. In order to attain the goals that I feel are really important in this life, I will have to get by on a meager income and sacrifice financial well being for time spent with my family. In many circles I think I will be considered unsuccessful because I haven't taken the highest paying (and generally most time demanding) jobs, but 'settled' for a 'lesser' position. The thing is that I will NEVER be 'settling' for my family because I believe that there is nothing GREATER to work for than a successful family.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Lawn mowers
I mowed the lawn on Friday afternoon. The weather was nice and I could see the lawn, so I gave it a shot. The lawn certainly wasn't long, but there was some logic in mowing my already short lawn. Sure, making the neighbors questions what the goofy family on the corner was doing partly drove my decision, but there was much more to it.
Last year we tried to plant a lawn in the front yard. The old lawn was 90% weeds and it was really ugly. We have some desire to resell the house, so we decided to redo the lawn to make it look better. I know that lawns aren't the most environmentally friendly use of land, but with the desire to resell our home, we did it anyway. But we decided to do it without chemicals. Did I mention that the previous lawn was almost entirely weeds?
So we rototilled the lawn and turned it all over into a big pile of dirt. In that pile of dirt you could see morning glory roots throughout, so I knew that if I planted my lawn in early spring, I would be giving the morning glory and the grass an equal start and the morning glory was sure to devastate the grass seed. So I wanted to figure out a way to kill the morning glory. I decided that morning glory needs light and water to survive and it will die when exposed to excessive heat. So I put a layer of black plastic over the front yard (yes, it looked as bad as it sounds). I figured I would just do this for a couple of weeks, but when it came time to take the plastic off, we were deep into summer on a lawn with a Southern exposure that would not be conducive to starting grass seed. I decided that fall would be better because morning glory is at the end of its growth cycle and I could give the grass a bit of a head start.
Last summer our home was known for the black plastic in the front yard and the sunflowers on the side. I thought for sure nothing could live through the drought and heat under the plastic, but the morning glory was ready to grow as soon as I removed the plastic. I planted seed, but it was quickly evident that it was going to lose out to the morning glory. So we went to the local park that was being torn out and we took some of the free sod from there. It was a late night, but I got a lot of the lawn done in the pitch black and my pregnant wife finished the next morning. As I look at it now, it is obvious that I laid the sod in the dark. By the end of last fall, there was morning glory starting to spring up through the sod.
That is why I mowed the lawn Friday. Morning glory season is still a ways off, but the grass is ready to grow. I have heard that mowing will stimulate growth, so I want to get that grass growing early in the season so that hopefully it will block out the morning glory (I doubt that it will, but I'm trying).
Another reason that I mowed on Friday is because I like my lawn mower. Last year we got a reel mower, and I love using it. Sure it takes longer and you often have to go over the lawn in a couple different directions, but I really enjoy using the new lawn mower. As an additional bonus, I can tell how the new lawn mower works and I can fix most any problem that will arise (except for laziness and lack of time). With our gas powered mower I hated the hassle of getting it started and following the smelly beast around the yard. I therefore mow more often with the new mower and enjoy it far more.
QUIZ: Tomorrow there will be the answer to a special quiz. The question is: What are the 10 biggest businesses in the world? I know that you know how to Google it and find the answers, but how well can you do without Google? (No, Google is not one of the top 10). Check and see tomorrow.
Last year we tried to plant a lawn in the front yard. The old lawn was 90% weeds and it was really ugly. We have some desire to resell the house, so we decided to redo the lawn to make it look better. I know that lawns aren't the most environmentally friendly use of land, but with the desire to resell our home, we did it anyway. But we decided to do it without chemicals. Did I mention that the previous lawn was almost entirely weeds?
So we rototilled the lawn and turned it all over into a big pile of dirt. In that pile of dirt you could see morning glory roots throughout, so I knew that if I planted my lawn in early spring, I would be giving the morning glory and the grass an equal start and the morning glory was sure to devastate the grass seed. So I wanted to figure out a way to kill the morning glory. I decided that morning glory needs light and water to survive and it will die when exposed to excessive heat. So I put a layer of black plastic over the front yard (yes, it looked as bad as it sounds). I figured I would just do this for a couple of weeks, but when it came time to take the plastic off, we were deep into summer on a lawn with a Southern exposure that would not be conducive to starting grass seed. I decided that fall would be better because morning glory is at the end of its growth cycle and I could give the grass a bit of a head start.
Last summer our home was known for the black plastic in the front yard and the sunflowers on the side. I thought for sure nothing could live through the drought and heat under the plastic, but the morning glory was ready to grow as soon as I removed the plastic. I planted seed, but it was quickly evident that it was going to lose out to the morning glory. So we went to the local park that was being torn out and we took some of the free sod from there. It was a late night, but I got a lot of the lawn done in the pitch black and my pregnant wife finished the next morning. As I look at it now, it is obvious that I laid the sod in the dark. By the end of last fall, there was morning glory starting to spring up through the sod.
That is why I mowed the lawn Friday. Morning glory season is still a ways off, but the grass is ready to grow. I have heard that mowing will stimulate growth, so I want to get that grass growing early in the season so that hopefully it will block out the morning glory (I doubt that it will, but I'm trying).
