The other day I read some article about how Americans have to get used to a lower standard of living, because basically we're not as rich as we used to be (for many reasons, including having run up such a massive debt that paying interest on it is now a major portion of our income).
That's kind of a frightening idea, I guess. Until you think about the difference between quality of life and standard of living.
I don't think that the American standard of living, as high as it is, is anywhere close to maximizing the possibilities for quality of life. The wealth that we have is misused and abused. I'm not saying that wealth doesn't contribute to quality of life, but the two are definitely not locked hand in hand.
What would happen if Americans suddenly had much less money to spend? What would go first? Well, we know that people are going to eat, regardless, and they still need clothes and shelter and warmth. People will still need to be creative--so they will still need tools that they can use. What's left? Luxury toys and expenses. If there's less gas/electrical power available, what gets turned off first: the heat, the stove, the computer or the plasma TV? (Side note: the plasma TV is an energy-sucking beast: from http://www.thedailygreen.com/green-homes/eco-friendly/tv-energy-star-47020520: "The Wall Street Journal recently published this amazing fact: 'A 42-inch plasma set can consume more electricity than a full-size refrigerator – even when that TV is used only a few hours a day.' For those keeping score at home, the refrigerator is (or was) the appliance that demands the most electricity.")
And, back to appliances to turn on or off: which of them would improve our quality of life by being turned off (or at least turned off more)? TV, surely.
A lower standard of living would mean that people would not look to answer all their problems by buying something new. I don't even know how many times I've heard someone say "my life would be complete if I could just buy X, or visit Y, but I don't have the money." When I hear that kind of logic, I think, first, of Social Distortion's line in "Ball and Chain:" "Wherever I have gone, I was sure to find myself there; You can run all your life and never go anywhere." And then I think that it's not about the life being "complete" anyway: it's about living well, about a process that engages one and helps one grow and be healthy and happy.
Anyway, it seems to me that there is an opportunity present to us, even in times of scarcity (or, really, scarcity relative to the incredible wealth to which we are accustomed): we have an opportunity to think about what is really important and focus on that.
For the most part, Americans are unfamiliar with living in real scarcity--where there is real difficulty feeding yourself or your children. And I pray that the reduction in the American standard of living will not be so severe that there is not enough food to feed the people. But as we know, there's plenty of food grown--and much of it gets thrown away in the name of profit.
Wouldn't it be great if Americans learned that there was something more important than our standard of living and how much money we have made? If you don't know how to appreciate what you have, then there is little value in wealth; it will just make you fat and unhappy instead of thin and unhappy.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
Are these people crazy?
I just saw a headline about oil prices falling "on nagging energy demand worries."
Are they kidding me? Maybe if your vision of the future includes about the next three months, because I have a lot of trouble imagining how the ten billion people on this planet aren't going to want a bunch of energy over the coming years. There's plenty of demand for energy.
As far as I'm concerned, a slight reduction in the sense of entitlement to luxury would serve the American public well.
Wouldn't it be great if people were able to learn to live with a bit less luxury, and the corresponding reduction in environment-changing waste?
Are they kidding me? Maybe if your vision of the future includes about the next three months, because I have a lot of trouble imagining how the ten billion people on this planet aren't going to want a bunch of energy over the coming years. There's plenty of demand for energy.
As far as I'm concerned, a slight reduction in the sense of entitlement to luxury would serve the American public well.
Wouldn't it be great if people were able to learn to live with a bit less luxury, and the corresponding reduction in environment-changing waste?
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Peace
Wouldn't it be great if we could find other ways to solve problems than to kill each other?
Of course many who are motivated to kill, do so precisely because they feel there is no other choice. But wouldn't it be great if we could find other options?
Israel is invading Gaza and warning of escalation. Hamas retaliates the only way they know how. And in the middle are people dying. Wouldn't it be great if there were another way?
I am not debating the practical efficacy of violence--but there are many who do. There are many who would say that violence does solve problems; there are also many, though fewer, I imagine, who would say that violence breeds problems.
