Here are some interesting facts and figures about money.
According to our government, there are 316 million Americans living. We've all heard about the infamous 1%, that 1 in a 100 which owns more than 40 in that same 100 combined. (Seriously, check out these links, watch the full video, you will be shocked). But 1 in 100 is not that infrequent. I know more than 100 people, I run into more than that many on the street when I go out. Granted, I doubt I'm in the crowd where I'm likely to meet the super rich, but you get my point. There are 3,160,000 people in that 1% category.
So let's look a little further. There are 3 million in the top 1%, controlling 20% of the nation's income, but there are only 316,000 in the top 0.1%. That's better. How much do THEY make? About 10% of the nation's wealth. On average, they are making ten times more than the rest of the 1%. Well then, let's look at the top 0.01%, only 31,600 Americans! They earn 5% of the nation's income... that's 100 times more than the rest of the 1%. So now let's look at the 0.0000003%. Bill Gates.
Now, I'm not saying Bill Gates is a bad man. Sure, his business has had some "interesting" practices and he has done some rather underhanded things to earn that money, but what CEO hasn't? Through the Gates Foundation, he and his wife have donated over $28 billion to fund amazing and often life-saving projects around the world. He doesn't want his kids to inherit the money, because he wants them to work and earn money. Now, it's hard to say just how much his net worth is. When you're talking that level of income, an exact number is nearly impossible to pin down. But the 2013 World's Richest Man was estimated by Bloomberg to be worth about $72 billion. Even the Gates Foundation isn't a drop in that kind of bucket.
So, let's see what this means. If he could make all of his net worth fluid, Gates could give everyone in the world a big mac, fries, and a coke, and still have enough money to fund the Gates Foundation all over again. He could provide the bottom 1% of American households with over $600,000 each. That's more money than they would see in their entire lives. If he put this in a normal savings account that earned just 0.1% interest, his interest alone would be $72,000,000/year, or $197,000/day.
Suppose Bill Gates wanted to get rid of all of the money he has before he dies, assuming he makes no more. He estimates he will live another 20 years, putting him at 77, about the average lifespan of an American male. Hell, he could put $2 billion aside just in case he lives longer. To get rid of $70 billion in 20 years, he would have to spend $9.5 million/day. That's $400,000/hour, $6600/minute, $110/sec. Get the drift? He could pay for a kid's complete college education in a matter of minutes. If we gave him a million dollars a year, it would take over 70,000 years for him to earn what he has... far longer than history has been recorded.
But that's not all. Let's see how little you make. Let's say Maya earns a good salary of $100,000/year, take-home. That's a great amount of money, even for a family. enough to live comfortably on. She could work for 700,000 years and still not have as much. Let's give Maya some friends... she is in a community of 100 people who all earn $100,000/year and pool their money together. This would sound like a strong group of movers and shakers! This group still needs 7,000 years. The average American makes about $57,000/year, which is actually less than half what Maya does (hers is take-home pay). Perhaps we should all humble ourselves a little and change how we think of income. We aren't making $50,000/year, we're making 1.4-million-years-to-Gates.
Of course, with the inflation rate, you'll be further from today than we are from the dinosaurs before you earn anything close to what he has.
This is just a thought experiment, but I hope it shows you something. There is such a huge disparity between how much we have and how much the rich have that we cannot hope to understand it, let alone overcome it. It is no secret that the middle class is dying. So, if you are one of the 1%, or 0.0001%, or even 0.0000003% (I hope you're doing well, Mr. Gates), perhaps you will look at this and make a change. Because the rest of us don't have the kind of power you do.
Showing posts with label rhetoric. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rhetoric. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Distracted Driving and Statistics
It is generally common knowledge that 90% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Of course, who knows what the actual numbers are (I'm sure someone has written a thesis on this), but it is true that a surprising number of statistics are wrong. But what's worse are the statistics that aren't wrong, but are used incorrectly. These statistics are used to influence people and are a terrible abuse of math and science. Math and science are supposed to be about truth, but what happens when the "truth" isn't what it sounds like? To quote Mark Twain,
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
One example is from an article I read recently on daydreaming while driving. It turns out that Detroit has been busy using its copious extra money on useless studies instead of trying to make jobs and save its crumbling economy. According to this report, daydreaming while driving is the cause for 62% of fatal accidents caused by distraction, while only 12% of such accidents were caused by cell phone use.
Those in charge of this study then went ahead and claimed that "daydreaming is more dangerous than texting." Does anyone else see the gap in logic here, or is it just me?
While on the surface this may seem alarming, which is probably why the news has picked up the story. But let's just dig a little deeper.
What are the statistics for the percentage of people who regularly use cell phones while driving? What about those who text while driving? Or who use phones without hands-free devices? I do not know these numbers, but if I were to guess, I'd say something like.. oh.. 10% of people will text while driving.
Now, how many people daydream while driving? Again, I don't know the number, but my uneducated guess would be... 100%. Yes, I firmly believe that everyone at some point lets their mind wander while they are behind the wheel.
Now, let's put these two together. Again, I am making up the numbers to prove a point. Let's say the percentage of people who get into fatal accidents is 1%. That makes 0.62% of those caused by drivers who daydream. This means that if you daydream, you have a 0.62% chance of getting into a fatal accident, because 100% of drivers daydream. Now let's say you are texting. Although only 0.12% of that 1% of fatal accidents is caused by texting... only 10% of the drivers text. That means, if you text, you have a 1.2% chance of getting into a fatal accident. That's TWICE as dangerous as daydreaming.
Now, I do not know if daydreaming really is more dangerous than texting, but I seriously, seriously doubt it. However, the point I am trying to make is that you have to think about the statistics you are being told. Just because the news report or some study jumps to conclusions doesn't mean you have to. Particularly when it comes to statistics.
Of course, who knows what the actual numbers are (I'm sure someone has written a thesis on this), but it is true that a surprising number of statistics are wrong. But what's worse are the statistics that aren't wrong, but are used incorrectly. These statistics are used to influence people and are a terrible abuse of math and science. Math and science are supposed to be about truth, but what happens when the "truth" isn't what it sounds like? To quote Mark Twain,
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
One example is from an article I read recently on daydreaming while driving. It turns out that Detroit has been busy using its copious extra money on useless studies instead of trying to make jobs and save its crumbling economy. According to this report, daydreaming while driving is the cause for 62% of fatal accidents caused by distraction, while only 12% of such accidents were caused by cell phone use.
Those in charge of this study then went ahead and claimed that "daydreaming is more dangerous than texting." Does anyone else see the gap in logic here, or is it just me?
While on the surface this may seem alarming, which is probably why the news has picked up the story. But let's just dig a little deeper.
What are the statistics for the percentage of people who regularly use cell phones while driving? What about those who text while driving? Or who use phones without hands-free devices? I do not know these numbers, but if I were to guess, I'd say something like.. oh.. 10% of people will text while driving.
Now, how many people daydream while driving? Again, I don't know the number, but my uneducated guess would be... 100%. Yes, I firmly believe that everyone at some point lets their mind wander while they are behind the wheel.