Another reason that I mowed on Friday is because I like my lawn mower. Last year we got a reel mower, and I love using it. Sure it takes longer and you often have to go over the lawn in a couple different directions, but I really enjoy using the new lawn mower. As an additional bonus, I can tell how the new lawn mower works and I can fix most any problem that will arise (except for laziness and lack of time). With our gas powered mower I hated the hassle of getting it started and following the smelly beast around the yard. I therefore mow more often with the new mower and enjoy it far more.
QUIZ: Tomorrow there will be the answer to a special quiz. The question is: What are the 10 biggest businesses in the world? I know that you know how to Google it and find the answers, but how well can you do without Google? (No, Google is not one of the top 10). Check and see tomorrow.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Learning through Play
I was listening to NPR this morning, like I do every morning and there was a thought provoking snippet about learning. The gist of it was that kids learn best when they are allowed to play and make believe. Video games and structured play have taken away the kids' opportunities to imagine and play. What they are finding is that those imaginative times are when kids learn how to act as various members of society. We all remember playing teacher or parents or the milkman (why did I play the milkman? I've never seen a real, living milkman in my life. I think I would be a good one though, except I don't drink milk). As kids pretend to be different people, they are developing the social skills to take on different roles later in life.
So when the kids sit down to play a video game, even an educational game, they do not have the opportunity to 'try out' being different members of society and they thereby are lacking some social development. When kids go to school and the school structures all of their time for 'learning', they miss the opportunity to explore different roles and how to interact as different members of society.
The NPR piece was about some schools that are providing these opportunities for social development in a more structured setting. The kids have to plan out how they are going to play and then take on the role as planned. I think there are better ways to go about this (like letting kids play and not interrupting them). Of course children need to be educated, I'm not arguing against education. I am arguing for giving kids the freedom to play and imagine, uninhibited by their unimaginative adult onlookers.
As I rode into school today I was thinking of this and I became a little concerned. Our kids love imaginative play. I don't think I have ever seen Mugwump pretend to be anything other than a dog since we read "Julie of the Wolves". Six-pence has a larger variety, but I don't know that it's much better. He pretends to be a Mammoth or a Buoy. I worry a little that Mugwump is preparing himself to live among the wolves and Six-Pence is preparing to join a herd of extinct animals. On a brighter note, buoys are steadfast and unmovable and a beacon of light for those around it. The social skills of a buoy, however, seem to be lacking.
As for my own learning, I decided to take the long way home in order to clear my mind. Here's what I found. If you want to clear your mind, getting lost on a bunch of old country roads in the middle of the night isn't the best bet. Here are just a few of things that were on my mind while I was trying to clear it:
I don't know why I ended those statements with question marks, but we'll just say that it was an expression of unwarranted doubt. It was a beautiful night and a wonderful time to get out and explore.
P.S. Grammie, I got your email. It sounded like you couldn't get to the other blog site. I have a link on the left side of the page. When you move the little arrow over the words, "Mugwump's blog" your arrow will turn to a pointing finger. Click the left button on the mouse and it should take you to his blog. When you are there, if you click on the comments button at the bottom of a post and then click on the little circle that says, "anonymous" it should let you type in the comment box (I am going to go enable that feature right now). When you are done, type the squiggly letters in the box they are supposed to go in and click the button at the bottom of that screen that says "publish your comment". I hope that works.
So when the kids sit down to play a video game, even an educational game, they do not have the opportunity to 'try out' being different members of society and they thereby are lacking some social development. When kids go to school and the school structures all of their time for 'learning', they miss the opportunity to explore different roles and how to interact as different members of society.
The NPR piece was about some schools that are providing these opportunities for social development in a more structured setting. The kids have to plan out how they are going to play and then take on the role as planned. I think there are better ways to go about this (like letting kids play and not interrupting them). Of course children need to be educated, I'm not arguing against education. I am arguing for giving kids the freedom to play and imagine, uninhibited by their unimaginative adult onlookers.
As I rode into school today I was thinking of this and I became a little concerned. Our kids love imaginative play. I don't think I have ever seen Mugwump pretend to be anything other than a dog since we read "Julie of the Wolves". Six-pence has a larger variety, but I don't know that it's much better. He pretends to be a Mammoth or a Buoy. I worry a little that Mugwump is preparing himself to live among the wolves and Six-Pence is preparing to join a herd of extinct animals. On a brighter note, buoys are steadfast and unmovable and a beacon of light for those around it. The social skills of a buoy, however, seem to be lacking.
As for my own learning, I decided to take the long way home in order to clear my mind. Here's what I found. If you want to clear your mind, getting lost on a bunch of old country roads in the middle of the night isn't the best bet. Here are just a few of things that were on my mind while I was trying to clear it:
- I wonder how big that dog I hear is?
- I wonder if he is behind a fence?
- I wonder if he is faster than me?
- I wonder if this road turns to dirt or dead-ends soon?
- I wonder how many other dogs are on this road?
- I wonder if this road comes out anywhere near my house?
I don't know why I ended those statements with question marks, but we'll just say that it was an expression of unwarranted doubt. It was a beautiful night and a wonderful time to get out and explore.
