A Group Effort

It is problematic that benefits accrue to those who already have them—things like being approved for loans for because of having assets already. Being let go for a minor offense because of not having an arrest record. However, it is not be unfair just because of a particular "-ism" involved, but because of the underlying assumption that someone is more deserving or "should" be treated differently. There is a common trope that "X would never happen if we had a woman president", or "some [group] have natural rhythm/can dance", "you know you can't trust anything they say because those people always lie". Whoever is included in that group can change; we saw it with waves of immigration in the 1800's. Whichever was the largest group last off the boat were the scapegoats. "White-ness" (aside from being an invention) was ascribed to longer-standing immigrant groups and withheld from the more recent ones.

Here is the heart of the problem: as long as someone can be marginalized, anyone can be. If some negative stereotype can be given to a group, it can be given to another. As long as it is accepted that there are different "kinds" of people, that some are inherently better (or worse), and that there exists some sort of "natural order", we are at risk of this happening. The only solution is to do away with all of them altogether.

Once no one can be labelled as "the problem" or "those people", then we will have peace. Until then, while we may make progress, it will be a constant vigil that another group is not vilified.

The Future is Waiting, Part Three: Fulfills its Promise

     We have arrived at the real issue at hand: what makes systems non-democratic is not the monarch, nor slavery, nor a state religion, nor even disenfranchisement. Those are merely outgrowths of the underlying cause. Rather, the reason they are non-democratic is commoners being kept artificially disempowered by a ‘ruling class’ in order to perpetuate the hierarchical structure that benefits the few at the expense of the many. This can take many forms, and gets re-invented with every iteration of government and economic system. When we citizens are barely involved and have our concerns disregarded until we have ‘enough’ polling numbers or news coverage, that is non-democratic. When only elite individuals and corporations have the ears of legislators, judges, and the executive, that is non-democratic. When income and earning decides the value of a person (especially to the extent that they will be seen as ‘worth saving’ or mourning), that is non-democratic. We are left with the disappointing conclusion that what exists in the U.S. is not—and never has been—a democracy, which can be described as a system designed to be run by its citizenry. We are simply living in a system which disguises the continued oligarchy (or plutocracy) that actually guides the government and therefore the nation. This is far from a democracy; it may be an outgrowth of capitalism, but has naught to do with bettering everyone in the nation by banding together as a society. Democracy is the rule of all for the benefit of all; in the U.S., a “…government of the people, by the people, and for the people….” Again, it doesn’t matter whether the system is called capitalist, socialist, democratic, communist, or otherwise, what matters are the underlying assumptions and principles of the society betrayed by the laws and practices of that society. In the ongoing structure of the U.S., we can see how the foundational beliefs of expansion, conquest, and supremacy have continued in the unwillingness to discuss racism and treaties signed with native peoples, the ongoing resistance to action and legislation on equality (let alone equity), the lack of accountability of elected officials to citizens, and the continued extraction of resources from land and people by business to the detriment of society. We do not have a mindset of democracy-in-action; there is not a basis of mutual respect and willingness to work together which is required of citizens who wish to conduct the administration of their community.
     In order for any change to happen, it must first seem possible. So many people seem to believe that history is over, and that things are set. Similarly, some believe that there is an inexorable march towards “progress” and advancements cannot be lost. Neither is true. This is because we have not “arrived” at some “pinnacle of civilization”, nor are we “done” changing. This is a problem with thinking of society and history as an “evolution” and erroneously thinking of evolution as some “ascension” to an end goal. It is further ridiculous to enshrine the “founding fathers” as some apex of learning and thinking. They were men of their time, and wholly human; flawed and pursuing their interests while blind to the needs of many others. This does not make them bad for their efforts, simply not of a time when they could conceive of actual equality for all citizens. It is absurd, therefore, to dismiss all we have learned since the founding of the country which indicate improvements to be made. In democracy, the government is meant to be the structure which enacts the decisions of the populace to support the continued advancement of the nation as a whole. Sometimes that can mean a radical departure from the original course. Recognize that, if we had held to those original agreements, a significant majority of current citizens of this country would not be considered as such, rather they would be seen as property. We are better than that, both in morality and in knowledge. In truth, the purpose in building something is often in order to bring the next possibility into existence. For example, wooden frames are constructed in order to provide support for the concrete poured into the form. Once the concrete sets, it creates the foundation for the house which is the end goal of all the effort. Those wooden forms are as essential to the process as the finished product, as the foundation could not exist but for those forms. Similarly, one would not consider a plan or blueprint as frivolous. Without a blueprint, we cannot know how to build the structure we seek to inhabit. Just because the plan is not the structure does not mean it is unnecessary. The current iteration of democracy is simply meant to be the form which holds the space for what will be built on top, the next step in our construction project. This essay is an invitation to discuss what we want this next structure to look like. It requires input from everyone to come up with the plan to build a structure such as a democratic government. I submit that the real democratic revolution is about to begin and that the past 250 years have been but the preamble. This revolution of thinking is not just to do away with the few ‘elites’ owning and ruling, since that is not the real issue. It is to establish that each and every commoner is just as valuable a human being as any ruler. Really, that there is nothing special or unique about an emperor, president, judge, or CEO that most others could not fill the same function—given similar opportunities and education.