Now, let's put these two together. Again, I am making up the numbers to prove a point. Let's say the percentage of people who get into fatal accidents is 1%. That makes 0.62% of those caused by drivers who daydream. This means that if you daydream, you have a 0.62% chance of getting into a fatal accident, because 100% of drivers daydream. Now let's say you are texting. Although only 0.12% of that 1% of fatal accidents is caused by texting... only 10% of the drivers text. That means, if you text, you have a 1.2% chance of getting into a fatal accident. That's TWICE as dangerous as daydreaming.
Now, I do not know if daydreaming really is more dangerous than texting, but I seriously, seriously doubt it. However, the point I am trying to make is that you have to think about the statistics you are being told. Just because the news report or some study jumps to conclusions doesn't mean you have to. Particularly when it comes to statistics.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
How not to lose weight
There is something that I've learned we are missing in the education of our children. I would say that it is "common sense," but it goes further than that. It has to do with a capacity for logic. It's "skepticism."
Why is this a good thing and not a bad? To start out, true skeptics are indeed open-minded. They just don't want to be made a fool of and believe something at face value. A true skeptic would be thrilled if it turned out psychic powers are real. But we do not want to just believe Joe Schmo on the street when he claims he's psychic - he has to prove it. Scientifically. There shouldn't be any doubt.
Skepticism, however, goes further than psychics. We run into situations every day where we should be doubting what we are told. Turn on the radio or the TV and you are bombarded with commercials whose sole purpose is to convince you to part with your money. They will make any claim they can legally get away with to persuade you, and that is the problem. Too many people don't realize that every word they are saying has been mulled over by a team of lawyers to make sure they can't get sued. Why would lawyers have to be worried about something like that if their claims were true at face value?
The worst case I've heard recently was a radio commercial. It is yet another "miracle weight loss" drug that will make you "lose weight, fast" without having to exercise, diet, etc. Here's the clincher. "These ingredients have been clinically tested to help you lose weight." Did you catch that?
Clinically "tested."
That doesn't mean they were scientifically proven, or that science even suggests that they can help you lose weight (and, by the way, "help" us lose weight? Shouldn't that be "make" you lose weight?). All this means is that the makers of this likely benign and inert chemical tested it themselves and didn't tell you what the conclusions were. For all we know, they make you fatter, or made lab rats grow a second head. And it claims that the ingredients were tested, but not the drug itself. Did you know that there is sulfuric acid in corn syrup? That apples contain cyanide? Or that bitter almonds can kill you? But in most cases the harmful parts have been removed/processed or are too small to affect you. And it's easy to make dangerous chemicals out of household ingredients that are, in and of themselves, benign. So testing the ingredients isn't doing any good.
Often the weight loss drugs in question use people's lack of scientific understanding to make spurious claims. My favorite was one that claimed that people who used the drug lost 10 pounds in 6 months, which was far less than the average person loses by just moderately exercising. One of these products, Sensa, claims that it actually makes you lose more weight than the average. But take a look at the ingredients and you'll find that all of them are benign or pass right through your system, doing nothing to you or your appetite. Look carefully and you'll see that they aren't claiming the drug Sensa makes you lose weight, by but that the Sensa System does. And what is that system? When you use Sensa, you are asked to count your calories and mark down what you eat. That simple act, keeping a food journal, makes you cognizant of how much you are eating and makes you eat healthier.
There, I just saved you a bunch of money.
Doubting everything you hear is not a bad thing, it is a cautious thing that can prevent you from losing money, or even keep you out of jail. As Descartes put it, "I doubt, therefore I am." If you are indeed looking to lose weight, first you should go to your doctor and ask him/her for advice. Then, you should start exercising (provided your doctor has given you the go-ahead). Finally, eat your food in moderation, and chose the healthiest foods you can. Don't eat until you are full - just eat until you are no longer hungry. And eat slowly. Give your brain time to realize that you're no longer hungry. I am not a nutrition expert, a doctor, or a weigh-loss guru. I'm just a guy who likes to think things through.
Why is this a good thing and not a bad? To start out, true skeptics are indeed open-minded. They just don't want to be made a fool of and believe something at face value. A true skeptic would be thrilled if it turned out psychic powers are real. But we do not want to just believe Joe Schmo on the street when he claims he's psychic - he has to prove it. Scientifically. There shouldn't be any doubt.
Skepticism, however, goes further than psychics. We run into situations every day where we should be doubting what we are told. Turn on the radio or the TV and you are bombarded with commercials whose sole purpose is to convince you to part with your money. They will make any claim they can legally get away with to persuade you, and that is the problem. Too many people don't realize that every word they are saying has been mulled over by a team of lawyers to make sure they can't get sued. Why would lawyers have to be worried about something like that if their claims were true at face value?
The worst case I've heard recently was a radio commercial. It is yet another "miracle weight loss" drug that will make you "lose weight, fast" without having to exercise, diet, etc. Here's the clincher. "These ingredients have been clinically tested to help you lose weight." Did you catch that?
Clinically "tested."
That doesn't mean they were scientifically proven, or that science even suggests that they can help you lose weight (and, by the way, "help" us lose weight? Shouldn't that be "make" you lose weight?). All this means is that the makers of this likely benign and inert chemical tested it themselves and didn't tell you what the conclusions were. For all we know, they make you fatter, or made lab rats grow a second head. And it claims that the ingredients were tested, but not the drug itself. Did you know that there is sulfuric acid in corn syrup? That apples contain cyanide? Or that bitter almonds can kill you? But in most cases the harmful parts have been removed/processed or are too small to affect you. And it's easy to make dangerous chemicals out of household ingredients that are, in and of themselves, benign. So testing the ingredients isn't doing any good.
Often the weight loss drugs in question use people's lack of scientific understanding to make spurious claims. My favorite was one that claimed that people who used the drug lost 10 pounds in 6 months, which was far less than the average person loses by just moderately exercising. One of these products, Sensa, claims that it actually makes you lose more weight than the average. But take a look at the ingredients and you'll find that all of them are benign or pass right through your system, doing nothing to you or your appetite. Look carefully and you'll see that they aren't claiming the drug Sensa makes you lose weight, by but that the Sensa System does. And what is that system? When you use Sensa, you are asked to count your calories and mark down what you eat. That simple act, keeping a food journal, makes you cognizant of how much you are eating and makes you eat healthier.
There, I just saved you a bunch of money.
Doubting everything you hear is not a bad thing, it is a cautious thing that can prevent you from losing money, or even keep you out of jail. As Descartes put it, "I doubt, therefore I am." If you are indeed looking to lose weight, first you should go to your doctor and ask him/her for advice. Then, you should start exercising (provided your doctor has given you the go-ahead). Finally, eat your food in moderation, and chose the healthiest foods you can. Don't eat until you are full - just eat until you are no longer hungry. And eat slowly. Give your brain time to realize that you're no longer hungry. I am not a nutrition expert, a doctor, or a weigh-loss guru. I'm just a guy who likes to think things through.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Matrimonious
It appears this blog has added an additional purpose to itself - that of a personal platform for my beliefs, be it religious or political. I know that not everyone shares my beliefs, and I am fine with that. I do ask that you read what I have to say before making a judgement, and then reflect on the logic of your own arguments, as well as mine. It may not make a difference in the long run, but at the very least it will make you entertain another point of view for a while, and that is never a bad thing.
As many of you are likely aware (and the rest of you should be), the Supreme Court has been hearing the case of marriage equality in our country. And it's about time. There have been many controversial cases involving marriage equality in recent years, from the entire California Proposition 8 fiasco, to DOMA, to Perry v Schwarzenegger. There are at least 4 cases the Supreme Court has to decide on, and this week may see an end to all of them.