P.S. Grammie, I got your email. It sounded like you couldn't get to the other blog site. I have a link on the left side of the page. When you move the little arrow over the words, "Mugwump's blog" your arrow will turn to a pointing finger. Click the left button on the mouse and it should take you to his blog. When you are there, if you click on the comments button at the bottom of a post and then click on the little circle that says, "anonymous" it should let you type in the comment box (I am going to go enable that feature right now). When you are done, type the squiggly letters in the box they are supposed to go in and click the button at the bottom of that screen that says "publish your comment". I hope that works.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Homemaker
Don't ask yourself what the world needs, ask yourself what makes you come alive. And then go do that. Because what the world needs are people who have come alive.
Harold Whitman
I recently attended a presentation by a fairly well known city planner (ironically, I don't remember his name). After he was formally presented by the host, he came to the 'stage' and introduced himself as a homemaker. No, he did not stay at home with his family every day, but his home is the earth and his ultimate goals in life revolve around maintaining and the earth so that we can live on it.
I really liked his perspective. I want to take a step back and define what a 'homemaker' is. By traditional definition, my wife is a homemaker. She stays home and tends to the children, keeps the house and does the laundry, etc. Unfortunately, homemaking is often looked up on as "not doing anything" or "not living up to your potential". I couldn't disagree more. I think one of the most important tasks on this earth is to raise the next generation and prepare them for the world they will eventually run. Don't get me wrong, I do really important things all day, like telling people to be more active and eat better, but it when it comes right down to it, my career has little lasting power. The work my wife does at home raising our children has effects that will last many generations. My job makes money, hers doesn't, but I would say that my wife is of far greater value to our household than am I.
So what does my wife do in keeping our home? She spends a lot of time tending to children. Sure, she could put them in front of the television (if we had one) and let the programming slowly suck the knowledge right out of them while she got more housework done. She doesn't. She interacts with our children at the expense of a pristinely clean home. I would have it no other way. Don't get me wrong, our home is presentable. Our things are generally where they belong and you can easily walk from room to room. Is the floor scrubbed daily? no. Is the dusting done weekly? Lets just say the dusting is done weakly. Could we be making more money and be able to give our kids more 'stuff' if my wife were to go get a job? Absolutely. I think the focus of our efforts to live simply revolve around our effort to increase interaction in the home and demonstrate that happiness comes from relationships and not stuff.
That is what I want to do as a profession as well, just on a different level. I want to be a 'homemaker' for the earth. My niche is in city design and active modes of transportation. I want to help design cities that promote walking. While I'm certainly interested in improving the health of people, more importantly I'm interested in increasing opportunities of people to talk with one another and interact. Does it take 'stuff' to interact? No. On the contrary, as people acquire more stuff, it seems to draw them apart into little cliques that limit interaction. Do I think that the earth is suffering from the amount of 'stuff' people have? Yes I do. While I have some very strong environmental views, I think the greatest benefits that will be seen from living a more deliberate and purposeful life is that we can lose the dependence on stuff and increase or improve our relationships.
You may note that there is a lot of room for compromise and I think that some 'stuff' is OK. Here is the key to my environmental views, as well as what I think will improve social interactions and society as a whole... Our current rate of consumption is going to destroy the earth. That doesn't mean we should all be aesthetics living with nothing, but living to build relationships rather than accumulations of stuff will greatly improve the earth and the fabric of society.
Thanks to all who commented on my son's blog, he was really excited about it.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Blog review
It's about time, but I finally did it. I broke down and updated my blog. I added links, I updated the picture of my family (look, there are 5 and most are looking in the general direction of the camera). OK, I didn't do much else, but I needed to do that for a long time. So I figured I should take a post to talk about the upgrades.
So what prompted this upgrade? No, it wasn't the excess time I have on my hands, it was the fact that we started a blog for the Mugwump last night. I had to add him to my blog roll, even though I hesitated. You see, this is sort of a sad day because I'm going to lose 80% of my readership (I have 5 readers now, 4 will leave). My family reads this blog in hopes of seeing pictures and I generally disappoint. My 4 year old is all about taking pictures and making us post them. We think this will be a good learning experience for him, but it's also going to mean that nobody reads my blog, and I'm OK with that.
I want to make a couple comments about the Mugwump's blog. First, almost everything that is written there is what he says and then his mother or I simply write it down. It is sometimes lacking a little in flow, but it is genuine 4 year old. Occasionally he will type something himself and that is usually obvious. He did write the final phrase in last night's post and it would appear that anyone could have typed it, but that was all his work.
Now I have a favor to ask. My wife and I are hoping to make this a learning opportunity for him, especially in his efforts to read and write (He does more writing on paper than at the computer, but I still think it's good). Could you go over there and make a comment on his blog? Right now you have to be registered, I might change that to allow anonymous comments. I see that my dad already commented... Odd, he's never commented here. Anyway, it would be great if you could leave a simple message (short, one syllable words, nothing complex; just like when you leave a comment here). If you could leave your name (or a fake... whatever) and where you are from we can use this as a reading lesson and a little geography.
I want to sort of review the other blogs that I have listed on my sidebar.
Cultural Vertigo: He hasn't posted as regularly as of late, but I've always enjoyed his writing. He's got some great philosophical understandings and he lives without a car. Although irregular, his posts are worth reading.
