Things I've Noticed

Nature and Animals Aren't Evil

It’s somewhat timely that I’m writing this post which has been in the Word document hamper for quite a while. With the tsunami in Myanmar, (which is pronounced myun-mar not mee-an-mar by the way), the earthquakes in China, floods in the Midwest, and the tornadoes all over the U.S., the unaffected sympathize and offer help to those in need. It’s admirable, but nothing we can do will make up for the suffering that people encounter when they lose their family members and possessions. I know this is intruding on religion and philosophy, but why do these things happen to some people and not others? Sharon Stone would have you believe that the Chinese treatment of Tibetans fed some bad karma that led to the earthquake. I’m not sure I buy that. Ultimately, these are natural occurrences that are somewhat random. Such events only happen where the conditions and geography are right for them to happen. And some people happen to live there. If they choose to live there, then they should understand that there’s a chance that they’ll be affected. I think of nature as impersonal and random unless you’re dealing with how God impacts individuals’ lives. But in the case of a large natural catastrophe, many people who live in the same area are drastically affected to a certain. Then it seems more random. However, if you delve further, you see that some people lost everything or died while others lucked out. Is this karma? Nobody knows for sure and it harkens back to that age old philosophical question of why do bad things happen to good people? Regardless, natural disasters aren't evil. They just are, and we unfortunately have to deal with them.

In a similar vein, I often notice that when bad things happen to humans as they interact with animals, the animals are characterized as horrible or evil. They simply are not. A lion or alligator may kill a human because it feels threatened or hungry. It’s nothing personal. The same thing applies to deer, insects, rats, or cockroaches. They were put on this planet for a reason and they are just trying to make a living, so we shouldn’t take it personally if they eat our food or intrude on our property. Humans can have compassion for other beings. Our caring for pets shows compassion that transcends survival instincts. We could just as easily eat these animals when we're hungry, but we care for them like members of the family. But they're not humans. Pets are often characterized as “bad” because they don’t behave the way us humans want them to behave. They’re actually just doing the things that they instinctively do. They are being normal animals and we shouldn't fault them for that. (This reminds me of a prior quote I wrote that "The smartest pets are the ones that don't do tricks.") We are the ones that are trying to fit them to our needs. Sure we try breeding them to be more domesticated, but they still retain instinctively wild behaviors and urges.

So remember that nature is just natural and seemingly evil things have to happen. The earth has its ecosystems and animals that serve a purpose. For there to be birth and life, there must also be death and destruction. I don’t mean to dismiss how horrible a catastrophic experience can be from a human perspective, but perhaps if we all adopted a more detached objective outlook on such happenings, we would be able to handle them better and not take things so personally.  But that doesn't mean we can't try to stop natural occurrences from happening or destroying our body/house/city/country/planet.

+ Atul

Regarding the Ad on The Right: Official Debate

My friend, "The Boss", (but much younger than Bruce Springstein), has created a new site which I find quite interesting.  It's called OfficialDebate.com.  It's just starting up, but it has lots of neat topics that are at times controversial.  Every good debate needs lots of debaters so click on the link and register if you like to argue with people on topics that you know you're right about.  I did.  Please argue respectfully and soon the site will add other interesting features including debates in which the users get to vote to determine the winner.

Oh and tell "The Boss" I sent you there.

+ Atul

Being Green Is More Complicated Than It Appears

Just watching the news in any given day would give an alien who was just introduced to this planet an immediate understanding that environmentalism is becoming a hot issue. Most of the buzz revolves around global warming and the manmade emissions that are causing it. Unless you are in denial or willing to take risks with the only habitable planet we have, it’s obvious that something must be done. Individuals, corporations, and governments all have to do their part. Knowing what we should do is the difficult part. By virtue of being Americans, we already use much more energy per capita than probably 98% of people on the planet. And much of what we use is from driving.

Fuel economy is an important consideration even though light vehicles are responsible for less than the majority of the emissions that the U.S. emits. I’ve noticed that most vehicles are driven and occupied by only one person. Perhaps that means we should all drive one-seater vehicles such as scooters or motorcycles to work. But then these wouldn’t be safe. Where does one draw the line on environmentalism versus personal safety? Then there are people who might buy a Ford Excursion because they say they “need” it for their 4 kids. And the driver is getting 60 people-miles per gallon instead of 30 people-miles per gallon with an economy car. Well, perhaps having 4 kids is environmentally irresponsible. To be really green, you shouldn’t produce so many polluting beings. Regardless of family size, it’s not so simple. A person driving a Prius 25,000 miles a year pollutes the planet more than a person who drives a full-sized pick-up truck 5,000 miles a year. What many people don’t consider is the fact that the way you drive can have a huge impact on your fuel economy. We’re talking +/- 20%. Proper maintenance, including keeping air filters clean and tire pressures at appropriate levels, can account for 5% or so. Knowing all this makes it hard to understand who’s really doing their part. It is obvious that walking or using a bicycle is the greenest thing to do to get around.

