As a freshman, I was taking a speech class in which we were to present a persuasive speech.  I chose the topic that Affirmative Action should be ended, arguing that its then-current practice was backward from what it had been intended as.  Instead of reconciling past wrongs, by allowing preference to previously-discriminated groups, I interpreted those who were performing Affirmative Action as creating a new class of discrimination: against white people.

Yes, in this nation in which virtually all of my generation has no concept of what discrimination really means, I was arrogant enough to assume that we were being persecuted.  I naively assumed that I had enough world experience to correctly divine the truth of the situation, to see all perspectives of the issue, and to make a rational judgment.  For being such a tremendous prick, I apologize.

I also apologize to those who are currently being really persecuted.  I write to people being trafficked to the United States from overseas, who end up in bondage to “snakeheads” that control their lives for years after they arrive, based on false premises or impossible demands.  I apologize to those girls and women who are being sexually exploited around the world, because they have no other alternative.  I apologize to all who are being persecuted for their faith, whether that faith be Christianity, Judaism, animism, Falun Gong, atheism, Mormonism, or anything else where people do truly have to die for their faith.  I apologize to these people because I cannot sympathize with them, truly, as I have no real basis for it.

I have not been beaten for my skin color or my proclamation of Christ.  I have never been kicked out of a restaurant, bar, or city.  I have a good job, a nice house, two cars, and enough money to pay for the medical care my family needs (though “need” is rather subjective, is it not?).  We have food, we have warmth in the winter and cool in the summer, and we have enough trinkets to supply a small school.  I have just about anything I could want, and I have been selfish with it all.  I have hoarded what God has blessed us with without using it to better our world.  Yes, we support missionaries.  Yes, we support certain charities in our local community.  Yes, we give to our church.  But do we give until it hurts?  No.  Do we give enough that we are actually going without from time to time?  No.  Do we go and visit those in need, rather than providing an empty promise to pray for them?  No.  For my inability to really make a difference, I apologize.

I was reminded of the errors of my ways fifteen years ago tonight by watching a broadcast of Rev. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.  I was convicted of the errors of my ways, and convinced that I needed to make this apology.  I am sorry for how I acted, as it was wrong.  I misconstrued Rev. King’s words, hoping to preempt his message to assuage my hurt feelings.  And in thinking of that situation, I was also convicted of my current ignorance of the rest of the world around me.  Thus I apologize for being blind to the injustice infusing our current culture.

Unfortunately, I cannot guarantee that things will change overnight.  However, by the grace of God, I will stop living with such social myopia and will begin to make changes in myself, my family, and my community.

part 2

part 3

If you’ll recall, our Society has just two people: Jack and Jill.  Jack and Jill each harvest and consume 10 turnips per day.  This minimal subsistence level allows them to just barely keep their society going.  Without spending all of their time obtaining food, they die.  And when they die, there’s no more Society.  They don’t have time for art, for music, for politics, for sex, for religion, or even to make and spend money, because they are busy just being not dead.

Yet Jill got lucky.  She found a sharp rock that helped her dig 11 turnips per day, rather than 10.  She stockpiled that extra turnip each day for 10 days, and then she took a day off from working.  Jack, however, still had to slave away.  Poor boy!  But not to worry – 10 days later, Jill gave him the rock and 10 turnips, hoping he would find a way to get more than 11 turnips out of the ground than she could.  However, he was unable to better her mark; in fact, he was worse (let’s say 9 turnips, so less efficient than Jill).  Being sensible people, Jack and Jill then decided that Jill should use the rock every day, and after 20 days of harvesting they would both take a day off and wander around.

This worked quite well!  Jack and Jill now had an opportunity to listen to the birds that sang in the forests around them.  They could go find the lake that was nearby, and jump in for a cooling bath.  They took time to lie in a field of grass and do nothing.  In essence, they had leisure time.  They had some quality of life that was not there before.  Dare I say, their standard of living was higher than it had been before.  We’ll talk about this in the future.

For now, I want to discuss renewable resources versus stockpiled resources.  Jack and Jill have been harvesting turnips out of the ground at a rate of 20 / day.  Luckily for them, the ground produces turnips at more than 20 / day, so they are not bound to run out of food any time soon.  And, even better, on one of their walks they came across a large pile of turnips already harvested.  That’s right, just sitting there in a clearing, was a pile of about 2,000 turnips.  Imagine!  They counted and estimated that they would not have to do any work at all for 100 days!  Or, alternatively, they could only harvest for half of each day, and utilize their stockpiled resource for the rest of their daily need, and it would last 200 days.  They could make up all kinds of scenarios, but what Jill and Jack decided to do was to use 2 turnips from the pile for each of them, each day, and working to harvest 8 turnips from the ground to satisfy their need.  Now, Jill was a little faster (because she had the rock), so she often got done just a little sooner than Jack.  And they were both okay with it.