Cycling Sasquatch: Very down to earth. He seems like a normal guy and he writes on political/anti car issues that I like reading about. It's worth a visit.
Fat Cyclist: Technically I know him, but not well, so he's still not on my 'friend' list. It is generally about cycling or weight loss. It is absolutely hilarious. If you haven't been there (which I doubt), you should visit.
Jill in Alaska: Crazy journalist who lives in Juneau. She writes very well and she does crazy things on a bike (think twenty below and spending the night out on a mountain bike trail). They are fun to read.
Minus Car: He too is not writing as much as he used to, but it's generally pro bike, anti car so I enjoy it.
No Impact Man: This is probably the most popular site on my list. He and his family went a year making as little impact as possible on the land. They live in NYC and had their electricity turned off, did their laundry by hand in the bath tub and didn't drive cars or even take public transit for a year. He puts a wonderful spin on it and is a talented writer, you should visit, at least to see what it's about.
NYC Bike Snob: He's funny, although not as clean as the other sites mentioned. If you are into the fixed gear culture, it would be a shame to miss his sarcastic slams on fixies. He's a talented writer.
Thoughtful Consumer: She wrote a book about decluttering and now maintains this blog (in efforts to sell the book?). Anyway, she is not nearly as extreme as I am, but she has some good advice for down-sizing.
Walk Slowly Live Wildly: I don't have any idea where I found this site, but she is a wonderful writer (although quite verbose). If you are a Christian and looking to simplify, she has some of the most sincere, heart felt posts I have ever read. They are always spiritual and uplifting while encouraging you to do with a little less.
I'm not going to go through my friends' blogs. They are generally family related and if you want to know about my friends, you can venture that way, but they aren't necessarily interested in the same things as me. For some that may be an attractive proposition.
Have a good weekend, and don't forget to stop by the Mugwump's blog to make a simple comment.
So what prompted this upgrade? No, it wasn't the excess time I have on my hands, it was the fact that we started a blog for the Mugwump last night. I had to add him to my blog roll, even though I hesitated. You see, this is sort of a sad day because I'm going to lose 80% of my readership (I have 5 readers now, 4 will leave). My family reads this blog in hopes of seeing pictures and I generally disappoint. My 4 year old is all about taking pictures and making us post them. We think this will be a good learning experience for him, but it's also going to mean that nobody reads my blog, and I'm OK with that.
I want to make a couple comments about the Mugwump's blog. First, almost everything that is written there is what he says and then his mother or I simply write it down. It is sometimes lacking a little in flow, but it is genuine 4 year old. Occasionally he will type something himself and that is usually obvious. He did write the final phrase in last night's post and it would appear that anyone could have typed it, but that was all his work.
Now I have a favor to ask. My wife and I are hoping to make this a learning opportunity for him, especially in his efforts to read and write (He does more writing on paper than at the computer, but I still think it's good). Could you go over there and make a comment on his blog? Right now you have to be registered, I might change that to allow anonymous comments. I see that my dad already commented... Odd, he's never commented here. Anyway, it would be great if you could leave a simple message (short, one syllable words, nothing complex; just like when you leave a comment here). If you could leave your name (or a fake... whatever) and where you are from we can use this as a reading lesson and a little geography.
I want to sort of review the other blogs that I have listed on my sidebar.
Cultural Vertigo: He hasn't posted as regularly as of late, but I've always enjoyed his writing. He's got some great philosophical understandings and he lives without a car. Although irregular, his posts are worth reading.
Cycling Sasquatch: Very down to earth. He seems like a normal guy and he writes on political/anti car issues that I like reading about. It's worth a visit.
Fat Cyclist: Technically I know him, but not well, so he's still not on my 'friend' list. It is generally about cycling or weight loss. It is absolutely hilarious. If you haven't been there (which I doubt), you should visit.
Jill in Alaska: Crazy journalist who lives in Juneau. She writes very well and she does crazy things on a bike (think twenty below and spending the night out on a mountain bike trail). They are fun to read.
Minus Car: He too is not writing as much as he used to, but it's generally pro bike, anti car so I enjoy it.
No Impact Man: This is probably the most popular site on my list. He and his family went a year making as little impact as possible on the land. They live in NYC and had their electricity turned off, did their laundry by hand in the bath tub and didn't drive cars or even take public transit for a year. He puts a wonderful spin on it and is a talented writer, you should visit, at least to see what it's about.
NYC Bike Snob: He's funny, although not as clean as the other sites mentioned. If you are into the fixed gear culture, it would be a shame to miss his sarcastic slams on fixies. He's a talented writer.
Thoughtful Consumer: She wrote a book about decluttering and now maintains this blog (in efforts to sell the book?). Anyway, she is not nearly as extreme as I am, but she has some good advice for down-sizing.
Walk Slowly Live Wildly: I don't have any idea where I found this site, but she is a wonderful writer (although quite verbose). If you are a Christian and looking to simplify, she has some of the most sincere, heart felt posts I have ever read. They are always spiritual and uplifting while encouraging you to do with a little less.
I'm not going to go through my friends' blogs. They are generally family related and if you want to know about my friends, you can venture that way, but they aren't necessarily interested in the same things as me. For some that may be an attractive proposition.