We can view problems in many different ways. Is the problem the immediate threat of one individual or one nation? Or is the problem the pattern that creates a new problem in the course of resolving the old pattern?
There is no abstract logical foundation for either choice of framing--to some extent both framings have validity and one chooses between them on the basis of assessments of probability. Such decisions are tied into the most fundamental ways we see the world.
If we can see that, then we can also see that we have to make a choice: what values do we wish to espouse? What outcomes would we most like?
The choice to focus on paths to peace is centered on the desire for an alternative to violence--only by believing beforehand that violence is not an acceptable or efficacious solution--does it make sense to seek alternatives. We have to believe that peace is really important to provide the foundation for actions that will promote peace.
Of course many who are motivated to kill, do so precisely because they feel there is no other choice. But wouldn't it be great if we could find other options?
Israel is invading Gaza and warning of escalation. Hamas retaliates the only way they know how. And in the middle are people dying. Wouldn't it be great if there were another way?
I am not debating the practical efficacy of violence--but there are many who do. There are many who would say that violence does solve problems; there are also many, though fewer, I imagine, who would say that violence breeds problems.
We can view problems in many different ways. Is the problem the immediate threat of one individual or one nation? Or is the problem the pattern that creates a new problem in the course of resolving the old pattern?
There is no abstract logical foundation for either choice of framing--to some extent both framings have validity and one chooses between them on the basis of assessments of probability. Such decisions are tied into the most fundamental ways we see the world.
If we can see that, then we can also see that we have to make a choice: what values do we wish to espouse? What outcomes would we most like?
The choice to focus on paths to peace is centered on the desire for an alternative to violence--only by believing beforehand that violence is not an acceptable or efficacious solution--does it make sense to seek alternatives. We have to believe that peace is really important to provide the foundation for actions that will promote peace.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Building Dreams
It would be great if I could always keep my eye on a positive future. There are difficulties ahead, without doubt--that is the nature of life. But to look forward towards the positive moments is one of he most valuable pleasures that we can have. The difference between the optimistic mindset and the pessimistic one has profound emotional impact--at least for me. By thinking about the good things that might happen, my mood goes up; by thinking about the bad things that could happen my mood goes down.
This kind of difference--between two different perspectives of the world--has been shown to affect human reasoning. Two different descriptions of the same situation will evoke different responses. From my personal introspection, I see this as being related to the emotional component that is being activated when I look at the world in one way or another.
In fact, it is recognized that gratitude for things can have a positive impact on mood. Gratitude is backward looking (for the most part), but it still carries a positive emotional valence because it is a focus on things that are good.
My habit is to look for problems. It's a habit that I want to change, because it's emotionally painful. But at the same time, we don't want to go through life oblivious to the problems that might beset us: we do want to be able to see the possible negative impact of our choices.
So we want to be able to strike a balance--to be aware of potential problems, and to create a foundation from which those problems can be addressed, and at the same time to focus our energy and intention on the creation of a positive future.
I guess that this was the basic idea behind this blog in the first place: to build dreams; to build the habit of focusing on a positive future. And that is something that has been something I've been working on, but most often I have been working on that habit in personal dimensions that I don't really want to write about. It's one thing to write about possible utopias; it's another, altogether, to write about the personal issues that I'm working on. Sometimes those issues have a universal character--the great religious leaders through history have addressed issues of self-control, of pessimism, of over-optimism, and many others. But my personal take on these things is not necessarily something that I want to write about.
This kind of difference--between two different perspectives of the world--has been shown to affect human reasoning. Two different descriptions of the same situation will evoke different responses. From my personal introspection, I see this as being related to the emotional component that is being activated when I look at the world in one way or another.
In fact, it is recognized that gratitude for things can have a positive impact on mood. Gratitude is backward looking (for the most part), but it still carries a positive emotional valence because it is a focus on things that are good.
My habit is to look for problems. It's a habit that I want to change, because it's emotionally painful. But at the same time, we don't want to go through life oblivious to the problems that might beset us: we do want to be able to see the possible negative impact of our choices.