     Currently, rather than every citizen having an equal voice, people are silenced, marginalized, or preoccupied so they cannot fully participate in decision-making. A participating citizen requires time and education to understand and debate the matters which require governance; without those foundations, a citizen is unprepared and disadvantaged. This is because along with the rights of citizens, there are also responsibilities which accompany democracy, such as acting in good faith and being informed. This is the unfulfilled promise of compulsory education: to provide the skills and knowledge which enable citizens to participate fully. No person (even a legislator whose job is literally to evaluate, negotiate, and enact laws) can possibly do so; without these basics, there is no “informed citizenry”. Even if it were true that some people lacked the skill, knowledge, capacity, etc. currently, it would still be the duty of every person “in power” to help create a system that worked for and included a pathway for such folks to achieve capacity. Living in a society pre-supposes a willingness to be among people who are different than myself (since we are, all of us, unique), as much as recognize what we share in common. Further, in a democracy, it is necessary to accept differences and to work with others to make the community a healthy place for all. This is where mutual respect, compromise, and good faith negotiation are important. This is a suitable introduction of another tenet of democracy, whereby citizens are obligated to participate in the system of governance—not just be subjects. This is as much right as it is responsibility, as much burden as privilege. It is presumed to be the role of citizens, acting in accord, creating consensus, and using their collective agreements to make the laws and enact the will of those same citizens. These cannot be taken lightly, nor from a position of supplication or ignorance. A citizen who does not know how to debate, reconcile, compromise, accept new information, and respect another’s opinion and experience is not in a good position. Finally, we must allow for the sheer time that it requires to participate and debate the issues of our communities. Being forced to work just to earn enough to survive is an absurdity in the modern world. To do so without any guarantee of survival when unable to work is madness. It is this repugnant treadmill which traps people in poverty and despair, eliminating even their children’s chance at improvement. This modern slavery is even experienced by citizens who consider themselves to be “doing ok”—only because this means they can remain in place with less effort than some. It does not mean they have time to spend with family, or improve themselves, and certainly not taking time to participate in community affairs. These issues, along with other obstacles to participation, need to be addressed in order to secure our democracy and create a more powerful citizenry.
     With that in mind, I wish to recognize a few impediments, and acknowledge some facts about power and oppression. It often happens that whenever an oppressed people rise to power, there is a tendency toward retribution. Even without eliminating former oppressors, the ascending group will tend to re-institute a system of oppression, just with the “sides” swapped. Abuse of power does not require villainy, or even ill intent; it can come from a belief that there are persons or groups who are incapable of change or meaningful contribution. However, when people become convinced of such differences, and especially the in-humanity of another group, serious evil can be incited. It can be as simple as “I’m just looking out for me and mine”; this basis of selfishness directs systems towards an imbalanced outcome. It is about controlling the uncontrollable; the notion that the only way I can create safety for myself and my family is by outlawing or owning all potential threats. This inevitably impacts those outside the deciding group, since those peoples’ concerns are not heard or accounted for in the decisions. In order to prevent yet another iteration of oligarchy and oppression, we must act with conscious intent and radical acceptance. The democracy created must have a different basis in order to accomplish this shift away from historical oppressions. A true democracy most likely will need to be imposed upon those currently holding power, as those in control are often loathe to relinquish it—but this must also be done with central beliefs in the worth of each individual and the benefits of including all. Otherwise, there can be no democracy with equality and power for all citizens. We need to be able to make things happen, and can only do that if we are able to talk with each other. It is, after all, the object of community to have conversations and find answers together.
     In saying all the previous, I am pointing out one simple fact: we have tried every iteration of hierarchical structure possible. Every attempt throughout history has a vulnerability to those seeking power in order to consolidate and structure things such that they remain in power. This can be seen in monarchies, monopolies, and disenfranchisement; each concentrates power, and—once concentrated—that power is doled out as pleases those who demanded no one else have it. The issue is less the tendency to organize into hierarchy, but rather the idea that some persons are more suited to rule (or be ruled). This is the fundamental notion which gives rise to many problems we face. Even before the modern concept of “races” of humans existed, there were those considered above and others below. Likewise, in systems of trade before money, there were people considered of a ‘higher class’ than others. These hierarchical notions do not rely on capitalist oppression or racist doctrines to exist, they simply fit in more easily within these constructs. Obviously, a monarch is seen as “better than” commoners; we discussed how this was the argument made for why they were meant for rule. That is the self-evident example which, by abolishing “titles of nobility” we fooled ourselves into thinking we had solved this underlying problem. However, the insidious notion that some are better than others has persisted and continues to disrupt our societies and retard progress. It is time to try out something which is actually different, because no hierarchy has ever brought “liberty and justice for all”. This idea that a ruler had something special and uniquely different about them infects most thinking about ‘rule’ and government. It is this infection that a real democracy would address. In order to achieve actual independence, a lasting justice, and a true democracy, it requires a fundamental shift in thinking about power and each other. It is first by acknowledging this infection as the driving force behind many of our problems that we can discuss ways to correct it. We must stop the cycling of shame, whereby some must be ‘other’ and ‘lesser’ so that others can claim or believe themselves “better-than”. It is imperative that we accept that we are all fundamentally similar with exactly the same worth in our common society. We must also accept the responsibility of our power, individually and collectively; this means to claim our status as valued and respected members of society, as well as demanding that we have the capacity (i.e. time and money) to participate in our government. Once we establish the expectation that each person has a valid perspective and none of us will be sacrificed for the rest will we be able to act in ways different than our history. Only when all citizens truly are equal will we have succeeded in finally overcoming this fundamental obstacle. It is only by distributing power, as in a true democracy, that power cannot become a weapon used by some against the rest.