Another seemingly insane but purely logical thing we could do is adjust our driving to help more inefficient vehicles maintain their speed so that they waste less fuel and pollute less. A more efficient vehicle having to accelerate or decelerate has less impact on the environment. By the same logic, pedestrians should consider letting vehicles go ahead of them. People don’t emit nearly as much pollution as vehicles do. What’s ironic about the whole concept of helping the user of the less environmentally sound vehicle for the greater good is that it rewards irresponsibility.

Yet, those people who buy seemingly environmentally conscious green vehicles such as a Prius or Civic hybrid are responsible for creating pollution to obtain products that reduce pollution. I have yet to see a thorough analysis on the energy it takes to develop, manufacture, and transport a new vehicle relative to the emissions reduction that occurs over the life of the vehicle relative to an older, more polluting vehicle. Of course there are limits. Cars from the 60’s pollute hundreds of times more than ones from the 90’s. And if nobody bought new cars, then there would be no efficient used cars to purchase. Automobile manufacturers would in turn have no incentive to innovate and improve efficiency. Government fuel economy standards help here, but they are inherently flawed. (That’s the topic of another blogpost on T.I.N..)

And now, with the advent of ethanol produced by corn, a new environmental dilemma has arisen. Do we sacrifice food crops so that we can convert them to fuel? Would this food ever get to the people who are hungry and need it anyway? And much of that land is inefficiently used to feed cattle who become beef. Besides, mining of coal or other petroleum sources sacrifices land that could be used for farming. I’ve seen conflicting studies on the impact of ethanol production on food crop production, but this is a totally new consideration. Add to that the argument that ethanol production may be “dirtier” than oil production?

Also, as our world has become increasingly global, we can buy almost anything from other parts of the world. Mangos are available in Canada, and most of the things we buy for cheap are shipped all the way over from China. Perhaps buying local would be more responsible, but that variety of international stuff we can buy would be hard to give up.

Being green is not simple or easy.

+ Atul

 

Nostalgia About The Old Days Is Unfounded.

"We live in a dangerous time with terrorists, guns, and violent crime seemingly around every corner."  "The old times like the Renaissance and Victorian eras were much simpler and more romantic than today."  To that I say "hogwash," (and I don't say that often).  This world may seem dangerous and evil today, but in so many ways, our world, (for the large majority of us), is better than it ever was.

In "olden times", a large percentage of babies died and so did many mothers delivering the babies.  People died of colds.  It was common for young children to work 16 hour days, and slavery was just a natural part of the world economy.  But for some reason, people glorify past eras as if they were somehow perfect.  Perhaps they are blinded by the beautiful fashions and history that they read about.  Most history is told with views through rose colored glasses.  Unfortunately, the readers are rarely reminded that in Medieval and even Renaissance Europe, people hardly ever bathed.  That would sway some people.

In contrast, today most of us have clean water, medicine, and other technologies to make life easier.  Life isn't simpler; that's for sure.  But we usually don't have to work all day just to get the next meal on our plate.  And we usually don't run the risk of dying by trying to do so.

Even if you just look at times in the 50's and 60's, times were better in some ways economically because people could get a job, start a family, buy a house and live comfortably.  But cars were less safe, racism was more overt and socially accepted, homophobia was the norm, and the Rolling Stones couldn't shake their hips on national television.  You couldn't even get Thai food at a neighborhood restaurant!  Many of the atrocities and injustices were just smoothed over whereas today, we have a better idea of what's occurring.  Only through awareness can action be taken.

Of course, there are many exceptions to the notion that life is better today.  People all over the planet are malnourished, genocide and slavery still exist in various forms, and some don't get proper medical attention.  But the percentage of people that fall into this group is much smaller than it used to be.  That's progress… and that's proof that the world (from a human perspective), is better than it ever has been.

In terms of the state of our planet from a natural perspective though, it may be in its worst state in human history.  Perhaps there's a correlation here.   For humans to thrive, the earth must be abused and consumed?  It may be true, but perhaps there's something to be learned from ancient cultures like the Native Americans who prospered in their own way while coexisting with nature.  This is a topic I want to explore in another blogpost.  Until then, be happy you live in today's world and not in the past.