So we want to be able to strike a balance--to be aware of potential problems, and to create a foundation from which those problems can be addressed, and at the same time to focus our energy and intention on the creation of a positive future.
I guess that this was the basic idea behind this blog in the first place: to build dreams; to build the habit of focusing on a positive future. And that is something that has been something I've been working on, but most often I have been working on that habit in personal dimensions that I don't really want to write about. It's one thing to write about possible utopias; it's another, altogether, to write about the personal issues that I'm working on. Sometimes those issues have a universal character--the great religious leaders through history have addressed issues of self-control, of pessimism, of over-optimism, and many others. But my personal take on these things is not necessarily something that I want to write about.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Would it be great?
It's easy to say "wouldn't it be great if life were always easy?"
It's a question, but not a rhetorical one: the answer does not appear to be simple. There are obvious advantages to life always being easy, but there are some drawbacks, too.
One must question what really leads to happiness. This is a question that has occupied philosophers for millennia. One answer, given by writers like Abrham Maslow, suggests that we are made happy through growth and learning.
If this is true, then adversity is the necessary concomitant of growth: without adversity, without a challenge, there is no possible growth to accomplish that which you could not have accomplished earlier.
So it doesn't seem to make sense to wish for a life of constant ease.
Instead, wouldn't it be great if life provided just enough challenge that we continue to grow, without so much challenge that our lives fall apart.
It's a question, but not a rhetorical one: the answer does not appear to be simple. There are obvious advantages to life always being easy, but there are some drawbacks, too.
One must question what really leads to happiness. This is a question that has occupied philosophers for millennia. One answer, given by writers like Abrham Maslow, suggests that we are made happy through growth and learning.
If this is true, then adversity is the necessary concomitant of growth: without adversity, without a challenge, there is no possible growth to accomplish that which you could not have accomplished earlier.
So it doesn't seem to make sense to wish for a life of constant ease.
Instead, wouldn't it be great if life provided just enough challenge that we continue to grow, without so much challenge that our lives fall apart.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Barack Obama and College Football Playoffs
I just read an article about Barack Obama calling for an end to College Football's BCS.
If you don't care about football you probably don't want to read this. But I care about football. I enjoy watching college football. I root for the California Golden Bears, even though they cut down the Memorial Oak Grove. I don't root for them with quite as much enthusiasm. But I still enjoy the sport and have spent more time thinking about it than I'm willing to admit (or did I just admit it?).
I, like many others, think the whole "championship" determined by the BCS is even lamer than when the "champion" was just decided by a poll. At least when the champion was decided by a poll everyone knew it was just a poll. It was good cause to have an argument over which team was really best (which is the kind of thing sports fans love: "who was greater: the showtime Lakers or Russell's Celtics", "which was the best baseball team ever?"; "Who got hosed by the BCS worse: Auburn in 2004 or USC in 2003?").
Anyway: wouldn't it be great if college football scrapped the darn BCS and had a playoff?
Having spent too much time thinking about college football, but never having written down my ideas, I'm going to make some brief notes here. The details haven't been worked out, but I think it should be mathematically possible.
The general principle is that there is a regular season for league play, and then a playoff. Let's assume a 13-game season, which is what teams play if they go to a bowl (because the schools ain't going for it unless they can make a profit and they get paid to play, or more properly, the schools get paid to get the players to play for a pittance).
All teams play the regular season, and then all teams play in a playoff.
Teams are ranked and divded into classes, and each class has a playoff.
If we have an 8-game regular season and 5-game playoff, them teams would be broken into classes of 32. The top 32 teams would play in the Championship playoff; the next 32 teams would play in the Tier-2 playoff, and so on.
Playoffs would start with a standard elimination bracket, but then losers would play into a consolation bracket, so that all teams in each class end up being ranked based on their performance on the field in the playoff.