 

Edit October 2022: for a more scholarly look at this topic see Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It by Lawrence Lessig.

Servant's Industry

There is an acknowledgement of the shift from a previous economic base of manufacture and innovation to one of services and personal attention. This has been going on for decades, and is a byproduct of the globalization of trade and business. What it essentially means here in the United States is that workers no longer have a solid employment future at a company that makes goods because of the need for those goods. People are instead increasingly at jobs which perform services for others. These jobs regularly place individuals into lower-status and lower-power positions related to those they service or serve. The categories are huge, from hospitality, caring, and leisure, to financial, education, and sales. These include numerous specific titles: clerk, teller, waitstaff, nurse, consultant, cook, painter, instructor, manager, sitter, mechanic, driver, therapist, technician, and on ad astra. Included are food service, personal assistant/shopper, driver (chauffeur or taxi), host, and performer. Here "performer" includes not only actor, artist, athlete/competitor, or musician, but also buskers, content creators (YouTube or otherwise), and sex workers. This last group is no longer restricted to in-person services or pre-recorded videos, but nowadays includes "camera models" who can interact with online audiences through chat features. It is also this last group which I think best illustrates the issues I find with this trend. It is not about the commonplace argument about loss of talent, as I think many individuals could be incentivized into a manufacture trade if that were necessary. After all, all the folks in these jobs are skilled, often talented, and intelligent workers. It is actually about status and power, the ability of professionals to maintain autonomy and pursue advancement, and an overall stability for the economy.

In many ways, the move to "independent contractors" was not driven by employees seeking to expand their freedom and escape the confines of employers, but was a move on the part of employers to escape the confines of legal requirements around employment. Rather than pay one full-time person a guaranteed wage and minimum hours, providing benefits like holidays (or other paid time off) and medical insurance, it turns out to be cheaper to pay just a wage more workers to do the same work in a part-time capacity without all the other requirements. This has lead to not only a decrease in the number of individuals who can afford to live, but an increase in the costs to communities as those workers must find public services to offset the lost benefits. Similarly, the supposed "disruptive technologies" around sharing apps are advertised as an 'opportunity' for workers; they end up being just another way for the few to exploit the many. Much of this is what has been called the "gig economy", where a worker will not have a single job but cobbles together a living out of multiple "gigs".

Supposedly individuals more directly 'own' their work (or effort and skills) and are empowered to sell it to business owners in the 'free market'. Claiming that 'independent contractors' are in a better position than an employee, I think misses a few points. These workers are not subject to the protections employees are, and are desperate enough to jump into something-even if it's as risky as a pyramid scheme (Multi-Level Marketing, or MLM). Being ignorant of the practices and standards of a profession they are only in as a "side hustle", they don't know the history of folks who have worked in the field which led to the protections these self-proclaimed "disruptors" are side-stepping. Not that taxi driving is glamorous-nor is it the road to riches-but it is an established profession with understood guidelines and protections. Those are all the results of years of struggle by drivers to obtain the bare minimum of legal recognition and safety regulation. This cycle is played out in various fields in diverse ways, all summed up in the same manner: eliminate security for workers and increase benefit to owners.

Why is Everything AI?

Fundamentally, I think every artistic creation asks the question: what does it mean to be human? Possibly because, as individuals irrevocably separate from one another, we seek ways to bridge this divide and be understood. The impetus for this post is the number of popular shows which revolve around artificial intelligence. In writing this, I wonder about what this art has to say about the subject.

It seems recent years have seen a glut of media offerings centered on this topic, ranging from movies (Ex Machina, Terminator, Avengers: Age of Ultron, and Blade Runner 2049) to TV (Westworld, Humans, and the new Battlestar Galactica). Often, this AI fiction (wherein humans have created machines sophisticated enough to be self-aware) is presented as a battle between creator and creation. This goes back to the ancient Hebrew story of the golem, and became a staple of popular culture with Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. The theme has always been 'do not meddle with the affairs of gods'. The creation of life is reserved to those of god-like comprehension and powers, and any lesser being attempting the feat will be doomed by doing so. This is readily apparent in the subtitle of Shelley's book "modern Prometheus", referencing the Greek fable of a titan bringing the power of fire (sometimes 'knowledge') to humans. It is worth recognizing that in the fable, Prometheus is returning something that the gods had taken from humans. An interesting thought, that Frankenstein could be reclaiming something rightfully belonging to humanity.

Along with the inherent shaming messages in these stories, I find a contradiction as well. The central message of "you are not worthy to do this" is apparent and almost universal within the genre. However, the more recent iterations add the notion that these creations are-or, at least, see themselves as being-better than humans; this becomes the tension that must be resolved for the audience. The question of "which side will win?" becomes an existential contest, as the answer determines whether humanity or AI survive at the end of the story. This seems to continue the theme that humans are to be punished for the audacious act of creation. It is not that the project will fail because of the flaws of humanity, just that the unworthiness of humanity will imbue the creation with the desire to destroy the creator. In keeping with Greek mythology, it could also be a continuation of the theme of supplanting predecessors. The primordial gods had been overthrown by the Titans, who-in turn-were overthrown by the more familiar gods (Zeus, Ares, Poseidon, etc.). The contradiction I see is the fundamental truth that we make life all the time. We make little humans; we create life to continue the species. Here, again, our creations will supplant us. After all, that is their function: to inherit the world we build for them, and do better than we have. True, we sometimes parent poorly and we are not always deserving of having the responsibility for the life of another being. However, this is balanced by the truth that often it is the process of becoming a parent that allow us to become a better version of ourselves. Only through being forced into the reality of living that responsibility can we summon the courage to change for the better. This is not an argument in favor of having a child, that it is the only-or best-way to "grow up", nor to excuse abuse. It is meant to recognize some truths about us which the fictional escape of visual arts have not seemed to present. We do create life, and sometimes with little thought to the needs or subsequent experiences of that life.