Now, I've heard a lot of arguments for and against Same-Sex Marriages. After hearing them all, I've found that none of the arguments against it hold any water in a debate. In fact, some of the articles I've read, particularly this one, are so bad that even their analogies and metaphors make no sense. (Obviously this writer was never very good at checkers if he never tried to plan anything out). A brief run-down of the ones I can think of off the top of my head:
1) You're "redefining" marriage! Or "undefining" it!
2) Marriage is about procreation!
3) Think of the children!
4) The Bible says it is wrong!
5) It threatens all marriages and the very fabric of our society!
6) God hates fags!
7) It will destroy the "sanctity of marriage."
To these arguments, I have this to say:
1) Yes, and it is not a bad thing. Just as we redefined what a "person" is (to include, for instance, blacks), what a "voter" is (to include, for instance, women), and what a "soldier" is (again, women on the front lines). In fact, our legal documents are meant to be looked at time and time again and changed according to how our society has evolved. Redefining something means the system is working. Refusing to means we are not progressing as a society.
2) Tell that to old people, infertile people, and people who don't want kids. Besides, with the abortion rates so high and the demand for adoption so high, I think procreation is not a problem in this country. Hollister v Perry showed that marriage in this country has NEVER been about procreation and that there is no legal wording or documentation to support this argument.
3) Children of same-sex couples lead happy, normal, lives, just like those of stable heterosexual couples. Children of single-parent homes can, too. It's not like being gay rubs off on others.
4) The Bible has surprisingly little to say about the kind of gay relationships we are talking about here. Almost all of the 6 (yes, 6) references in the Bible are talking about sodomy as an act of forced submission during war, not as a stable, loving relationship. The other references to it (none of which are from Jesus) are very ambiguous in their wording and meaning. Paul himself said you should only get married if your lust for each other is so great you would commit the sin of fornication otherwise. Why would he say this? Well, because he thought Jesus would be coming ANY DAY and we had no time to turn our love anywhere other than to God. Besides, so what? To an atheist, the Bible is just a work of fiction, so why should an atheist gay couple be bound by it?
5) No, refusing to pass this law does. Our marriages are just fine, but if society can't move forward, we are moving backwards. This argument is nothing but fear-mongering.
6) Nice try, Phelps.
7) Ah.... 7...
Number 7 is the one I really can't stand. Argument-wise it is the love-child of "Bible" and "threatens us" arguments, with a bit of "procreation" thrown in for good measure. When someone uses number 7, I cringe inside. I was watching a video on facebook where this was brought up and the speaker, Senator Diane Savino, eloquently tears it apart. Watch it yourself to hear her case. She makes the same case that people have made for decades, essentially that the way our society treats heterosexual marriage is what is really destroying its sanctity. Only briefly does she get close to the true trump card against this.
The truth is, the word "sanctity" is defined as "holiness" or "godliness." It is an entirely moot point. The Supreme Court is not attempting to vote on whether or not marriages are holy, because the Supreme Court is a legal, secular institution, not a religious one. According to our laws, no deity or holiness enters into marriage at all. Marriage is nothing more than a legal institution, a procedure that grants certain benefits to two legally responsible adults (or at least close to adults; I personally believe we should ban marriage under the age of 18). The government has no right to deny two people from receiving those benefits, regardless of who they are. We have freedom of religion here, so it is wrong that any religion should be brought up in a legal battle like this. I have no problem with a church refusing to marry a couple on grounds of the marriage being against their beliefs. It is their right, as the government should not force a church to do something against its beliefs. Hell, I was married Episcopalian, where we have to wait 6 months after getting engaged, attend the church we will be married in regularly during that time, and go to marriage counseling before the wedding or else they will not perform it! How many marriages would happen if everyone had to go through that? No, there is no sanctity at risk here at all. If you're worried that "marriage" will be less holy, bring that concern up with your church. If you don't like their policy, change churches. Don't change the government to suit your bigoted worldview. Because it needs to accommodate everyone, even those whose religions don't think same-sex marriages are wrong.
As many of you are likely aware (and the rest of you should be), the Supreme Court has been hearing the case of marriage equality in our country. And it's about time. There have been many controversial cases involving marriage equality in recent years, from the entire California Proposition 8 fiasco, to DOMA, to Perry v Schwarzenegger. There are at least 4 cases the Supreme Court has to decide on, and this week may see an end to all of them.
Now, I've heard a lot of arguments for and against Same-Sex Marriages. After hearing them all, I've found that none of the arguments against it hold any water in a debate. In fact, some of the articles I've read, particularly this one, are so bad that even their analogies and metaphors make no sense. (Obviously this writer was never very good at checkers if he never tried to plan anything out). A brief run-down of the ones I can think of off the top of my head:
1) You're "redefining" marriage! Or "undefining" it!
2) Marriage is about procreation!
3) Think of the children!
4) The Bible says it is wrong!
5) It threatens all marriages and the very fabric of our society!
6) God hates fags!
7) It will destroy the "sanctity of marriage."
To these arguments, I have this to say:
1) Yes, and it is not a bad thing. Just as we redefined what a "person" is (to include, for instance, blacks), what a "voter" is (to include, for instance, women), and what a "soldier" is (again, women on the front lines). In fact, our legal documents are meant to be looked at time and time again and changed according to how our society has evolved. Redefining something means the system is working. Refusing to means we are not progressing as a society.
2) Tell that to old people, infertile people, and people who don't want kids. Besides, with the abortion rates so high and the demand for adoption so high, I think procreation is not a problem in this country. Hollister v Perry showed that marriage in this country has NEVER been about procreation and that there is no legal wording or documentation to support this argument.
3) Children of same-sex couples lead happy, normal, lives, just like those of stable heterosexual couples. Children of single-parent homes can, too. It's not like being gay rubs off on others.
4) The Bible has surprisingly little to say about the kind of gay relationships we are talking about here. Almost all of the 6 (yes, 6) references in the Bible are talking about sodomy as an act of forced submission during war, not as a stable, loving relationship. The other references to it (none of which are from Jesus) are very ambiguous in their wording and meaning. Paul himself said you should only get married if your lust for each other is so great you would commit the sin of fornication otherwise. Why would he say this? Well, because he thought Jesus would be coming ANY DAY and we had no time to turn our love anywhere other than to God. Besides, so what? To an atheist, the Bible is just a work of fiction, so why should an atheist gay couple be bound by it?
5) No, refusing to pass this law does. Our marriages are just fine, but if society can't move forward, we are moving backwards. This argument is nothing but fear-mongering.
6) Nice try, Phelps.
7) Ah.... 7...
Number 7 is the one I really can't stand. Argument-wise it is the love-child of "Bible" and "threatens us" arguments, with a bit of "procreation" thrown in for good measure. When someone uses number 7, I cringe inside. I was watching a video on facebook where this was brought up and the speaker, Senator Diane Savino, eloquently tears it apart. Watch it yourself to hear her case. She makes the same case that people have made for decades, essentially that the way our society treats heterosexual marriage is what is really destroying its sanctity. Only briefly does she get close to the true trump card against this.