Have a good weekend, and don't forget to stop by the Mugwump's blog to make a simple comment.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Parenting
I must say I find television very educational. The minute somebody turns it on, I go to the library and read a good book.
Groucho Marx
I don't remember this problem when we had our second child, but our oldest seems to be jealous. On some levels, this is an incredibly complex situation, on other levels it all turns back to simplicity.
So here's the problem. The Mugwump has a growing tendency of sitting on Six-Pense. It's really pretty agressive and generally results in a crying 2 year old. So why does he do this? Because innevitably he gets in trouble. That's what he wants is attention, and he gets it when he sits on a younger brother, or pokes a brother in the eye.
What's the solution? We started sending the Mugwump to his room without toys. If he can't play nicely with his brothers, a natural consequence would be for him to not be able to play with his brothers. That was an OK idea, but it increased the jealousy and there is no way to send a kid to his room without giving him attention and then giving him additional attention when he gets out of his room. And what if he misbehaves in his room, or refuses to stay in there? He gets further attention. It didn't work out well.
It was time for parents to regroup. What is the main underlying problem? Oldest son didn't feel as loved as the others. So the solution ends up being quite simple. Show him that we love him just as much as the others. Instead of dealing out consequences, we've taken to preemtive displays of love.
How crazy is it that showing love worked so well at improving the behavior of a child? I don't know, but I would bet that this same principle could work in many different situations.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Symptoms
A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone.
Henry David Thoreau
I was parusing the British Medical Journal yesterday and I ran into an article that you should read. Don't worry, it's short. Check it out. I know, I come across links all the time and the author suggests that I go there. I never do. This one is really worth it, so I suggest that you head that way. It's the one entitled, 'climate change only a symptom'.
It's a brief by Dominic C. Horne. I don't know anything about him, but based on his comment and the fact that he reads BMJ, so he's likely a physician. So this guy calls global warming a symptom. A symptom of what? Oh, don't worry, we'll get there, but I want to look at other symptoms. Dr. Horne suggests that depression is another major symptom that comes on as a result of global climate change. Interesting. OK, I want to expand the list of symptoms: Laziness, sedentary living, cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes, stroke, social anxieties, and the list could go on for quite some time.
In order to emphasize my point, I want take a moment to discuss a symptom. If you have the flu or a cold, you can't see the flu or the cold. It's a microscopic organism attacking your immune system. What you see is excess mucous, coughing, diarhea, vomiting, etc. You know what I'm talking about, we've all been there. So what do you do to make the virus go away? Nothing. You can take vitamin C to boost your immune system, you can take echinacea, but there is no evidence that it does anything. You can get a vaccine early in the season to give your body a preview of what it will be facing later in the year, but that's not 100% and in our little analogy, we obviously haven't vaccinated the earth. So what do we do? We take a cough syrup to alleviate the cough, Pepto Bismal to take care of the gastro-intestinal distress, and an antihistamine to alleviate the mucous problem. Does it work? It may alleviate the symptoms, but the flu or cold is still there and until your body has combatted the virus, you will have to continue to treat the symptoms.
So have you gone back and read the article yet in hopes of finding out what global warming is a symptom of? Here it is, global warming is a symptom of global capitalism. So the demand for stuff is the underlying cause of many of the world's ills. So what would happen if everyone stopped buying stuff? Well, there wouldn't be a demand to make cheap stuff in China, so they would be putting out a lot less polution. If we could decrease our demand for leather, meat and junk food we could decrease methane production (a greenhouse gas) significanly and we could also decrease our corn production so that we could grow something else, like trees or vegetables. If we as humankind drastically decreased consumption it would dramatically change things.
I'm not so naive as to think that all of the changes would be easy or even desirable. The economy would tank, leaving some major issues to be resolved. I'm not an economist, I should stop there, but I do recognize that it would drastically upset our current economy. But that brings me to question what would happen if we continue to consume at our current rates. I don't think the economy will be able to handle that. $100/barrel oil? I'm thinking that something is going to snap. Our current consumeristic ways are not sustainable, we're going to run out of the stuff we need to make cheap goods or we're going to cause other problems that are even more difficult to solve.
As an aside, Heather and Earl, this is my problem with investing. My perception of a solution would devastate many stocks. Alternatively, I believe that continuing as we are now will also result in devastated stock values. I do own stocks. I know that historically stocks have been good investments. I like the way they work, it makes sense. Boy, can I foresee them coming down in a blaze of glory in several different scenarios.
I'm not going to propose any solutions today, I feel that is what I try to do every day. I really like the idea of many of the ills of the world being considered symptoms to one great underlying cause. I think we see where the problem lies and it is time to start working to heal the world.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Diapers
I'm done whining and am ready to move on. Everyday in my classes, I share a thought. Last week's thought was one I thought I would share.
"Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius-and a lot of courage-to move in the opposite direction." -Albert Einstein
First, I think it's important to note that I got the quote off of one of those websites that provides a bunch of quotes. That means that the quote is probably attributed to 5 other people and nobody really ever said it. Anyway, I like the quote.
Now I wanted to talk about diapers. This is where we make an effort to take a step toward environmentally friendly, but a step away from simplicity...or is it. It sure seems like disposables are a lot more simple than cloth diapers. I can go to the store, buy a bag of diapers and then when my boys soil them I can just throw them away and they disappear forever. It's realy simple, except for all of the petroleum and chemicals used to make the product and the fact that those chemicals and petroleum products will last almost forever in landfills, giving 'eternal life' the poo produced by my boys.