Finally,  given we are using the tropes of AI fiction to examine reality, what are there real questions we should ask ourselves? Does this genre give us an outside perspective that allows us to see our flaws-especially those we wish we could deny? Is this a challenge to our present systems and a call to become those better versions of ourselves? Who ultimately bears the responsibility and consequences of creation? Because as much as AI is still in the future, we are parents right now. We are responsible for caring for the lives we have created already. For all those fictional flaws played out across the screen, there are real ones already playing out in our lives and our children. While it may be irritating that 'our side' loses in the fictional version, it is heartbreaking when we fail as a society in reality. We all experience that failure as creators and caretakers of life. It may be that the only way that we preserve ourselves, or we find ourselves worthy of preserving, is that we confront those parts of ourselves which make us less than the parents our children deserve. Maybe the reason humans are in peril in these AI stories is to demonstrate how vital it is to get creation right.

"Crowd" sourcing

Work is supposedly about employees trading their labor for wages, pushed as a model of simplicity and equity. It can be seen as extracting from workers the lifeblood that keeps businesses alive, rather than supplying workers the means to live. What began as layoffs, outsourcing, and downsizing became the new normal, and is now being sold to workers as 'freeing' and a boon to 'motivated self-starters'. The idea is to work two or three low-paying, part-time jobs without benefits because, "Why put your eggs all in one basket," and, "Why depend on work for health insurance"? In addition, we have a slew of 'startups' that want to (allow workers to) take advantage of these conditions. Uber, Airbnb, and other 'collaborative consumption' companies - supposedly parts of a new 'sharing economy' - offer the illusion of opportunity, profitability, and a community base. They are packaged as creating opportunities for individuals to live the dream of independent contracting: set your own schedule, choose which jobs to take, be 'your own boss', and leverage your assets into unlimited earning potential.  The upstarts claim disruption, and an alternative to 'the establishment', supposedly easing the way for regular folks to cash in. Rather than taxi companies hogging the market, these companies will allow regular people to get in on the action. Instead of paying for a mortgage (or lease), one can become part of the hospitality industry and get a little extra for minimal effort. However, they are still privately owned companies looking to maximize profit for themselves.

It could be that the change started with personal vehicles being used for business delivery. This process shifted the burden onto individuals rather than businesses for business expenses. While offset by requirements to laws regarding reimbursement and insurance, it still placed the burden on the employee to learn, abide by, and then enforce these regulations with their own employer. This is most problematic in fields that had no history of doing so. The essence of all these actions is the uncertainty faced by workers. The question that follows is whether this change is better for workers, or only benefits the business. The test is how each practice happens and the results in the real world, not just the theory. In reality, Uber bullys cab companies, drivers, and local governments to get what it wants. Airbnb displaces responsibility and implies more than it delivers.

A few examples, with sources and further reading at the bottom of this post. In the City of San Francisco Airbnb should have collected and remitted $1.9 million in taxes, over 90% of hosts surveyed spent nearly half what they made on living expenses, and it continues to use drip pricing (which does not allow consumers to preview their total price). The legal agreements that Airbnb members are required to accept amount to "55081 words," equivalent to a short novel requiring several hours of reading time. In San Francisco, Airbnb hosts who control multiple properties comprise 4.8% of hosts and control 18.2% of the listings; in a similar company (HomeAway), 14.8% of total hosts control 46% of listings . These "super hosts" are like property mangers without any oversight or accountability. People also use these sites to set up Hacker Hostels (so-called because they lure techies and the like into short-term accommodations), which are problematic because they may flout a variety of city rules on overcrowding. Finally, for some perspective, a city such as San Francisco typically adds 2,000 homes in a year, and these companies take 200+ units off the market - a meaningful percentage.


I propose that choice is most meaningful when individuals are fully informed about consequences and willingly accept. In new and untested situations, these conditions do not apply and the potential for abuse is acute.


Wikipedia list of companies

Excellent article on pros and cons


Uber and taxis

Airbnb and San Francisco

The Tragedy of Hope

In the current preparations for the U.S. Presidential Election, there are a number of contradictions. There is the near–incessant coverage of an avowed "non-politician", leaving The Republican Party in a state of disarray. On the other hand (read: political party), there are two actual politicians: one established (even entrenched) and traditional, while the other is painted as a radical and a Populist. In this, the more information technologies change - from printed handbills to electronic tweets - the more political discussion stays the same. Rampant are labeling, nit-picking, 'washing' of many types (where motives are assigned, denigrated, and questioned), blaming, straw-man arguments, and supposedly clever insults instead of honest, substantial discourse. Alternatively, given the two "disruptive" candidates, one might expect the natural results to be inevitable change and hope for the future. However, those who look at history could recognize a consistency with the pattern of previous elections.