The truth is, the word "sanctity" is defined as "holiness" or "godliness." It is an entirely moot point. The Supreme Court is not attempting to vote on whether or not marriages are holy, because the Supreme Court is a legal, secular institution, not a religious one. According to our laws, no deity or holiness enters into marriage at all. Marriage is nothing more than a legal institution, a procedure that grants certain benefits to two legally responsible adults (or at least close to adults; I personally believe we should ban marriage under the age of 18). The government has no right to deny two people from receiving those benefits, regardless of who they are. We have freedom of religion here, so it is wrong that any religion should be brought up in a legal battle like this. I have no problem with a church refusing to marry a couple on grounds of the marriage being against their beliefs. It is their right, as the government should not force a church to do something against its beliefs. Hell, I was married Episcopalian, where we have to wait 6 months after getting engaged, attend the church we will be married in regularly during that time, and go to marriage counseling before the wedding or else they will not perform it! How many marriages would happen if everyone had to go through that? No, there is no sanctity at risk here at all. If you're worried that "marriage" will be less holy, bring that concern up with your church. If you don't like their policy, change churches. Don't change the government to suit your bigoted worldview. Because it needs to accommodate everyone, even those whose religions don't think same-sex marriages are wrong.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
BSA
As many of you know, the Boy Scouts of America has been addressing the matter of allowing openly gay scouts and leaders into their ranks. Under current regulations, it is not permitted, and a scout or leader will be removed from the program for being openly gay. This has been a controversial topic for many reasons - so controversial, in fact, that the BSA postponed its decision until May.
Some of you may support the current regulations. I, however, strongly oppose them. But before you bash the BSA for being bigoted, allow me to open your eyes a little to their dilemma. The BSA usually works through "chartered" organizations. That is, a troop is chartered to an organization, such as a church or school. The troop meets there, it gets money from there, and can even get its scoutmaster from it. Of course, just because a troop meets and is chartered by, say, a mormon or baptist church does not mean that the scouts or leaders have to be mormon or baptist or even religious. But if the BSA decides to allow openly gay scouts and leaders into their ranks, many of these groups will turn the BSA away, and those troops will be left without a charter. With nowhere to meet, what will happen to them? With no money, how will they survive? So the issue of whether or not the BSA allows gays to join them is not so cut-and-dry as many people believe.
Well, today I received an email from the BSA asking for my opinion through a lengthy survey because I am an Assistant Scoutmaster and Eagle Scout. I most certainly let them know my mind, and I wish to share it with you.
Of course, like an idiot, I copied the thing I wrote and forgot to paste it before copying something else. So I will have to paraphrase what I sent.
The question:
What are you most concerned about if the BSA does not adopt the policy of allowing openly gay members?
The answer:
First of all, it is every American's right to be gay or straight, and in most cases discriminating against someone based on their sexual orientation is against the law. Secondly, a scout is brave. It is one of the twelve tenants of the Scout Law. What kind of message does it send to scouts and the nation if the BSA itself cannot stand up against bigotry and do what is right, regardless of the threats it faces? How can the BSA reprimand a scout who bravely declares he is gay without becoming hypocritical? Those who oppose gay rights are ruled by fear and ignorance. They believe that being gay necessitates that you are also a pervert and a pedophile, but that is not the case. These ideals stand in direct opposition to what Scouting stands for. Finally, history has shown that the oppressed are usually right. Today's youth overwhelmingly support gay rights. Does the BSA wish to stand in the way of progress and promote bigoted ideals, or does it want to lead the next generation of leaders through its own example? If the BSA refuses to allow equal rights within its ranks, it will either revisit this decision in coming years or be doomed to extinction.
The question:
What are you most concerned about if the BSA does adopt the policy of allowing openly gay members?
The answer:
I am in full support of allowing openly gay scouts and leaders into the organization. It is a good and right thing to do. However, I am concerned on two fronts. The first is that charters will threaten to separate themselves from the BSA and the BSA will cave in. The second is that at some point, one openly gay leader or scout WILL harass a scout and the media will blow it out of proportion. It will ignore the many straight leaders or already harass boys, and the BSA will rethink its policy based on this fear-mongering.
Do I know what is best for Scouting in general? No, of course not. I do not know what kind of threats the BSA has received or will receive because of this potential policy. If most of the charters leave the scouts hanging with nowhere to go, it would essentially end the scouting movement in America and prove that the USA has a *very* long way to go. On the other hand, if it doesn't adopt this policy, more and more young adults will steer clear of the organization (because they support gay rights), and when they have kids they will keep them out of scouting. Without any scouts or leaders, the BSA will fail. However, I believe that the BSA needs to take a chance and show its youth that we do not negotiate with bullies, even if those bullies have positions of authority over us.
Some of you may support the current regulations. I, however, strongly oppose them. But before you bash the BSA for being bigoted, allow me to open your eyes a little to their dilemma. The BSA usually works through "chartered" organizations. That is, a troop is chartered to an organization, such as a church or school. The troop meets there, it gets money from there, and can even get its scoutmaster from it. Of course, just because a troop meets and is chartered by, say, a mormon or baptist church does not mean that the scouts or leaders have to be mormon or baptist or even religious. But if the BSA decides to allow openly gay scouts and leaders into their ranks, many of these groups will turn the BSA away, and those troops will be left without a charter. With nowhere to meet, what will happen to them? With no money, how will they survive? So the issue of whether or not the BSA allows gays to join them is not so cut-and-dry as many people believe.
Well, today I received an email from the BSA asking for my opinion through a lengthy survey because I am an Assistant Scoutmaster and Eagle Scout. I most certainly let them know my mind, and I wish to share it with you.
Of course, like an idiot, I copied the thing I wrote and forgot to paste it before copying something else. So I will have to paraphrase what I sent.
The question:
What are you most concerned about if the BSA does not adopt the policy of allowing openly gay members?
The answer:
First of all, it is every American's right to be gay or straight, and in most cases discriminating against someone based on their sexual orientation is against the law. Secondly, a scout is brave. It is one of the twelve tenants of the Scout Law. What kind of message does it send to scouts and the nation if the BSA itself cannot stand up against bigotry and do what is right, regardless of the threats it faces? How can the BSA reprimand a scout who bravely declares he is gay without becoming hypocritical? Those who oppose gay rights are ruled by fear and ignorance. They believe that being gay necessitates that you are also a pervert and a pedophile, but that is not the case. These ideals stand in direct opposition to what Scouting stands for. Finally, history has shown that the oppressed are usually right. Today's youth overwhelmingly support gay rights. Does the BSA wish to stand in the way of progress and promote bigoted ideals, or does it want to lead the next generation of leaders through its own example? If the BSA refuses to allow equal rights within its ranks, it will either revisit this decision in coming years or be doomed to extinction.
The question:
What are you most concerned about if the BSA does adopt the policy of allowing openly gay members?
The answer:
I am in full support of allowing openly gay scouts and leaders into the organization. It is a good and right thing to do. However, I am concerned on two fronts. The first is that charters will threaten to separate themselves from the BSA and the BSA will cave in. The second is that at some point, one openly gay leader or scout WILL harass a scout and the media will blow it out of proportion. It will ignore the many straight leaders or already harass boys, and the BSA will rethink its policy based on this fear-mongering.