Lets compare that with cloth diapers. You have to do the laundry to get them clean, fold them all nicely so that creases don't produce raw spots on the tender areas of the kids, and then be absolutely sure that you remove the diaper as soon as it gets wet in order to avoid the mother of all diaper rashes. And then if they soil the diaper you have to swirl it around in the toilet and get it somewhat clean before storing it for the next load of wash. Boy, it takes a lot of laundry to use cloth diapers. I still think that using the water to do the wash is more environmentally friendly than disposable diapers.
So here's what we do. Jaguar (the new one) is still in disposable diapers because the cloth diapers just don't fit right. He will be moving up as soon as his legs will fill the hole of the cloth diapers. If his legs don't fill the holes, that is catastrophy waiting to happen. Six-Pense (the 2 year old) wears cloth diapers during the day, but disposables at night. He actually wore disposables exclusively for quite some time because a day in cloth diapers would give him a diaper rash to the point of drawing blood. Don't get me wrong, I'm an environmentalist, but I can't cause my kid that much pain. We've gotten his bum toughened up and he's good all day, but the night will cause diaper rashes, so we still use disposables at night. Mugwump (the 4 year old) is potty trained during the day, so he wears underpants. He wishes he was potty trained at night, so he will often refuse to wear a diaper, which just means that we have more laundry to do (his sheets). When we do convince him to wear a diaper, it is a cloth diaper. He too had diaper rash problems, which is why he is allowed to wear underpants to bed even though we know that means he will have a wet bed in the morning. He does, however, do his own laundry. If he doesn't he has to wear diapers again.
Of course I wish we could use exclusively cloth diapers, but I can't torture my kids like that. I know there are 'environmentally friendly' disposable diapers by companies like 7th Generation or something, but I'm not convinced. First off, there is no way we could afford them. Second, if it is disposable, even if it is biodegradable, I think it's sort of wasteful. And if it's biodegradable, why doesn't it biodegrade when my kid pees in it? Wouldn't that make it a little less than biodegradable? I'm sure they are better than what we use, but I still don't think that's the solution.
"Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius-and a lot of courage-to move in the opposite direction." -Albert Einstein
First, I think it's important to note that I got the quote off of one of those websites that provides a bunch of quotes. That means that the quote is probably attributed to 5 other people and nobody really ever said it. Anyway, I like the quote.
Now I wanted to talk about diapers. This is where we make an effort to take a step toward environmentally friendly, but a step away from simplicity...or is it. It sure seems like disposables are a lot more simple than cloth diapers. I can go to the store, buy a bag of diapers and then when my boys soil them I can just throw them away and they disappear forever. It's realy simple, except for all of the petroleum and chemicals used to make the product and the fact that those chemicals and petroleum products will last almost forever in landfills, giving 'eternal life' the poo produced by my boys.
Lets compare that with cloth diapers. You have to do the laundry to get them clean, fold them all nicely so that creases don't produce raw spots on the tender areas of the kids, and then be absolutely sure that you remove the diaper as soon as it gets wet in order to avoid the mother of all diaper rashes. And then if they soil the diaper you have to swirl it around in the toilet and get it somewhat clean before storing it for the next load of wash. Boy, it takes a lot of laundry to use cloth diapers. I still think that using the water to do the wash is more environmentally friendly than disposable diapers.
So here's what we do. Jaguar (the new one) is still in disposable diapers because the cloth diapers just don't fit right. He will be moving up as soon as his legs will fill the hole of the cloth diapers. If his legs don't fill the holes, that is catastrophy waiting to happen. Six-Pense (the 2 year old) wears cloth diapers during the day, but disposables at night. He actually wore disposables exclusively for quite some time because a day in cloth diapers would give him a diaper rash to the point of drawing blood. Don't get me wrong, I'm an environmentalist, but I can't cause my kid that much pain. We've gotten his bum toughened up and he's good all day, but the night will cause diaper rashes, so we still use disposables at night. Mugwump (the 4 year old) is potty trained during the day, so he wears underpants. He wishes he was potty trained at night, so he will often refuse to wear a diaper, which just means that we have more laundry to do (his sheets). When we do convince him to wear a diaper, it is a cloth diaper. He too had diaper rash problems, which is why he is allowed to wear underpants to bed even though we know that means he will have a wet bed in the morning. He does, however, do his own laundry. If he doesn't he has to wear diapers again.
Of course I wish we could use exclusively cloth diapers, but I can't torture my kids like that. I know there are 'environmentally friendly' disposable diapers by companies like 7th Generation or something, but I'm not convinced. First off, there is no way we could afford them. Second, if it is disposable, even if it is biodegradable, I think it's sort of wasteful. And if it's biodegradable, why doesn't it biodegrade when my kid pees in it? Wouldn't that make it a little less than biodegradable? I'm sure they are better than what we use, but I still don't think that's the solution.