The simple version of this is a four-team bracket where the winners of the first round of games play each other and the losers play each other. This model could be extended to larger brackets. The simplest version of this would be that winning the in first round of the playoff means that you are ranked higher than all of the first round losers. More complicated systems could be developed that might take into account seeding and performance in later rounds (it is better to lose the first round playoff game and then win the next four or to win two, lose one, then win two more?), but keeping it simple means that the teams have to prove it on the field when it counts most.
Each season's results could be used to give each conference not only bragging rights, but seeding points for the tournament.
Currently the best teams start their season with some creampuff games with out-of-conference foes, or they pad in a mid-season "bye" with a weak opponent. This new system wouldn't allow that. Teams would start the season with their conference games, and ranking within the conference would be determined by those games. But then ranking in the tournament would be dependent partly on the record and partly on the conference's seeding points from the previous season's tournament.
I haven't worked out details here, so this is real pie-in-the-sky. You get points for your placement in the tournament. Say there are 112 schools in the tournament, then the winner of the tournament can get 112 points, the runner up 111, etc. (one could give higher weightings--I'm not sure it would matter). At the end of the season, all teams have finished out their tournament and been ranked according to their performance, and each conference can be ranked by simply adding up the ranking points of its teams (or, to deal with the fact that conferences are of different sizes, adding up the ranking points and then dividing by the number of teams).
That conference ranking number could then be used to generate a value for each win in a conference game, and then that value could be multiplied by the number of conference wins to determine tiers and seeding in the playoff.
Such a method would reward conferences that do well in the playoffs when teams are playing against non-conference opponents. If the teams of a conference beat other teams in the playoffs, then they'll get more ranking points, and may be placed above teams with more wins in a weaker conference. SEC fans always complain that their conference is so much better than others--top-to-bottom--that their teams get shafted: "no one can run the SEC schedule without losing a game," they moan; "other teams play in weak conferences and have an easy road to the BCS championship game." This would put an end to such whining. The proof would be played out on the field. If SEC teams did far better than others in the playoffs, then each SEC win would be worth significantly more, and SEC teams would play in the top tiers, including the championship tier. And if not, then that would be seen, too.
The beauty of this system is that all rankings, all seedings, etc., are based on performance on the field. Starting such a system would be a minor problem, but only minor: the system runs on historical ranking data: what do you do when there is no historical ranking data? But pretty much anything you chose to provide initial ranking data would be quickly washed away by the beginning of the second or third season. Assume you gave every conference equal ranking at the beginning of the first season. The system wouldn't differentiate between a undefeated team from the SEC and an undefeated from the Sun Belt, so both undefeateds would go into the championship tier. But if the SEC is as good as its proponents claim, then its team would rise to the top of the tier, garnering the most ranking points, while the Sun Belt team fell to the bottom, garnering the fewest. And this would be repeated in Tier-2, also: the 5-3 SEC teams would be with the 5-3 Sun Belt teams, which many would deem unfair, but if the SEC is really better, its teams would win, gaining more points, and the Sun Belt teams would lose. And at the bottom tier, the winless SEC team would dominate the winless Sun Belt team and gain more points. At the end of the playoffs the SEC teams in each tier would have more ranking points than the Sun Belt teams from the same tier. And this would mean that in the next year, SEC victories would be worth more than SUn Belt victories, and SEC teams would consequently be ranked higher. It's not even inconceivable that a conference to so dominate the playoffs that its teams would mostly be ranked in the championship tier, even if they didn't win many conference games. Well--maybe not--not if you're ranked only by victories, because then a winless SEC team would have 0 points. Maybe there would be some baseline for the conference so that if the SEC does well a winless SEC team might not play in the bottom bracket.
Anyway, I said that I think about football too much.
Go Bears!
If you don't care about football you probably don't want to read this. But I care about football. I enjoy watching college football. I root for the California Golden Bears, even though they cut down the Memorial Oak Grove. I don't root for them with quite as much enthusiasm. But I still enjoy the sport and have spent more time thinking about it than I'm willing to admit (or did I just admit it?).