This story illustrates something our society has been exploiting in significant quantities over the past few centuries.  We have been utilizing stored natural resources (natural gas, petroleum, etcetera) that aren’t being renewed to produce our calories.  We use those resources to power cars, lights, tractors, and road pavers.  We heat our homes, we operate printing presses, we produce television shows and movies in far greater quantities than anyone could ever watch in a hundred lifetimes.  Yet we do it by using up our non-renewable resource (our pile of turnips) faster than we can replenish it.  In my example above, if Jill and Jack keep taking 4 turnips from the pile each day, they will eventually run out.  They started with 2,000, and in 500 days will have 0.  At that point they will need to go back to full-time production, or their society dies.  The same with us – we are using much more energy to keep our society alive than can be sustained with renewable sources: wind, solar, geothermal.  What we are doing is burning through our stack of turnips, eating more than we will eventually be able to harvest, and that means a reckoning in the future.

In order to make this point, I need to change the analogy a bit.  It’s as if Jack and Jill eat 15 turnips each per day, but they can only harvest 10.  Where shall the others come from?  Their stockpile.  The 15 turnips are their utilization; the 10 turnips are their renewable resource; and the other 5 they draw from are the stockpile.  Once the stockpile is gone, look at what choice must  be made.  Jack and Jill must either:

1)  Start surviving on 10 turnips per day, or

2)  Begin harvesting 15 turnips per day, or

3)  Find some compromise in the middle.

If they don’t, then they will die.  The basic point is, they can only sustain their society at the rate of usage which their land can renewably support.  And right now that is 20 turnips per day.

1)      Obey God more, sin less.

2)      Whisper more, shout less.

3)      Play more, eat less.

4)      Communicate more, wait less.

5)      Read more, watch less.

So the question went like this – suppose someone can produce calories more efficiently than they consume them?  That person would be considered a positive surplus calorie generator (PSCG).  In my example, that was Jill – she found a rock and was able to use it to gather 11 turnips in a day rather than 10.  Let’s assume that she does this for 10 days in a row.  Now, she could actually take the whole day off from harvesting turnips and simply study her rock – to see whether she could do even better than 11.  This, then, is called “research” – when you have a surplus of calories and spend it attempting to find a better way to harvest calories in the future.

Let’s say Jill does decide to spend her 10 turnip surplus on researching her new rock, but at the end of the day she is no better off than she was before.  She still harvests 11 turnips per day and Jack harvests 10.  So, after another 10 days she has an additional surplus of 10 turnips but this time she gives them to Jack, with the admonition to use the rock and attempt to harvest more than she can in a day.  She knows that he might not be able to do any at all – maybe the rock will prove to be a big waste of time.  If so, Jack goes back to using his hands for 10 / day, Jill uses the rock for 11 / day, and every 20 days or so they both take a day off and start laying around doing just nothing for a while.  Maybe they start to explore, go off in one direction or another.  Or maybe they just swim in a stream and enjoy a relaxation.  Regardless, they can do this because their society produced more calories per period than are consumed.  They are, in effect, Net Positive.

In part 4 we’ll discuss identifying resources as stockpiled or renewing, and then we can get into Surplus mesurements.

So perhaps I can give an illustration of what I mean when I say society must be only about calories, not about money. [Rod Serling voice on...] Imagine, if you will, a simpler time, far back in the past…

Let’s picture a simple society in which there are just two people.  Call them Jack and Jill.  Jack and Jill live in a field that has been planted with turnips.  Jack and Jill love turnips, so that’s a good thing, because that’s the only thing that there is to eat.  Other than picking and eating turnips, Jack and Jill don’t do much at all – they don’t have time to do.  It takes them twelve hours of waking time to pick and eat 10 turnips each, and by coincidence they each require 10 turnips per day to stay alive.  That is, if one of them were to eat only 9 one day, that person wouldn’t have the energy to survive the night and just wouldn’t wake up.

This is a tough situation – Jack and Jill consume just as much as they produce every day, and so their society continues.  Now, you might think it’s not much of a society when all there is to do is pick and eat turnips, but Jack and Jill don’t know any better.  They think that’s exactly what they’re supposed to do – pick and eat turnips.