Monday, February 18, 2008
NERD
I remember being called a nerd in elementary school and the come-back of the time was, "thanks, I'm a 'Never Ending Radical Dude'". Oh, I know it's childish, but that's OK, I was a child. At the time, I don't think I had a clue what the word radical meant, except that it was 'rad' which was good.
More recently I have been called radical for some of the ideas I express on this blog. Now I have a better understanding of the word radical. I think people are implying that I am 'making a considerable departure from the usual or traditional'. I find this to be an interesting accusation because I feel that I'm advocating going back to the traditional or usual. I think that many of the modern conveniences that we rely so heavily on are detrimental to people and to society as a whole.
Now I want to make a point because I think some of the 'hate mail' that I recieve is from people who have misunderstood me. I'm not completely against technology or modern conveniences, I'm against the tendency to rely heavily upon them. Do I think people that drive cars are bad people? Of course not... or at least not all of them. I simply believe that people and society would benefit if more people were to take a step back to the traditional. Take a step toward transportation that requires physical exertion. Take a step toward understanding and a step away from relying on technology that we don't understand.
Another point made by my 'hate mail' fans is that I don't understand individual circumstances. I suppose that is true. There are a couple of points to be made here. First of all, sure there are reasons to drive a car and even to rely heavily on a car. My last job required me to drive a considerable amount. On the flip side of that, I made that choice. I also made the choice to change my situation so that I no longer had to rely on my car, because that was important to me. I understand that people live 50 miles away from work and have to drive. I understand that they can't afford housing any closer... I take that back, I don't understand. I think it's a matter of choice. If you can afford a home away from work and to pay for gas, insurance, a car, etc., then can't you afford a small place nearer to work that would allow you to commute by bike (as you say you want to)? I do understand that it is a difficult choice to sacrifice a large house that you are buying to move to a rental that is significantly smaller. I understand choosing to live further from work in order to have some of the conveniences provided by that choice. What I don't understand is people thinking that life is predetermined. We always have choices and options. Sometimes they aren't all that attractive, but if you really look at the situation, you can see options.
And then there's the question of what I am supposed to do about it. Am I supposed to change my views? Well, I suppose you could change my views if you provided a convincing argument, but name calling is generally insufficient. Or I could start writing to please everyone. Not a chance. Everyone is afraid of offending others. I'll be honest in saying that I hold back some of my opinions because I know they could be offensive to those I know who read this blog. I wish I didn't do that. I understand that some people close to me don't want to hear what I truly believe just because it isn't the same as what they believe. You are allowed to hold your own opinion. You are even allowed to have opinions that are as strong or stronger than my own. I'll still be nice to you when we meet in person. I won't call you names or otherwise insult you. I may try to persuade you if it seems like that conversation can occur productively and without contention, but you are absolutely entitled to your own opinions.
Evidently I needed to get that off my chest. I'll return to writing about simplicity shortly.
More recently I have been called radical for some of the ideas I express on this blog. Now I have a better understanding of the word radical. I think people are implying that I am 'making a considerable departure from the usual or traditional'. I find this to be an interesting accusation because I feel that I'm advocating going back to the traditional or usual. I think that many of the modern conveniences that we rely so heavily on are detrimental to people and to society as a whole.
Now I want to make a point because I think some of the 'hate mail' that I recieve is from people who have misunderstood me. I'm not completely against technology or modern conveniences, I'm against the tendency to rely heavily upon them. Do I think people that drive cars are bad people? Of course not... or at least not all of them. I simply believe that people and society would benefit if more people were to take a step back to the traditional. Take a step toward transportation that requires physical exertion. Take a step toward understanding and a step away from relying on technology that we don't understand.
Another point made by my 'hate mail' fans is that I don't understand individual circumstances. I suppose that is true. There are a couple of points to be made here. First of all, sure there are reasons to drive a car and even to rely heavily on a car. My last job required me to drive a considerable amount. On the flip side of that, I made that choice. I also made the choice to change my situation so that I no longer had to rely on my car, because that was important to me. I understand that people live 50 miles away from work and have to drive. I understand that they can't afford housing any closer... I take that back, I don't understand. I think it's a matter of choice. If you can afford a home away from work and to pay for gas, insurance, a car, etc., then can't you afford a small place nearer to work that would allow you to commute by bike (as you say you want to)? I do understand that it is a difficult choice to sacrifice a large house that you are buying to move to a rental that is significantly smaller. I understand choosing to live further from work in order to have some of the conveniences provided by that choice. What I don't understand is people thinking that life is predetermined. We always have choices and options. Sometimes they aren't all that attractive, but if you really look at the situation, you can see options.
And then there's the question of what I am supposed to do about it. Am I supposed to change my views? Well, I suppose you could change my views if you provided a convincing argument, but name calling is generally insufficient. Or I could start writing to please everyone. Not a chance. Everyone is afraid of offending others. I'll be honest in saying that I hold back some of my opinions because I know they could be offensive to those I know who read this blog. I wish I didn't do that. I understand that some people close to me don't want to hear what I truly believe just because it isn't the same as what they believe. You are allowed to hold your own opinion. You are even allowed to have opinions that are as strong or stronger than my own. I'll still be nice to you when we meet in person. I won't call you names or otherwise insult you. I may try to persuade you if it seems like that conversation can occur productively and without contention, but you are absolutely entitled to your own opinions.