I, like many others, think the whole "championship" determined by the BCS is even lamer than when the "champion" was just decided by a poll. At least when the champion was decided by a poll everyone knew it was just a poll. It was good cause to have an argument over which team was really best (which is the kind of thing sports fans love: "who was greater: the showtime Lakers or Russell's Celtics", "which was the best baseball team ever?"; "Who got hosed by the BCS worse: Auburn in 2004 or USC in 2003?").
Anyway: wouldn't it be great if college football scrapped the darn BCS and had a playoff?
Having spent too much time thinking about college football, but never having written down my ideas, I'm going to make some brief notes here. The details haven't been worked out, but I think it should be mathematically possible.
The general principle is that there is a regular season for league play, and then a playoff. Let's assume a 13-game season, which is what teams play if they go to a bowl (because the schools ain't going for it unless they can make a profit and they get paid to play, or more properly, the schools get paid to get the players to play for a pittance).
All teams play the regular season, and then all teams play in a playoff.
Teams are ranked and divded into classes, and each class has a playoff.
If we have an 8-game regular season and 5-game playoff, them teams would be broken into classes of 32. The top 32 teams would play in the Championship playoff; the next 32 teams would play in the Tier-2 playoff, and so on.
Playoffs would start with a standard elimination bracket, but then losers would play into a consolation bracket, so that all teams in each class end up being ranked based on their performance on the field in the playoff.
The simple version of this is a four-team bracket where the winners of the first round of games play each other and the losers play each other. This model could be extended to larger brackets. The simplest version of this would be that winning the in first round of the playoff means that you are ranked higher than all of the first round losers. More complicated systems could be developed that might take into account seeding and performance in later rounds (it is better to lose the first round playoff game and then win the next four or to win two, lose one, then win two more?), but keeping it simple means that the teams have to prove it on the field when it counts most.
Each season's results could be used to give each conference not only bragging rights, but seeding points for the tournament.
Currently the best teams start their season with some creampuff games with out-of-conference foes, or they pad in a mid-season "bye" with a weak opponent. This new system wouldn't allow that. Teams would start the season with their conference games, and ranking within the conference would be determined by those games. But then ranking in the tournament would be dependent partly on the record and partly on the conference's seeding points from the previous season's tournament.
I haven't worked out details here, so this is real pie-in-the-sky. You get points for your placement in the tournament. Say there are 112 schools in the tournament, then the winner of the tournament can get 112 points, the runner up 111, etc. (one could give higher weightings--I'm not sure it would matter). At the end of the season, all teams have finished out their tournament and been ranked according to their performance, and each conference can be ranked by simply adding up the ranking points of its teams (or, to deal with the fact that conferences are of different sizes, adding up the ranking points and then dividing by the number of teams).
That conference ranking number could then be used to generate a value for each win in a conference game, and then that value could be multiplied by the number of conference wins to determine tiers and seeding in the playoff.
Such a method would reward conferences that do well in the playoffs when teams are playing against non-conference opponents. If the teams of a conference beat other teams in the playoffs, then they'll get more ranking points, and may be placed above teams with more wins in a weaker conference. SEC fans always complain that their conference is so much better than others--top-to-bottom--that their teams get shafted: "no one can run the SEC schedule without losing a game," they moan; "other teams play in weak conferences and have an easy road to the BCS championship game." This would put an end to such whining. The proof would be played out on the field. If SEC teams did far better than others in the playoffs, then each SEC win would be worth significantly more, and SEC teams would play in the top tiers, including the championship tier. And if not, then that would be seen, too.