So, for them, society is two people harvesting each day what they use during that day.  They don’t have “leisure time”, they don’t have rules and regulations, they don’t even have money.  Why would they?  What could they do with money?  If someone came up to them and handed them dollars, or francs, or rupees, what would they do with those?  They can’t eat dollars.  They can’t eat gold.  They can’t eat silver or yen or Euros.  So their society manages just fine without money.  As long as they continue to produce food (calories).

That, in a nutshell, is the simplest sort of society there is.  People subsisting at the basic level.  But from here, we can develop theories about all kinds of things.  We can see that there are natural resources, we can see that there is a standard of living, we can see that there will be value in specialization, in education, in regulation (where appropriate), in property ownership.

But for now, think about this:  What happens if Jill, one day, finds in the field a sharp rock?  And she, with that rock, is now able to dig and harvest 11 turnips in a day instead of 10?  What should she do?  Should she harvest 11, eat 10, and save 1 for another day in case she breaks her leg and can only harvest 9 that day, then eat the 1 she saved?  Should she harvest 11, eat 10, and give 1 to Jack so he doesn’t have to spend as much time digging turnips and can spend a little time thinking about that pointy rock and what he might do with it?  Should she actually give him the rock, and see whether he, too, can harvest 11 turnips in a day?  What if he were to harvest 12?  Or 15?  What should the society do then?

Stay tuned, more to come.  I know, the anticipation is killing you!

1)  I didn’t know then what I know now.  And that was probably a good thing.

2)  I think I agree with my wife, that I think too much.

Okay, here’s the real post.  I’m starting to write all of these theories down so that I don’t start forgetting them and I can begin to create the drafts of my longer works that will outline everything.

First, we need to determine one thing:  What is it that keeps a society going?  Is it culture (art, music, recreation)?  Religion?  Just laws?  Meaningful employment?  I suggest it is none of these thing.  In fact, the answer is much simpler:  food.

Yep – food.  That is the basis of society.  Food.  If there is no food (and by food I include water), then there are no people.  No people, no society.  Can people survive without carpet?  Yes, they have dirt floors or no floors at all.  Can people survive without cars?  Yes, they can use bicycles or walk or not go anywhere at all.  Can people survive without a banking system?  Yes, they simply use barter.  Can people survive without entertainment / religion / laws?  Yes, they can, as long as there is food.  Therefore, I postulate that the minimum requirement for a society to continue is to have an adequate food supply.  Without food, people die.  Without television, people do something else.  Like make more food.

So then, what good is money?  And why are we even considering it?  Well, according to my above post, money is just a useful proxy for food that our society produces.  And currently we use this measure called “Gross Domestic Product” to determine if our society is prospering or not.  Let me get some things off my chest, first, and then we can move on to discussing money vs. food.  Some criticisms.:

First, the GDP itself is useless unless we look at it per person.  That is, say your GDP went up one year  by a nice even amount of 5%.  Great, as long as your population didn’t grow by more than 5%.  You know why?  Because lets say your population grew by 10%.  Now, instead of being 5% more productive (as measured by GDP), every person in that society just got 4.5% less productive (1.05 / 1.10 = 0.955).  This is because the total amount of salaries must be spread around a larger base.  Imagine you have a pat of butter that needs to be put on a piece of bread.  Spread it nice and thick, in the base case.  Now, make the bread bigger, and make the butter just a little bigger.  It won’t be as thick, now, nor as satisfying.

Second, the GDP is useless unless it is adjusted for inflation.  So, let’s say prices rose last year by 5%, but the GDP rose only 3%.  Now, again, you’re a couple of % down because costs rose faster than the collective salaries of the people buying stuff.  So only when your GDP is increasing at or above the level of inflation will you actually be bettering your society.

But wait, don’t forget about the population!  So the real measure that we would need to look at to determine whether we, as a society, are better off today than a year ago should be our inflation-adjusted GDP per person.  Have you ever heard that statistic? Me, neither.

And, unfortunately, it’s still not the right measure of our productivity.  What is?  Find out next time.

I think this is an intriguing story, well-written by an obviously gifted writer.  I recommend listening or reading, as long as you can handle the foul language.  After finishing, I have two observations not directly tied to the story.