Both Bernard Sanders and Donald Trump are very popular, if only within limited demographics. I will leave Trump, as others seem obsessed with analyzing that issue. Instead, I'll offer a view on Sanders. One problem is the contradiction that in order to be elected president, he needs to have been elected already. Which is to say, the conditions necessary for the election of a Populist, non-establishment candidate require significant changes to electoral policies that only a Populist, non-establishment elected official would enact. An alternative prerequisite would be for citizens to approach politics, government, and elections quite differently. Currently, there exists a "one and done" attitude, whereby citizens vote in elections and consider their participation complete.

I suggest this is the illusion of involvement - a version of the ball-and-cups or "shell game" - and more is required. By calling a vote 'the franchise', it sets up certain expectations. Disenfranchisement becomes the focus: the idea that those who are kept from voting are the only ones impacted and by ensuring their ability to vote the problem is solved. Instead, by changing the focus and shifting the discussion to actual issues, by admitting that voters are not being represented (because both the influence of money in politics and the electoral college), by demanding a better-educated and better-informed citizenry, by allowing citizens time to study and consider as well as participate, and having expectations of consensus from discussions, we could begin to affect the political landscape. Even this modest list could seem overwhelming, therefor easier to just focus on 'the right to vote'.

At a time when it is controversial or novel to say "I represent all constituents, not just those who voted for me," it becomes clear how removed the political system is from the necessities of a Representative Democracy. Whether valid or not, the perception that money is the only avenue to influence politics dis-empowers the majority. If citizens instead believed that their representatives listened and acted no matter their wealth, background, beliefs, etc., it would be much different political discourse.

None of this is to say our situation is hopeless, rather that the focus of hope is misplaced. It is too easy to fall into disillusionment, cynicism, and despair by pinning one's hopes on one candidate or election. There is also an expectation of having an endpoint, a destination, rather than this being a process that requires ongoing dialogue and revision. The way of change is sustained effort over long periods of time, which require movements rather than just candidates.

Frivolous Nation (or How Pointless Consumerism Kills Self-Image)

The downfall of quality goods made by skilled craftspeople, along with the rise of the cheaply made disposable product, has long been lamented by those nostalgic for a 'more wholesome' age. While increased production capacity has allowed for a market saturation of products, it has undermined the ability to rapidly change or recover from disruption, both in the workforce and the production line. In the U.S., what was once labor-saving and a boon to business (automation or mechanization) has become a cyclic trap of lost living-wage jobs, shortened product life-cycle, consumer-based economy (as opposed to production-based), and frenzied pursuit of 'The Good Life'. These issues are troubling enough, but I believe there is even more to it.

To begin with, 'The Good Life' is more conceptual than practical. The notion of 'The Good Life' has been reduced to the sum of possessions and ability to purchase (a.k.a. income) because that is the observable part. Those without see what prominent people have and equate those items with success; having the trappings of success becomes success. The illusion of wealth and prosperity is more valuable than the actuality of hard work, planning, and saving. Partly because that approach takes time, and partly because nobody can wear a bank account balance. This means that as long as I have those signs of being successful, I will be seen as such and therefore I am living 'The Good Life'. In popular culture it seems that the more useless and ridiculous something is, the more valuable it becomes as a demonstration of wealth (and disregard for reality). I convey that I do not need to worry about paying my bills when I can wear this name-brand handbag/wristwatch. Beyond this, the illusion of not having to work becomes valued as a status symbol unto itself. Here we have the idea of leisure time, out of which arise Arts and similar activities. For example, fashion arose from people using free time to focus on the embellishment and enjoyment of clothes. These leisure activities and products quickly became part of 'The Good Life'.

It has been the promise of capitalist economic theory that more citizens would be able to access these leisure activities due to upward mobility and "labor-saving devices". When the promised rewards were not forthcoming, credit stepped in to fill that perceived gap. The promise of getting today and paying tomorrow may have started a boom in borrowing, but it also signaled the end of patience. Having the option to borrow soon became the first choice - so as to not miss out - which then became the default, as "Why go without?" was adopted as the reason to buy anything. Many families live 'beyond their means' and pay more than an interest rate by way of perpetual debt, item repossession, home forfeiture, bankruptcy, etc. Returning to the subject of fashion, it is important to stay "in fashion" since fashion changes, otherwise it is a sign that one does not truly have the leisure time or wealth. This means that the pursuit of 'The Good Life' is never-ending, since it requires constant maintenance. In this, we also encounter the conundrum of value: as soon as something can have value, it can also lose its assigned value and become worthless. Additionally, the amount of time and work it requires to obtain an item determines the perceived value of it. This can mean that buying an item on credit imparts no intrinsic worth because it is simply purchased and lumped in with all other items purchased with credit . If this is the case, then things bought with credit are valuable only to the extent that they support the illusion of success.

Commodification is the process of taking what is rare, unique, scarce, or precious and making it available to all. Again, the claim has been that this process equalizes availability and thereby reduces inequality. However, given the points made above, that is not all that occurs. Once the queer becomes expected, it loses much of its appeal and value. What was once a treat from exotic locales becomes the rotting detritus of everyday life. This is the way of Capitalism: the quest for the next new thing or market. Another way to look at this would be to call it profaning: bringing objects, practices, or beliefs out of context and making them a possession...common, base, ordinary, pedestrian. No longer is tobacco a rare religious symbol, for instance, instead it is a commodity that is ground underfoot after a 5 minute break from work.

The final component is the tendency to equate my self with possessions. Once 'The Good Life' depends on the continued accrual and maintenance of possessions, then my value to others and myself depends on those same possessions. If I lose them or they fall out of fashion, then my self-image is imperiled. I can only feel positively about myself (or my self) as long as my possessions support that positive self-image. This is the central contradiction: possessions hold all our value, yet simultaneously hold no inherent value.