Do I know what is best for Scouting in general? No, of course not. I do not know what kind of threats the BSA has received or will receive because of this potential policy. If most of the charters leave the scouts hanging with nowhere to go, it would essentially end the scouting movement in America and prove that the USA has a *very* long way to go. On the other hand, if it doesn't adopt this policy, more and more young adults will steer clear of the organization (because they support gay rights), and when they have kids they will keep them out of scouting. Without any scouts or leaders, the BSA will fail. However, I believe that the BSA needs to take a chance and show its youth that we do not negotiate with bullies, even if those bullies have positions of authority over us.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Anti-Choice Male
Ah, Facebook. Too often you are a forum for politics and ideologies to be slung blindly at others, with no real outcome one way or the other. I am usually not one to put much emotional stake in these posts, which happen far too frequently on my facebook. You see, my friends cover the full political and ideological spectrum, from extreme conservative to extreme liberal, atheist to right-wing Christian to Muslim to Jew to liberal Christian. I am rather open-minded about such matters; I have my faith and beliefs, and you have yours. I won't impose mine, you don't impost yours, we'll get along just fine. Unfortunately, an old college friend of mine made a post that I felt I needed to comment on for some reason, and now I regret it. I've been so upset over the posts that I can't even seem to function normally. As a writer, this post is my therapy. I am not interested in getting in "the last word," and I am not going to be arguing for my standpoint. This is not a discussion, and to prevent this I have disabled comments. That being said, I do hope the friend in question reads this all the way through.
The post in question was a remark against Republicans, of which I am not. To keep a long post manageable, let me say that the discussion which followed quickly became one about pro-choice vs. pro-life. I am pro-life; I have no qualms about letting people know this. This does not mean I'm a weirdo, that I'm going to go kill some doctors or march in the streets with a mutilated doll on a crucifix. I believe that, if you look at the evidence, one has to come up with the realization that abortion is indeed murder. I understand that not everyone thinks this way, and my friend, let's call her Mary, is one of those people. This is fine; my wife is pro-choice. But, until someone actually comes to me with an argument that holds water, I will remain adamantly pro-life.
I very quickly realized that our discussion was going nowhere. And the longer it continued, the more upset I was becoming over it. For a while I wondered what it was about this debate that got to me so much more than others. I've heard all the arguments before, who hasn't? After a while, however, I realized what it was that bugged me so much. It wasn't the debate over being pro-life and pro-choice, it was actually that Mary had casually insulted me, as if it was a normal thing to do and without provocation. She called me "anti-choice," as if I'm some backwards misogynist trying to keep women in the kitchen. I'm a stay-at-home dad. I believe that we should be able to make whatever choices we like, provided those choices don't hinder someone else's basic rights (one of the reasons I'm not Republican or Democrat). I am not anti-choice, I am pro-life. I don't go around calling people pro-death, or anti-life. I still do not know why she felt the need to just fling an insult at me - I thought we were better friends than that! Besides, to someone who is truly pro-life, an abortion takes away someone else's basic rights, the right to choose, to pursue happiness, to be free, to live.
That being said, I think I could have gotten over a minor insult like that, had it not been for the next. Mary, in different words, said that I had no right to choose to be pro-life because I am a male and have not been/never will be pregnant. THAT hurts, and for many reasons. 1) if you're pro-choice, then you need to respect that I can make decisions too. 2) I'm not stupid, uneducated, uninformed, or cruel. I know I cannot be pregnant, but I was there every step of the way during my wife's pregnancy and natural birth. 3) That statement has no purpose in a debate like this. It is not about pregnancy, but about life. 4) If the fact that I am male prevents me from arguing this with you, then pretend I'm a female and continue. Trust me, there are female pro-lifers. Being a woman does not automatically make you pro-choice. 5) The things that go on during pregnancy involve a lot of hormones and emotions (I am not saying women are entirely hormonal and emotional, this is just the truth. It is how their bodies and minds work to cope with the changes that they have to undergo). Saying I can't argue with you because I've never experienced these things is hiding behind them and insulting women EVERYWHERE. 6) The statement is inherently sexist. So what if I'm a male?! I'm also your friend, I have a pretty strong imagination, understanding, and sense of logic, and I care as much for equal rights and treatment as anyone. The last thing I expected to hear from my friend Mary, a very strong, smart, caring, and concerned woman and mother (who also strongly believes in equality) was a sexist statement like that one! How do I even begin to defend the fact that I am a man?
Now, I do not ask for any kind of apology or a continuation of any sort of debate. I'm not even asking that we maintain or dissolve our friendship. As I stated earlier, the purpose of this post is therapeutic. It is simply getting my thoughts out there. I hope that I did not insult my friend either now or during the debate in an way. All I simply ask is that, even if we are debating something, we treat each other with respect. And this does not just go for me and my friend, but for everyone. We should all try to treat each other with respect, especially while we're debating things. Otherwise, the debate gets lost and friends turn on each other. Perhaps we all just need to take facebook a little less seriously and stop using it as a personal soapbox.
The post in question was a remark against Republicans, of which I am not. To keep a long post manageable, let me say that the discussion which followed quickly became one about pro-choice vs. pro-life. I am pro-life; I have no qualms about letting people know this. This does not mean I'm a weirdo, that I'm going to go kill some doctors or march in the streets with a mutilated doll on a crucifix. I believe that, if you look at the evidence, one has to come up with the realization that abortion is indeed murder. I understand that not everyone thinks this way, and my friend, let's call her Mary, is one of those people. This is fine; my wife is pro-choice. But, until someone actually comes to me with an argument that holds water, I will remain adamantly pro-life.
I very quickly realized that our discussion was going nowhere. And the longer it continued, the more upset I was becoming over it. For a while I wondered what it was about this debate that got to me so much more than others. I've heard all the arguments before, who hasn't? After a while, however, I realized what it was that bugged me so much. It wasn't the debate over being pro-life and pro-choice, it was actually that Mary had casually insulted me, as if it was a normal thing to do and without provocation. She called me "anti-choice," as if I'm some backwards misogynist trying to keep women in the kitchen. I'm a stay-at-home dad. I believe that we should be able to make whatever choices we like, provided those choices don't hinder someone else's basic rights (one of the reasons I'm not Republican or Democrat). I am not anti-choice, I am pro-life. I don't go around calling people pro-death, or anti-life. I still do not know why she felt the need to just fling an insult at me - I thought we were better friends than that! Besides, to someone who is truly pro-life, an abortion takes away someone else's basic rights, the right to choose, to pursue happiness, to be free, to live.
That being said, I think I could have gotten over a minor insult like that, had it not been for the next. Mary, in different words, said that I had no right to choose to be pro-life because I am a male and have not been/never will be pregnant. THAT hurts, and for many reasons. 1) if you're pro-choice, then you need to respect that I can make decisions too. 2) I'm not stupid, uneducated, uninformed, or cruel. I know I cannot be pregnant, but I was there every step of the way during my wife's pregnancy and natural birth. 3) That statement has no purpose in a debate like this. It is not about pregnancy, but about life. 4) If the fact that I am male prevents me from arguing this with you, then pretend I'm a female and continue. Trust me, there are female pro-lifers. Being a woman does not automatically make you pro-choice. 5) The things that go on during pregnancy involve a lot of hormones and emotions (I am not saying women are entirely hormonal and emotional, this is just the truth. It is how their bodies and minds work to cope with the changes that they have to undergo). Saying I can't argue with you because I've never experienced these things is hiding behind them and insulting women EVERYWHERE. 6) The statement is inherently sexist. So what if I'm a male?! I'm also your friend, I have a pretty strong imagination, understanding, and sense of logic, and I care as much for equal rights and treatment as anyone. The last thing I expected to hear from my friend Mary, a very strong, smart, caring, and concerned woman and mother (who also strongly believes in equality) was a sexist statement like that one! How do I even begin to defend the fact that I am a man?