+ Atul

GM, Toyota, and The Auto Industry. How About Some Pro-Americanism?

As a self-proclaimed car fanatic, which is nothing new to anybody who knows me, I took to heart the recent news that Toyota surpassed GM for the top global sales thus far in 2007.  It's sad even though the health of a corporation is not necessarily defined by selling the most of a product.  As any business expert will tell you, there are many other factors involved.  What's saddening about this event are the causes of and the effects of it.  I notice a sense of Anti-Americanism that is pervading the auto industry.  This industry deserves special attention because it is the backbone of our country's industrial base, and when combined with its broader cultural, safety and environmental impacts, I would argue that it is the most important industry on the planet.  Our world would stop without it, (figuratively of course), as so much commerce depends on cars and trucks.

As a former GM employee, I've noticed the media and people in general "riding" the Big 3 or Big 2.5 for all their faults and supposed conspiracies.  Some of the criticism is deserved as they clearly have lobbied against environmental regulation changes when they should just have improved, but this is nothing new to corporations in other industries, ones that we don't blacklist.   European and Asian companies all along have had to produce products for countries with more congested roads and more expensive fuel.  If the foreign companies were in the same situation as the Big 3, they would have responded the same way.   

Whenever there is a recall, the focus becomes more intense if it is GM or Ford having the recall.  Sure, they had some poor products in the 70's and 80's but without getting into stats or surveys, the products really have improved from a functional quality standpoint, and now they are improving from a perceived quality standpoint as well.  (Don't believe Consumer Reports as an unbiased test-house.)  Many commercial fleet vehicles are from Chrysler, GM and Ford.  If they were so unreliable, these fleets would probably not keep buying the vehicles.  After the global sales leadership changed hands, I read one headline that said Toyota "toppled" GM as the number one global automotive producer.  Toppled implies that GM went from first to last.  In reality, Toyota passed GM over the course of decades.  And the race is never over.  Based on what people read, nobody is told that GM sells more mid-sized cars than Toyota or Honda; it's just that the sales are spread out over more brands.

Sure, GM, Ford, and DCX don't have as many hybrids in production, but few people know how many hybrid buses GM has produced and how much of a positive impact they have had on the environment.  The impact is arguably higher than that for all the Priuses that have been sold.  GM's mid-size cars and full size trucks, part of some of the highest selling segments, are among the most efficient in the industry.  People don't know that DaimlerChrysler owns Freightliner and Detroit Diesel who jointly sell some of the most fuel efficient commercial vehicles.  With the huge quantities of fuel that such vehicles have to use, even a 1% improvement in fuel economy can have a significant impact on our dependence on foreign oil and the environment.

Other country's citizens have pride in their nation's products and prefer them to support themselves and their people.  How smart.  We on the other hand jump all over our own companies as if they are evil.  Our government does nothing to level the playing field when it comes to trade protectionism, currency manipulation, and the competitive advantage that other countries provide their companies with socialized medicine. 
We can criticize unions for all that they ask for and provide their workers, but without their prior efforts, our nation's working conditions and living standards would be lower.  World War II would not have been won without the support of Ford, Chrysler and GM.  We should at some level be grateful for these things and for the economic machine that the U.S. auto industry has provided in support of so many other seemingly unrelated industries such as banking, and medicine.

It's hard to be a fan of our country right now based on all that is happening with respect to foreign policy.  But all this unjustified anti-Americanism in the auto industry is twisted.  It impacts all of us indirectly and it severely damages great cities like Detroit and Cleveland.  I find it ironic that Anti-Americanism in other pursuits such as sports or war is generally not accepted by our culture.  I'm not saying that you should only buy an "American car"; true competition improves all companies.  But don't give foreign-based automakers a free pass while dismissing the Big 3.  They are also manufacturers of great driving machines.

+ Atul

Quick Quote on Environmentalism

"Don't be useless.  Use less."

+ Atul

Wow. Cool, Eerie and Beautiful

What is this?

Click here...

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/350/

+ Atul

Quick Quote on Efficiency

"Improved efficiency hurts no one, (except the utility companies)."

+ Atul

Fight The Need For Power, (Electric Power That Is)

After the August, 2003 large power outage in the midwest, eastern Canada, and the northeast, and now the one in Seattle that lasted weeks, it's amazing to me that we haven't learned a thing about reducing our dependency on electricity networks.   Even transactions as basic as food purchases, fuel purchases and banking all depend on electricity.  They cannot be done without power, (no matter how hard you try).  Shouldn't all modern societies take a page from less advanced ones and figure out how to have power-free systems for gas, food, and other things so that our society doesn't come to a standstill in times when power goes out.  How about mechanical gas pumps at every 5th gas station or battery powered cash registers for occasional use.  Weather is one cause of a lack of electrical power.   Power grid mismanagement is another cause.  But the ones that worry me most are terrorism or military conflict.  What an easy target we have made ourselves out to be.