What Cars May Come

I imagine a not-so-distant future in which rush hour, traffic lights, collisions, and road rage are only memories. With entire cities full of cars connected to and controlled by a central computer, almost all traffic issues would be eliminated. Essentially we would all be chauffeured around in private cars without a worry in the world. As much as the internet holds the promise of freedom and equality, I think the same possibility exists with the mass automation of transportation.

Most traffic problems are a result of unexpected or non-conforming actions - when a person goes against the expectations of those around them. Driving slowly on the highway, too fast on crowded streets, surprise lane changes or turns, unexpected stops or slowing, racing, pulling over (or not) for emergency vehicles, and more. Think about every time you've slammed on the brakes, and how many of those times were "some idiot doing stupid, dangerous things." Swerving to avoid a collision, slowing down to evaluate another driver's actions, or just feeling uncertain about what to do. What percentage of the time have you been reacting to another driver? Inversely, it can be me who cuts someone off, doesn't signal, speeds to make it to work on time, or any number of offenses because I'm in a rush or distracted. Car crashes will cease as distracted and impaired driving, missed exits, miscalculated hazards (i.e. wet/icy roads or bald tires), and errors in judgement ("I can make that light") are relics of the past. No longer do I have to worry about what stupid thing I have to deal with next because there will be no more human error.

Traffic jams would go away because there would be no hesitation or need to negotiate between individual drivers. Each car would move to its destination, along with all the others, without the near-misses, anxious adjusting, or jockeying that all result in braking and disruption. Every car would go to its destination with certainty, as there would be no checking of maps or second-guessing of routes. In order to keep traffic moving at its most optimal flow, the computer would divert traffic before a problem, allow emergency vehicles to pass unimpeded, and provide passengers with an immediate replacement in the event of a car's failure. Merging and highway/freeway on-ramps will also be smooth, doing away with the need for metering lights.

Instead of worrying, bicyclists could move about the roads with the confidence that every car was aware of them and would respect bike zones. Intersections and crossings could be handled easily. The computer adjusts (slows without stopping) traffic flow in one direction to allow time for crossing foot and vehicular traffic and then alternates directions. This would allow for traffic to move continuously, even in busy downtown areas. No more circling the block looking for parking. When I reach my destination, I just step out and the car is ready for the next person.

Another benefit would be the freeing of police to concentrate on substantial crimes instead of speeding or other trivial traffic issues. In addition, the impact of police in traffic (i.e. drivers slowing or focusing on a cop car) would be alleviated.

Never worry about the next oil change or if there is enough fuel in the tank, as that would all be taken care of by technicians who maintain the fleet. Similarly, cleaning, repairs, and upgrades. Alternatively, the motor vehicle department would serve different functions. Licenses would still be needed, but for other reasons. Registration, titles, and other areas dealing with ownership and transfers would be eliminated.

Another major change would be road signs. No longer would there be any reason for anyone to watch for danger or search for addresses. Information could be shown on the screen (windshield) of the car, using a heads-up display. Alternatively, the display could show entertainment, ads, or artistic accompaniment, or could be completely off and act as a plain window. Since I will not need to keep my eyes on the road to navigate and steer, I'm free to simply enjoy the view. All billboards and business signs could be replaced with greenery.

The infrastructure for all this would be immense, which has positive and negative aspects. First, the design, construction, and maintenance requires a sizable workforce. Great for employment in those industries, although many of the existing jobs and personnel could be transitioned to the new system with training and modification. Also, taxi services are subsumed into this new system. Private auto insurance, car modification, or 'personalizing' will be eliminated when all vehicles are public goods. Auto mechanics become public employees, as they are needed to keep the roads rolling. Gas stations, parking garages, and car washes are also public goods and can be used for varying purposes.

The central idea to all this is simple enough: relieving people of the burden of automobiles. This is done by accentuating all the positive and reducing the negative impacts. It is not all post-modern, futuristic wonderment. All these points need to be worked out, security and finances addressed, and implementation is always over-budget and behind schedule. Many aspects of making the transition will take a fair amount of negotiation. However, the bright outcome is enticing enough to overcome such resistance and definitely warrants the effort.

Trying Their Fuedal Best

I'm interested in fantasy and people's choices in what they like to imagine.  As creatures capable of untruth what we choose to lie about can be very informative.  In this case, a popular area of fiction is devoted to the collapse of civilisation and the resultant aftermath.  It further seems a recent trend, one divergent from past fictions of isolated disasters, local terrors, and removed tragedies.  I don't know of many post-apocalyptic stories from history.  The only ones that come to mind are myths about floods, sinking islands, and the retribution of the gods.  The stories nowadays revolve around technological collapse, resource exhaustion, biological threats (zombies and super-viruses), and large meteorite strikes.  I recall a time when jargon like "extinction level event" was practically unknown.  This trend may have started in the 1980's with widespread concern about nuclear warfare and the resultant fallout.  Nowadays regular citizens are concerned about space debris and genetic manipulation.  This sort of threat, while incomprehensible in scope, effects everyone.  It feels personal because there is no way to escape it and so we would all be effected by it.  What happens after everything we know is destroyed?  What is left after our technologies fail?  Finally, what does it mean?  The farther we rise, the higher we have to fall from.  This seems to be a central concern of this new genre.