Evidently I needed to get that off my chest. I'll return to writing about simplicity shortly.
Friday, February 15, 2008
clothes
I was sort of off topic this week. I want to focus on simplicity, but I got pulled into politics. I don't like politics, but I feel they are extremely important (and fairly corrupt). I'm trying not to discuss them on my blog, but occassionally they slip out. So today I'm returning to simplicity.
Clothing. We all wear clothes, but I think they are often quite wasteful. I am currently wearing a shirt and pants that were purchased second hand. I checked my socks out from the locker room and my shoes and underwear were purchased new from the store. Honestly, my outfit is almost always made up of outerwear purchased second hand and underwear and shoes purchased new.
Here's another of my weaknesses: Shoes. I really think it's possible to get shoes second hand, and I even own one pair of second hand shoes, but it's hard to find something that looks OK and fits reasonably well. When purchasing new shoes, I know there is a lot of baggage that comes with shoes. I think a lot or made under inhumane conditions, and I probably buy those because it's all I can afford. I can't believe I said that. I really shouldn't be able to afford to support inhumane conditions of a fellow human, but instead I can't afford shoes? Anyway, I buy cheap shoes. That will be one thing that I can change when I make more money. When I buy new shoes, I will spend more to get shoes that I know were made under humane conditions. I do, however, wear my shoes until they are completely worn out.
I suppose you could consider wearing new underwear a weakness, but really I am not going to start wearing used underwear, that's just sort of weird. I do, however, wear my underwear until they are completely worn out (Yes Mom, they do get washed before they are worn through).
I buy my clothes second hand, which I think is good. I wonder if it would be better to buy locally produced clothes made under good working conditions (at this point I couldn't afford clothes like that), or if it is better to buy cheap clothes produced under poor conditions second hand. For now I will continue to buy second hand clothes.
Now comes the big question. I wear my clothes until they are worn out, but then what do I do with them. I like to recycle the fabric, but that is sometimes difficult. I have a couple of pairs of pants that have irrepairable holes in the crotch. There's still plenty of good fabric on the pants, but they're a bit breazy and sometimes embarrassing. The pants will sometimes be cut up to be used as toilet wipes or reusable facial tissues, but the fabric isn't always suitable for that. For example, what do you do with cordaroy that is no longer usable as a piece of clothing? I'm still working on that. Rags are an OK use, but you can only have so many rags.
There is one line of clothing that I purchase new (usually). Cycling clothes. I have one pair of thermal tights that I use for winter riding. They are difficult to find used, and these tights are responsible for keeping me warm on mornings like today when it is 8 degrees on my way into school. I may be justifying my desire for "new stuff", but I feel that investment is sort of important and hard to get something that is effective and comfortable used.
I think the best thing about the way that I dress is that nobody will ever mistake me for being stylish or trying to impress people with my clothes.
Clothing. We all wear clothes, but I think they are often quite wasteful. I am currently wearing a shirt and pants that were purchased second hand. I checked my socks out from the locker room and my shoes and underwear were purchased new from the store. Honestly, my outfit is almost always made up of outerwear purchased second hand and underwear and shoes purchased new.
Here's another of my weaknesses: Shoes. I really think it's possible to get shoes second hand, and I even own one pair of second hand shoes, but it's hard to find something that looks OK and fits reasonably well. When purchasing new shoes, I know there is a lot of baggage that comes with shoes. I think a lot or made under inhumane conditions, and I probably buy those because it's all I can afford. I can't believe I said that. I really shouldn't be able to afford to support inhumane conditions of a fellow human, but instead I can't afford shoes? Anyway, I buy cheap shoes. That will be one thing that I can change when I make more money. When I buy new shoes, I will spend more to get shoes that I know were made under humane conditions. I do, however, wear my shoes until they are completely worn out.
I suppose you could consider wearing new underwear a weakness, but really I am not going to start wearing used underwear, that's just sort of weird. I do, however, wear my underwear until they are completely worn out (Yes Mom, they do get washed before they are worn through).
I buy my clothes second hand, which I think is good. I wonder if it would be better to buy locally produced clothes made under good working conditions (at this point I couldn't afford clothes like that), or if it is better to buy cheap clothes produced under poor conditions second hand. For now I will continue to buy second hand clothes.
Now comes the big question. I wear my clothes until they are worn out, but then what do I do with them. I like to recycle the fabric, but that is sometimes difficult. I have a couple of pairs of pants that have irrepairable holes in the crotch. There's still plenty of good fabric on the pants, but they're a bit breazy and sometimes embarrassing. The pants will sometimes be cut up to be used as toilet wipes or reusable facial tissues, but the fabric isn't always suitable for that. For example, what do you do with cordaroy that is no longer usable as a piece of clothing? I'm still working on that. Rags are an OK use, but you can only have so many rags.
There is one line of clothing that I purchase new (usually). Cycling clothes. I have one pair of thermal tights that I use for winter riding. They are difficult to find used, and these tights are responsible for keeping me warm on mornings like today when it is 8 degrees on my way into school. I may be justifying my desire for "new stuff", but I feel that investment is sort of important and hard to get something that is effective and comfortable used.
I think the best thing about the way that I dress is that nobody will ever mistake me for being stylish or trying to impress people with my clothes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)