Now, I do not ask for any kind of apology or a continuation of any sort of debate. I'm not even asking that we maintain or dissolve our friendship. As I stated earlier, the purpose of this post is therapeutic. It is simply getting my thoughts out there. I hope that I did not insult my friend either now or during the debate in an way. All I simply ask is that, even if we are debating something, we treat each other with respect. And this does not just go for me and my friend, but for everyone. We should all try to treat each other with respect, especially while we're debating things. Otherwise, the debate gets lost and friends turn on each other. Perhaps we all just need to take facebook a little less seriously and stop using it as a personal soapbox.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Logic Laguna
First, I would like to say that I am very much enjoying my story and that I am now past 27k words. I just hope it ends up at least 50k!
Now onto the main part of this post. I have always had a logical mind. I think things through from as many possible angles as I can. And I tend to do a good job getting all the angles. I blame my father, who is a systems engineer, and raised me to see ever problem with a series of inputs and outputs. All you need to do is identify ALL of those.
It irks me to no end when I hear a claim that has nothing to back it up, yet is accepted universally. This happens much more often than you might realize.
Let me give you an example. I recently saw a hand dryer that claimed it was more environmentally friendly and more sanitary than using paper towels. I would like to see evidence. Allow me to give you the inputs and outputs of each.
First, sanitation. Many models are now hands-free, using infrared or some other sensor to determine if someone's hand is beneath it. This is actually a good thing, if programmed correctly. They should stay on for as long as your hands are beneath, and you don't have to touch anything. In this case, there are no inputs (other than the flow of air), and the item is, indeed, as sanitary as you can get. There are other problems with this, but I'll get to that later. However, the model I looked at was NOT a hands-free version. It was one of the ones we all know and hate. Push a great big shiny (and usually damp) button to turn it on. Put yours hands beneath. Rub them until it turns off. Then, either rub your hands on your pants (which is very unsanitary) or turn it on AGAIN until it actually gets your hands dry. Then turn off the water and open the door. In the process of washing your hands, you have touched surfaces that dirty hands have touched 4 times since you rinsed the soap off.
Let's try a paper towel dispenser. some paper towel dispensers are, admittedly, terrible. Pull on one and you pull out a hundred or rip several to shreds. Others involve having to wind something that is wet to get the towel out. However, many allow the user to simply pull on a sanitary paper towel, not having to touch anything which has ever been touched by man before. Either way, you can then turn the water off WITH that paper towel AND open the door with it. Do this correctly, and you have touched 0 surfaces (or 1 surface, depending on the kind of dispenser) since you rinsed the soap off your hands.
So, unless your hand dryer is infrared, it is actually LESS sanitary.
Next, we'll tackle the environment. Now, this one deals with a lot more variables, so there really is no winner. However, as you will see, it is not clear cut and easy to define. In fact, the environmental impact may very well depend on where you are washing your hands.
Both products are made with many metal parts that all have to be manufactured in a factory. However, the hand dryer has decidedly more and more intricate parts, thus requiring more energy and resources (and designing) to produce. The hand dryer is then hooked up to the grid. If you have an infrared sensor in it, it will supposedly only turn on when actually in use, thus saving energy. The one caveat is that sometimes things other than a person with wet hands can activate it. However, most hand dryers still use the classic button. These usually have to be activated twice to actually get your hands dry. They will also often be activated and used for only a quarter or half the time it is on, then abandoned and left to just run (there is no way to turn it off). To heat a coil requires a good deal of energy, so every time someone uses your product, it is taking energy from the grid. This is in turn being provided to the grid by a variety of local resources. It could be that the only power plants near you are coal plants or oil plants. This means you just spewed quite a bit of waste into the environment. If you're lucky, you live near a solar plant, hydro plant, wind turbines, or a nuclear plant, thus not spewing anything into the environment (with nuclear, however, the waste must still be dealt with).
Let's look at this further. A nuclear plant? Really? Yes, really. Nuclear, despite common misconceptions, is remarkably safe. You aren't getting exposed, and you aren't going to see mutant fish like in the Simpsons. The waste is stored at the plant to taken elsewhere to be buried, where it is monitored by the NRC. It is contained and will not be affecting the environment, barring an act of God like a 9.0 earthquake.
But Spencer, why only power plants nearby? Surely the electricity on the grid is shared by all plants providing power to it! Not true. The fact of the matter is, the wires that we use to send electricity are not perfect and have resistance (ohms). This resistance means that for every mile or so of wire that the electricity has to pass through, so much of it is lost. Thus, a power plant can only provide power in a specific region. Anything beyond this region has more resistance in the wires than the plant can dish out, so none of it reaches that far.
So what are the most environmentally friendly power plants? Those which use renewable resources without waste products. These would be water, solar, wind, and geothermal, with wind and geothermal being the most environmentally friendly (due to the materials and power output). Water is higher if it is not given by a dam, because damming up rivers has a major environmental impact.
Back to the discussion. If you use a hand dryer, you are heating a coil AND powering a fan of varying intensities for a specific amount of time, all of which is drawing power. At the very least, it costs the establishment the bathroom is located in money in power bill. At the worst, you're also polluting the environment. And chances are, a good deal of that energy is wasted on an abandoned dryer.
Now let's look at paper towels. A paper towel is most likely created using paper from a tree that was grown in a tree farm. Paper... we should look into paper a little more.
An estimated 95% of the paper we use comes from tree farms. Tree farms are places where trees are grown row on row for the purpose of making paper. They are not home to many animals and do not provide much shelter, since most tree farms are fenced off. A tree is cut down, another is planted in its place. The owner will NOT allow his trees to all be cut down or he'll go out of business! We will ALWAYS have trees. In fact, by cutting down the trees in a tree farm, trees in forests are saved from the logger. Now, unfortunately, making paper is a dirty business, and so is cutting it down and transporting it. But on the plus side, planting a crap-ton of trees has several positive benefits to the environment. So it is hard to say just how much of an environmental impact it has. One thing, however, is certain. Recycled paper is bad. It is transported, bleached (it requires more bleach to get rid of the markings on recycled paper than it does to turn wood into paper in the first place), processed, and then repackaged and transported again. This puts TONS of chemicals into the environment, and the paper is only good for about one round of recycling before it would fall apart. Just buy new paper to keep the tree farms alive. Throw your paper out, especially if you live near a landfill that has methane collectors. Most of the negative impact from landfills is from methane, not used land, and paper is the biggest contributor of that methane. However, when paper breaks down, it helps to break down other things near it, which helps the landfill turn its junk into usable land. And with methane collectors, that greenhouse gas is suddenly being used to put electricity into the grid instead of polluting the air. Win-win.
So, back, again, to the argument. I usually only use one or two paper towels per visit; it is enough to get my hands dry. So, the REAL argument here is this. Does it cost more to your wallet and to the environment to power a hand dryer for two blasts or to produce two individual sheets of paper towel?