As a tenacious species we look for ways to overcome all obstacles to our survival.  It may well happen that we exhaust the Earth's energy reserves and survivors are reduced to pre-electrical/pre-petroleum technologies.  What could we then do?  How could we, as a species, continue?  I know a group of people who engage in the real-life re-enactment of the Medieval period (Society for Creative Anachronism or S.C.A.).  This is the other half of my inspiration for the post.  The S.C.A. was founded and continues as an educational group, and I understand their mission to be that of preserving history as a living thing.  I am not suggesting these good people are delusional or preparing for the collapse of civilisation.  It is fun and enjoyable to study and participate in these things for those individuals.  There is the possibility-however remote-that the skills and knowledge preserved by them would be needed, not that I wish to find out.

In the end, I think these two, unrelated things simply indicate a certain amount of dissatisfaction with present circumstances.  I think these and other factors demonstrate that people don't feel comfortable with all these technologies and just the amount of stuff.  If that is the case, I can certainly agree with the notion.

The Process of Change is Hidden

Regardless of how we are treated and trodden upon, it is of no use to succumb to the desire to fit in or "go with the flow". No improvement can be made if we all "go along to get along" because we are not demanding any change. Strife, or at least discomfort, are necessary to change things, and certainly to change them for the better. By this I mean that to make dramatic changes, which are often needed as people and cultures will stagnate and calcify over time, these changes are difficult and sometimes unpleasant. It is easy to give in rather than find that other path, one that leads to revolution; here I mean that things move on, they revolve rather than stay in place. Not that a little rebellion isn't necessary also, and what we are trying for is appropriate and requisite actions. The frustration at not being understood or not making progress should be channeled into the drive to change, rather than into self-destructive modes of action. It is counter-productive to be frustrated by attempting to force others to "recognize truth" or change their ways. We can only change ourselves and what we do, and try to convince others through demonstration and reason that there is a better way. This is why Mahatma Gandhi said, "Be the change you want to see in the world." There is not a law passed that can change a person, only by seeing that change is necessary and beneficial will people try to do so. It is uncomfortable to challenge the way things are done, there isn't an easy way to confront the contradictory or self-serving nature of people. This does not lessen the necessity of doing so. Finally, you may not see (or live to see) the results of your efforts, hence the title of this post. There are often subtle things one does not pick up on, especially if we expect to see dramatic signs of improvement. Still, keep at it and believe in the goal and achieving it.

A Series of Rules, or Rulers

Society is nothing more than a collection of expectations, things that have come together to shape who we are and what we think. It would not occur to many of us to live another way, to have a different approach to living. It may seem odd to consider as anything other than the natural way of things having ones' life in two parts: "a job" and "life outside of work" . Yet things were not always this way, indeed, even the concept of money is relatively new. Life would continue if drastic changes were made, it was in the past when people lived simpler lives and it will be different in the future, in some way. Lives not filled with toiling at one thing all day, something that had no relation to one's life. Rather, in the past people were constantly connected with all aspects of their lives, and were not dependent on only one thing to sustain them, instead they were intimately familiar with everything around them. Life was filled with connections, between people and land and the world. I do, in fact, question those who think or say they would prefer to live in another time period, given how acculturated we are. Though there are still some remaining who continue historical lifestyles in parts of the world, and some vestiges of it in our own culture. I think people are beginning to figure out this separation is why they feel hollow and isolated, and how to reestablish themselves in the world. For a fun treatment on this, read "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn.

Hopes and Dreams

However you want to look at it, the strange thing about hopes and dreams is that they are all either true or false, there can be no in-between. These are concepts we are dealing with; intangibles that have no existence outside of our own minds, so they are very real to us, and yet separate from reality. We can be incorrect or overly optimistic about the outcome of a situation; we can hope to have a positive result from events that appear impossibly negative. Many times this is the only thing that will get us through tough experiences: the hope that it will be okay, or somehow better. Sometimes our hopes end up being disappointed and our dreams are crushed, but whether or not we are correct about the results it cannot be wrong to have these ideas in the first place. The positive effects of these self-deceptions (let us be clear that they are lies: we believe in them without actual proof of their existence) depend solely on how they make us feel and what they accomplish for us. So focus on that, don’t concern yourself with what it really means to have been wrong about whatever you thought.

Go Get Your Own Cause

Even I don’t want to improve the world for the noblest and most righteous of motives; I have very selfish interests in mind. In the end, even my very real desire to make it better for every person, it is at heart a self-serving one. Though my stated goal is to improve the world for all, when I make those changes for everyone else, I am also improving it for myself; and that is not incidental nor a side effect, it is the desired effect whether I admit it or not. Since I would only wish to change those things that I consider needing changing, and I am limited to my own set of standards, there is a very simple, self-based being and intellect choosing the goals I strive for. Even if the things that I better are somehow in the general populations’ best interests, I only undertake to change them out of the desire to alleviate some concern of my own. Not everyone will agree with them, and many may want very different improvements or concerns to be dealt with, but that’s their own predicament, isn’t it?