1)  This is a story of addiction.  Nathaniel Ayers was not addicted – he was schizophrenic.  However, Steve Lopez was addicted to helping Nathaniel.  Similar to anyone who loves someone with their own addiction, Lopez felt he had to do something to help Nathaniel.  Nathaniel, however, was just fine the way he was – even if he wasn’t perfect, rich, or “self-fulfilled”.  His story intrigued Lopez, and he got enthralled by the idea of being some white knight, swooping in and catalyzing a miracle.  Just like David Sheff, the father who was addicted to curing his son’s meth habit (Beautiful Boy, another audiobook I listened to last year), Lopez did not realize that he also had a problem.  He had to make Nathaniel better – it was somehow his responsibility, because he’d discovered him, he’d invested time and effort.  He had even pulled strings to get Nathaniel into Disney Hall for concerts and special backstage meetings.  And so when Nathaniel ignored offers, refused treatment, or generally didn’t change on Lopez’s time, it hurt.  Really, though, the hurt wasn’t because of Nathaniel – it was because of Lopez’s unrealistic expectations.

No real life-changing conclusion from all of this, except to see the parallel stories of those who love people with problems.  They ultimately can’t just love the person – they also love the idea of being a savior to that person.  They so much want to solve the problem that they overlook the reality that the addict often doesn’t want to change – no matter how much others may care about him.

2)  There was a dramatic shift in the narrative about five-sixths of the way through.  For the initial bulk of the book, Lopez talked about Nathaniel as “Nathaniel”.  He wrote as if they were friends – close friends.  Even though Nathaniel spoke to Lopez as “Mr. Lopez”, it never felt stand-offish or forced.  It felt natural and relaxed.  However, they had an argument regarding Lopez’s invitation of Nathaniel’s sister to come to L.A. and take over some powers of attorney.  After the falling-out, there was a change.  Apparently no longer comfortable with calling him Nathaniel, Lopez begins referring to him as “Mr. Ayers.”  That seems natural, when talking to someone.  But also, Lopez began to speak about Nathaniel as Mr. Ayers as well, even when not describing actual conversation.  That change jarred me throughout the rest of the book.  I don’t know if it was intentional or not, but either way, it was effective.  I was totally unsettled from that point to the end.  Even though the story had a positive meaning and impact, the change reinforced the abnormality of the situation.

 And why do so many people promote “compromise” as a good thing?  Perhaps, if there are differences of opinion whether a leaf is dark green or regular green, compromising and calling it darkish green is appropriate.  But if one of the sides is correct and the other is wrong, why should the correct have to be less so?  Why should the incorrect get more benefit of the doubt?  Do we compromise with those who want to steal our wallet and instead give them the keys to the car?  Do we compromise with those who want to rape our wives and instead give them our daughters?  Absurd.  So why do we accept compromise in government when it comes to things like budgets, which can be just as impactful as thievery?  Let’s instead begin to elect people who have principles, stand for them, and work to get them enacted.

About two months ago I found a link to a meta-journalistic piece called “Nearly 100 Fascinating Pieces of Journalism”.  http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/05/nearly-100-fantastic-pieces-of-journalism/238230/  I’ve been reading a few of these articles here and there, and I think I agree – all of them are excellent writing, very informative, and topics I wish I had opportunities to discuss and debate.  The article I read today was about hospice care – specifically, whether we (and by we I mean the general “civilized” society) has done the right thing by always promoting more life rather than better life.  Some quotes:

“Our medical system is excellent at trying to stave off death with eight-thousand-dollar-a-month chemotherapy, three-thousand-dollar-a-day intensive care, five-thousand-dollar-an-hour surgery. But, ultimately, death comes, and no one is good at knowing when to stop.”

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

Colorado

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Maine!!

actually I saw a truck one, but couldn't find a picture of it - too bad for you.

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

New Jersey

New York

Ohio

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Texas

Utah!!

close enough to what I saw

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia, and

Wisconsin.

And, just as exciting, I saw 3 non-states:

Washington, DC ["representation without taxation" it said]

Ontario, Canada,

and

Alberta, Canada.

Admittedly, many of these were on tractor-trailers.  But I’ll take it.  I’m no license plate snob.  I expected to see a Tennessee, Missouri, even North Carolina.  I often see those when driving through Ohio and Indiana, but didn’t.  I think I was most surprised by Utah, because I saw it not more than 1 minute after I was thinking, “I need to see one from Utah.  How am I gonna do that?  There’s nothing in Utah, nothing they’d be sending this way, anyway…”

Lo and behold, the next truck I saw had a UTAH license plate!  I think that was the exclamation that woke Jen up from her nap.  Overall, I saw 28 states, 31 different jurisdictions total.  I don’t expect a lot of different ones on the way back, but maybe I can pick up that elusive Nevada or exotic California…