You know, my money is that hand dryers cost more.
And this, unfortunately, is not the only instance of a lack of thinking. It spreads to everything! Let's say you are emailed an important document. You want to keep it, so you archive the email. Let's say your entire office is "paper free" and depends on paperless products - i.e. electricity - to run. Does it cost more to send and store those emails or to just print it out and file it away? Emails are information that can only be accessed with a computer (which requires electricity). They are stored on a server somewhere, which must remain up and running and must dedicate some portion of itself to maintaining and retrieving that email's information. Often that email will be sent to several computers and servers, possibly all over the world (and some of those recipients you will probably never even know about). Now there are a dozen servers all dedicating a small amount of energy and storage to maintaining and retrieving that one email. If it is not deleted, enough of those emails add up until a new server has to be added - a server which could potentially hold nothing but emails that are never accessed. And to send the information back and forth, who knows how much energy is being sent through thousands of miles of wires and fibre optic cables. Your server may not even be in the same country as you (although if you are running a decent-sized business, this is likely not the case). Now suddenly that small email is taking a pretty decent amount of energy and creating a real, measurable environmental impact. You could, however, print the email, then fax it around. Now, I'm not saying this is "better" or that it is even more environmentally friendly. The simple fact is, I don't know WHICH is the better option. But it's not simple to see, is it? It would actually take some real work to figure out the TOTAL environmental impact of any given email.
And what about texting? That is sent to a satellite or a cell phone tower, and from there it runs just like an email. Your phone is essentially a computer that only takes electricity from the grid when you plug it in, but it is STILL getting its energy from the grid. Now think of the energy your phone uses when all you are doing is texting? Think of how many billions of texts are sent per day... per HOUR... around the world. Think of how much energy that takes.
These examples can go on and on and on. But what pisses me off the most is when someone who claims to (or actually does) hold some sort of authority makes a decision or publishes something without actually taking into consideration all of the facts. The Worldwatch Institute claims that 43% of all paper used comes from recycled sources. Ecology.com claims this is a good thing. If you actually take into consideration how much more pollution it takes to recycle paper than to cut down a new tree, this is actually a very BAD thing. You're not "saving a tree." That's bullshit. You are actually just taking money away from a tree farmer. When the tree farmer makes less money, he can't have as much land. And what does that land become? Not a forest, dear dreamer. It becomes a parking lot, a Wal-Mart, a factory, a strip mall... it becomes whatever the highest bidder for that land wants it to become. And I GUARANTEE that the highest bidder is not going to turn his investment into a forest. So no, you are NOT SAVING A TREE by recycling. You are just turning land that once had a tree into land that is covered in asphalt.
Now, I challenge you to counter these arguments. I believe they are sound, but if they are not, show me. Discussing these matters can only be good, for it is in friendly, informed discussion that we find the truth and disseminate it.
Now onto the main part of this post. I have always had a logical mind. I think things through from as many possible angles as I can. And I tend to do a good job getting all the angles. I blame my father, who is a systems engineer, and raised me to see ever problem with a series of inputs and outputs. All you need to do is identify ALL of those.
It irks me to no end when I hear a claim that has nothing to back it up, yet is accepted universally. This happens much more often than you might realize.
Let me give you an example. I recently saw a hand dryer that claimed it was more environmentally friendly and more sanitary than using paper towels. I would like to see evidence. Allow me to give you the inputs and outputs of each.
First, sanitation. Many models are now hands-free, using infrared or some other sensor to determine if someone's hand is beneath it. This is actually a good thing, if programmed correctly. They should stay on for as long as your hands are beneath, and you don't have to touch anything. In this case, there are no inputs (other than the flow of air), and the item is, indeed, as sanitary as you can get. There are other problems with this, but I'll get to that later. However, the model I looked at was NOT a hands-free version. It was one of the ones we all know and hate. Push a great big shiny (and usually damp) button to turn it on. Put yours hands beneath. Rub them until it turns off. Then, either rub your hands on your pants (which is very unsanitary) or turn it on AGAIN until it actually gets your hands dry. Then turn off the water and open the door. In the process of washing your hands, you have touched surfaces that dirty hands have touched 4 times since you rinsed the soap off.
Let's try a paper towel dispenser. some paper towel dispensers are, admittedly, terrible. Pull on one and you pull out a hundred or rip several to shreds. Others involve having to wind something that is wet to get the towel out. However, many allow the user to simply pull on a sanitary paper towel, not having to touch anything which has ever been touched by man before. Either way, you can then turn the water off WITH that paper towel AND open the door with it. Do this correctly, and you have touched 0 surfaces (or 1 surface, depending on the kind of dispenser) since you rinsed the soap off your hands.
So, unless your hand dryer is infrared, it is actually LESS sanitary.
Next, we'll tackle the environment. Now, this one deals with a lot more variables, so there really is no winner. However, as you will see, it is not clear cut and easy to define. In fact, the environmental impact may very well depend on where you are washing your hands.
Both products are made with many metal parts that all have to be manufactured in a factory. However, the hand dryer has decidedly more and more intricate parts, thus requiring more energy and resources (and designing) to produce. The hand dryer is then hooked up to the grid. If you have an infrared sensor in it, it will supposedly only turn on when actually in use, thus saving energy. The one caveat is that sometimes things other than a person with wet hands can activate it. However, most hand dryers still use the classic button. These usually have to be activated twice to actually get your hands dry. They will also often be activated and used for only a quarter or half the time it is on, then abandoned and left to just run (there is no way to turn it off). To heat a coil requires a good deal of energy, so every time someone uses your product, it is taking energy from the grid. This is in turn being provided to the grid by a variety of local resources. It could be that the only power plants near you are coal plants or oil plants. This means you just spewed quite a bit of waste into the environment. If you're lucky, you live near a solar plant, hydro plant, wind turbines, or a nuclear plant, thus not spewing anything into the environment (with nuclear, however, the waste must still be dealt with).
Let's look at this further. A nuclear plant? Really? Yes, really. Nuclear, despite common misconceptions, is remarkably safe. You aren't getting exposed, and you aren't going to see mutant fish like in the Simpsons. The waste is stored at the plant to taken elsewhere to be buried, where it is monitored by the NRC. It is contained and will not be affecting the environment, barring an act of God like a 9.0 earthquake.
But Spencer, why only power plants nearby? Surely the electricity on the grid is shared by all plants providing power to it! Not true. The fact of the matter is, the wires that we use to send electricity are not perfect and have resistance (ohms). This resistance means that for every mile or so of wire that the electricity has to pass through, so much of it is lost. Thus, a power plant can only provide power in a specific region. Anything beyond this region has more resistance in the wires than the plant can dish out, so none of it reaches that far.
So what are the most environmentally friendly power plants? Those which use renewable resources without waste products. These would be water, solar, wind, and geothermal, with wind and geothermal being the most environmentally friendly (due to the materials and power output). Water is higher if it is not given by a dam, because damming up rivers has a major environmental impact.
Back to the discussion. If you use a hand dryer, you are heating a coil AND powering a fan of varying intensities for a specific amount of time, all of which is drawing power. At the very least, it costs the establishment the bathroom is located in money in power bill. At the worst, you're also polluting the environment. And chances are, a good deal of that energy is wasted on an abandoned dryer.