Signs of Intelligent Life

What is it that defines intelligence, and I defy you to answer, "...being smart." The answer I will use here is that intelligence is simply the ability to think: to learn, reason, and theorize; it is not satisfactory in an academic or scientific manner, but serves the purpose we need it to here. The problem with the question is that once answered, it only leads to another question: what is intelligence for? Once we do know what intelligence is, we need to understand what it means for us. We do not have only enough brainpower to move our bodies and react to situations, that is to say we do not operate simply from instinct, although we definitely have predetermined responses or reflexes, both physically and psychically. The ability to think leads to the development of many technologies, certainly, but what else does it offer a species? It must serve a purpose aside from allowing one to solve problems and make tools. Isn’t the surplus simply wasted if that is its only function? Is intelligence something outside that, something intended for different uses which is wasted on those pursuits? Just as we don’t have hands solely to carry things, cogitation is not simply to imagine weapons. Each of these tools serves multiple purposes. The purpose of hands is not only to strangle and strike, but also to caress and hold gently. The ability to think demands the use of that ability, we can’t avoid it. So, when we use this ‘intelligence’, what should our goal be? Since we have it, and it can be used for so many things, what are the areas we should be investigating and focusing on? It seems that each new level of understanding leads to further questions, just as most pursuits in life may have no ultimate answer. Yet, if we aren’t to just blunder through life reacting and living as chance should have it, what does this ability allow us to do? Humanity’s prodigious ability to think is one of very few things we have going for us. Comprehending and understanding ourselves and our environment are the keys to our survival individually and collectively. We are not meant to live as salmon do, nor as bees; not that we are more or better than they, just that we have abilities they do not. Finally, an answer! However, one which only opens up another line of inquiry: which solution will allow us to survive? Once we recognize its purpose in our existence, we still need to agree upon implementing a response to our problems. For that we all need to agree upon the information we’ll use to formulate our answer, which is a topic for another time.

A Dreaming Man...

It is essential for people to believe that dreams can come true...not in the childish, innocent sense of meeting ones' True Love or making the cheer-leading squad (although there is nothing wrong with that sort, either). Look at Dr. M. L. King, Jr.-the first thing that comes to mind is probably that excellent speech he made about-what was it, ice cream, right? No, he spoke of a very noble and passionate aspiration-how many of you are reciting it to yourself right now? How well known is this one simple and important dream? Yet people don't talk about having dreams in their lives! Isn't that something wrong with us, rather than something admirable? Since what time is it better to not have a dream, hope, some desire to see fulfilled? Never, that time should not ever exist! Things can be as we want them to be, they can be as they should be. Better, better for all of us, but we are the ones that need to make that happen, not anyone else, and certainly not by sitting on our asses, either! The ideals we hold are more than just meaningless fantasy, the restrictions and rules we place around ourselves are the meaningless things. While the truth can be complicated, not always-sometimes it is a simple, elegant thing staring us in the kisser. Sometimes it seems difficult because of our own problems and shortcomings, sometimes it is because others make it tough for us. Don't let others decide what you will do or think, don't let them win!

Belief In a Better Way :)

The pervasive belief that things cannot be as we envision or desire them to be-that these ideals are just fantasies-is a meaningless restriction. The truth is that it can be simple, plain, easily-understood, and not just the messy, complicated, intricate thing we've been lead to believe. Things can be better, we should not lose our idealism, our 'innocence', if you prefer. We can be realists (and even be happy) and still work for, and desire, better lives. There is no rule that says we cannot enjoy what we have and still want a better world. Isn't it better to want something, to work and be motivated by this dream, whatever it is? Even if we die not seeing it done-but to know that we did something, even if it is something that maybe only we know or think is important? Even if it means being ridiculed, shunned, labelled (since we all are, anyway)? To have a purpose in life, something that gives meaning to our lives, that we decide is important, because otherwise we live for something outside of ourselves, that we do not truly believe in. We cannot continue to allow others to direct and motivate our lives, this direction and thrust must come from within ourselves. Others are not always around to direct us, nor interested in what is best for us. Others do not necessarily make the best choices for us, and do not feel bad for those poor decisions because, after all, it isn't their life! Why trust others to make decisions that we are capable of making for ourselves? How do they know better than we do what is best for us? If they are better informed, than why? We should all have that information, all of us should be able to make the most informed and best choices for ourselves. These are the questions we should be asking, "why is it I don't know what is best for myself?" The greatest disparity is created when some are more capable than others, not just when they have more, but when they are more. Just like, "if you give a man a fish and it feeds him for a day, but teach him to fish and he is fed for a lifetime.", not teaching him to fish is another option; and keeping him dependent upon the fish you provide can be much more appetizing since it creates a 'master and servant' situation. The destruction of hope or faith is malevolent and far more disruptive than physical debilitation. By this I don't mean a religious 'faith'-there is an amount of faith in trusting that tomorrow will come, and it is just as important and valid to many people as believing in a deity. I mean the capacity for belief in something not necessarily certain; such as that the future doesn't need to be the same as, or worse than, the past. Isn't it part of being alive to want things to be better today than they were yesterday? If not, why keep getting out of bed? Why do anything, if we can never improve our lives in any way? That is the reason this method of control, of abuse, is so insidious and malicious-it robs one not of the ability, but the desire, to do, to live.

Keeping Up Is Hard To Do

Hopefully this is just the start, but one has to create new habits and that can be just as difficult as "breaking" old ones. It is interesting how easy it is to fall into some things, and yet actually doing those enjoyable, rewarding activities is such a challenge and have to be squeezed into ones' schedule. I have noticed that actually doing those things that one desires, the effect is immediate and pleasant. It is so easy to do once one starts, so why is it so difficult to begin? Such an interesting quandary: that we know we will enjoy it, because we have in the past, yet we are still slow to start. To overcome this takes the forming of the 'habit' to perform...hence the books about "the secrets to success" which will all offer the same tips in some form or another: just do it, the thing you enjoy. There is no other way, you just have to get over your inertia and develop your drive to continue.