Of lesser severity, there are few things one can do for necessity or entertainment that don't require electric power.   For necessity, one would have to depend on canned foods and flame for cooking without electricity.  Heating or cooling a house can't be done practically without electricity.  On the entertainment front, many of the things we enjoy, like TV, video games, web surfing, and even sewing, (not for me), have become electrically powered activities.   I think we should learn to again enjoy activities that don't require power.  Drawing just takes pencil and paper, knitting takes needle and yarn, and playing catch only takes human power and some object.  How refreshing it is to occasionally simplify our lives.  Notice that none of these activities "break down".  They are simple and independent of most outside influences.

As a possible partial solution, why don't we use all the power and energy wasted while we all work out to generate power to put back into the grid?  One person can't contribute much, but over the course of a day, hundreds could probably provide half the power that a gym needs.

On an interesting and somewhat disturbing sidenote, a Miami businessman was purportedly developing a method to convert fat drawn from liposuction into biodiesel fuel.  It turns out that it was a hoax.  If true, that would have solved a lot of problems.  Eat all you want, don't exercise, (or if you do create electric power), then get fat, get liposuction and create fuel for you car to drive everywhere and get fatter by not walking or bicycling anywhere.

But it's not about creating more power.  It's about becoming less dependent on it.  So to make us a more robust society, let's fight our need for power.

+ Atul

The Real Selfish Generation is Not Gen X or Gen Y

I've heard it over and over again, that Gen X and Gen Y'ers are selfish, and have an unjustified sense of entitlement.  And I'm a bit tired of it.  If you really think about it, the prior generations are more selfish.  I don't mean to take anything away from all their efforts to put us where we are today, including hard work, and sacrificing their lives in major wars as well as raising us.  But don't forget that they were fortunate enough to live in a world in which they could go to school, work hard, possibly go to college, get a good job, get married, buy a house and live the American dream.  On the other hand, our generations have to go into deep debt to get a decent education, face bleak job markets with insecure, low paying part-time jobs having minimal benefits, cannot afford housing because the prices are outrageous.  So why is it this way?  I would say part of it is that the prior generations have accumulated wealth and power and are not willing to let go of it. 

How many executives keep working beyond retirement age and subsequently put a stop on younger  individuals from climbing the corporate ladder?  Who is responsible for expecting us to work extra hours without getting paid overtime?  Few in our generation will have pensions although many in the prior generation are all set.  It didn't used to be this way.  And who owns real estate that has ballooned in value since the affordable era and takes advantage of our inability to buy property by charging high amounts of rent?   The prior generations are much wealthier and we are the first generations that will not be better off than their parents' generations.  Sure kids these days are coddled as children, but when we are put out into the real world, it's a harsh one indeed.  At least most of our own parents love us and would take us in to live with them if we needed to. 

Politically speaking, politicians don't care about the needs of us younger people partially because not enough of us vote.  Even then, which politician has a platform that favors Gen X'ers and Gen Y'ers?.  Our government's spending deficit will surely haunt us long after these politicians have passed on.  Environmentally speaking, we owe the current predicament to the refusal of prior generations to plan for sustainability and pollution controls until recently.  I have a feeling that it has happened too late and now Gen X and Gen Y have to clean up the mess, (literally).

We are not perfect.  We can be a bit self-absorbed and have a difficult time committing to anything.  But companies aren't loyal to us, so we're not used to being loyally committed to them, let alone anything else.  Also, I understand that we have a propensity to spend more than we can afford, but which generation's marketers decided to prey on young college students by offering them easy credit before they even have income?  They could have at least educated us better so that we would know how much of a rip off the high interest rates are.  To make matters worse, there are less of us than there are baby boomers and they'll be counting on us for Social Security funds as if we don't have enough of a burden of our own.  The only saving grace is that they can't take it with them and they can't live forever.  Or can they?...

Here are some links to commentary by those who share some of my viewpoints and some who are a bit more extreme.

http://www.alternet.org/wiretap/36658/

http://www.coloradocollege.edu/publications/thebulletin/summer97/Hecox.html

http://housingpanic.blogspot.com/2006/05/housing-bubble-retirement-and-baby.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1519710/posts

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/03/1083436540802.html?from=storyrhs

+ Atul