The beauty of this system is that all rankings, all seedings, etc., are based on performance on the field. Starting such a system would be a minor problem, but only minor: the system runs on historical ranking data: what do you do when there is no historical ranking data? But pretty much anything you chose to provide initial ranking data would be quickly washed away by the beginning of the second or third season. Assume you gave every conference equal ranking at the beginning of the first season. The system wouldn't differentiate between a undefeated team from the SEC and an undefeated from the Sun Belt, so both undefeateds would go into the championship tier. But if the SEC is as good as its proponents claim, then its team would rise to the top of the tier, garnering the most ranking points, while the Sun Belt team fell to the bottom, garnering the fewest. And this would be repeated in Tier-2, also: the 5-3 SEC teams would be with the 5-3 Sun Belt teams, which many would deem unfair, but if the SEC is really better, its teams would win, gaining more points, and the Sun Belt teams would lose. And at the bottom tier, the winless SEC team would dominate the winless Sun Belt team and gain more points. At the end of the playoffs the SEC teams in each tier would have more ranking points than the Sun Belt teams from the same tier. And this would mean that in the next year, SEC victories would be worth more than SUn Belt victories, and SEC teams would consequently be ranked higher. It's not even inconceivable that a conference to so dominate the playoffs that its teams would mostly be ranked in the championship tier, even if they didn't win many conference games. Well--maybe not--not if you're ranked only by victories, because then a winless SEC team would have 0 points. Maybe there would be some baseline for the conference so that if the SEC does well a winless SEC team might not play in the bottom bracket.
Anyway, I said that I think about football too much.
Go Bears!
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Barack Obama
Wouldn't it be great if Obama is the savior that many think he will be?
I have my doubts. But I hope.
This whole blog is about what I hope for, of course, but here are some particularly American things to hope for on this eve of a new presidential administration.
1. A real respect for the US Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights. George W. Bush said that the 9/11 perpetrators hated Americans because of our freedoms. Well what are those freedoms? Are they the freedom to buy whatever you want? Or are they the freedoms outlined in the US Constitution? The freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble; the free exercise of religion and no law respecting an establishment of religion (Amendment 1: our First Amendment Rights). There are more.
2. That whole "truth, justice and the American way" thing. OK, so I watched TV when I was a kid; I watched the TV Superman, what can I say? So I believe in truth and justice. Wouldn't it be great if government was truthful and just?
3. Some more really great stuff that I'd like to see Barack working on: "establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Oh yeah, I already did the Constitution thing.
4. Wouldn't it be great if we had government of the people, by the people, and for the people? And if that government was dedicated to the proposition that all men (all people!) are created equal?
5. Wouldn't it be great if there was peace in the world?
Wouldn't it be great if Obama, who has the audacity to hope, has the audacity to envision a government that serves the people's interests and not the interests of corporations?
Congratulations, Barack Obama.
Good luck. I wish you success to the extent that you serve the agenda noted above.
I don't normally do the political thing. I'm more interested in the philosophical questions, in the search for values and goodness. But it is a night for politicians.
I have my doubts. But I hope.
This whole blog is about what I hope for, of course, but here are some particularly American things to hope for on this eve of a new presidential administration.
1. A real respect for the US Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights. George W. Bush said that the 9/11 perpetrators hated Americans because of our freedoms. Well what are those freedoms? Are they the freedom to buy whatever you want? Or are they the freedoms outlined in the US Constitution? The freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble; the free exercise of religion and no law respecting an establishment of religion (Amendment 1: our First Amendment Rights). There are more.
2. That whole "truth, justice and the American way" thing. OK, so I watched TV when I was a kid; I watched the TV Superman, what can I say? So I believe in truth and justice. Wouldn't it be great if government was truthful and just?
3. Some more really great stuff that I'd like to see Barack working on: "establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Oh yeah, I already did the Constitution thing.
4. Wouldn't it be great if we had government of the people, by the people, and for the people? And if that government was dedicated to the proposition that all men (all people!) are created equal?
5. Wouldn't it be great if there was peace in the world?
Wouldn't it be great if Obama, who has the audacity to hope, has the audacity to envision a government that serves the people's interests and not the interests of corporations?
Congratulations, Barack Obama.
Good luck. I wish you success to the extent that you serve the agenda noted above.
I don't normally do the political thing. I'm more interested in the philosophical questions, in the search for values and goodness. But it is a night for politicians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