Now let's look at paper towels. A paper towel is most likely created using paper from a tree that was grown in a tree farm. Paper... we should look into paper a little more.
An estimated 95% of the paper we use comes from tree farms. Tree farms are places where trees are grown row on row for the purpose of making paper. They are not home to many animals and do not provide much shelter, since most tree farms are fenced off. A tree is cut down, another is planted in its place. The owner will NOT allow his trees to all be cut down or he'll go out of business! We will ALWAYS have trees. In fact, by cutting down the trees in a tree farm, trees in forests are saved from the logger. Now, unfortunately, making paper is a dirty business, and so is cutting it down and transporting it. But on the plus side, planting a crap-ton of trees has several positive benefits to the environment. So it is hard to say just how much of an environmental impact it has. One thing, however, is certain. Recycled paper is bad. It is transported, bleached (it requires more bleach to get rid of the markings on recycled paper than it does to turn wood into paper in the first place), processed, and then repackaged and transported again. This puts TONS of chemicals into the environment, and the paper is only good for about one round of recycling before it would fall apart. Just buy new paper to keep the tree farms alive. Throw your paper out, especially if you live near a landfill that has methane collectors. Most of the negative impact from landfills is from methane, not used land, and paper is the biggest contributor of that methane. However, when paper breaks down, it helps to break down other things near it, which helps the landfill turn its junk into usable land. And with methane collectors, that greenhouse gas is suddenly being used to put electricity into the grid instead of polluting the air. Win-win.
So, back, again, to the argument. I usually only use one or two paper towels per visit; it is enough to get my hands dry. So, the REAL argument here is this. Does it cost more to your wallet and to the environment to power a hand dryer for two blasts or to produce two individual sheets of paper towel?
You know, my money is that hand dryers cost more.
And this, unfortunately, is not the only instance of a lack of thinking. It spreads to everything! Let's say you are emailed an important document. You want to keep it, so you archive the email. Let's say your entire office is "paper free" and depends on paperless products - i.e. electricity - to run. Does it cost more to send and store those emails or to just print it out and file it away? Emails are information that can only be accessed with a computer (which requires electricity). They are stored on a server somewhere, which must remain up and running and must dedicate some portion of itself to maintaining and retrieving that email's information. Often that email will be sent to several computers and servers, possibly all over the world (and some of those recipients you will probably never even know about). Now there are a dozen servers all dedicating a small amount of energy and storage to maintaining and retrieving that one email. If it is not deleted, enough of those emails add up until a new server has to be added - a server which could potentially hold nothing but emails that are never accessed. And to send the information back and forth, who knows how much energy is being sent through thousands of miles of wires and fibre optic cables. Your server may not even be in the same country as you (although if you are running a decent-sized business, this is likely not the case). Now suddenly that small email is taking a pretty decent amount of energy and creating a real, measurable environmental impact. You could, however, print the email, then fax it around. Now, I'm not saying this is "better" or that it is even more environmentally friendly. The simple fact is, I don't know WHICH is the better option. But it's not simple to see, is it? It would actually take some real work to figure out the TOTAL environmental impact of any given email.
And what about texting? That is sent to a satellite or a cell phone tower, and from there it runs just like an email. Your phone is essentially a computer that only takes electricity from the grid when you plug it in, but it is STILL getting its energy from the grid. Now think of the energy your phone uses when all you are doing is texting? Think of how many billions of texts are sent per day... per HOUR... around the world. Think of how much energy that takes.
These examples can go on and on and on. But what pisses me off the most is when someone who claims to (or actually does) hold some sort of authority makes a decision or publishes something without actually taking into consideration all of the facts. The Worldwatch Institute claims that 43% of all paper used comes from recycled sources. Ecology.com claims this is a good thing. If you actually take into consideration how much more pollution it takes to recycle paper than to cut down a new tree, this is actually a very BAD thing. You're not "saving a tree." That's bullshit. You are actually just taking money away from a tree farmer. When the tree farmer makes less money, he can't have as much land. And what does that land become? Not a forest, dear dreamer. It becomes a parking lot, a Wal-Mart, a factory, a strip mall... it becomes whatever the highest bidder for that land wants it to become. And I GUARANTEE that the highest bidder is not going to turn his investment into a forest. So no, you are NOT SAVING A TREE by recycling. You are just turning land that once had a tree into land that is covered in asphalt.
Now, I challenge you to counter these arguments. I believe they are sound, but if they are not, show me. Discussing these matters can only be good, for it is in friendly, informed discussion that we find the truth and disseminate it.
Friday, June 4, 2010
New Spelling
It turns out that at the National Spelling Bee, protesters are complaining about how we spell words. They think our words are too complicated for most people. Their slogan is "Enuf is enuf. Enough is too much." This group includes ex-principals and teachers. Now, I have my own issues with the National Spelling Bee. I think it is a waste, and I can probably correctly spell 90% of the words they are asked to spell while having none of their "rigorous training." But, the bee is still popular and is promoting the English language, particularly the lesser-known quadrants. To have people protesting against what these young kids are doing right in front of their faces is atrocious. It is even worse that they are promoting ignorance.
I wonder if any of them have read the book 1984. Respelling all the words in the English language has a far-reaching effect that people do not seem to grasp. English is not just our language, but shapes our thoughts and ideologies. It is a direct link to our past as well. Furthermore, there is a beauty in the English language that poets, playwrights, scholars and authors can tap into, creating works of true artistic beauty that go beyond the meaning of the words. No one will want to read "2 b r not 2 b? that iz thuh kwestyun."
In 1984, George Orwell uses the concept of "Newspeak." The government takes words out of the language and replaces them with simple ideas, making sure nothing inflammatory is left. This makes it very difficult for people to plot an uprising if they cannot even put such concepts into words. In fact, they wouldn't be able to think of the uprising itself because the words do not exist. There is scientific evidence which supports this theory. By dumbing down our words, we will dumb down our society and people. We will also open the door to concepts such as Newspeak to be introduced. We've already got enough of 1984 going on in real life, we don't need to add to it.
There is also evidence which supports the theory that the Japanese and Chinese, because of the complexities of their languages, think more quickly than people who speak more straight-forward languages. They have to think more carefully when they speak and write and read.
So by all means, let's rewrite history, throw out the subtle philosophies of our language (ever wonder why "awful" is a bad thing, why the plural of "radius" is "radii," where "-ology" really comes from, or what the word "philosophy" truly means?), rewrite every work of art and literature of the past 500 years or so, stagnate the thought processes of our people, and limit the potential of our children, all because some people are to uneducated, lazy, or "special" to learn how to spell correctly.
Some may say this is a class distinction. I disagree. It takes no money whatsoever to go to your library and pick up a book. There are cheap classes that can teach you how to read and write. The internet is filled with good (as well as poor) resources for someone who is truly interested in using grammar properly. And all the kids who can't write because they text all day long? I think this is a call to parents to force them to put those cell phones down. Your kids do not tell you what to do, you have to be role-models for your kids. Just stop paying the bills. Make them earn money to pay for their texting AND their phone. Soon they will see that it's not all it is cracked up to be. I do not text, and I get along just fine. So have billions of other people.
Now, this rant should end now. I'm sure people disagree with me on some of these statements. They might not see the connections I am making with spelling and newspeak. But let us all agree on one thing: The English language is not broken. It is living, breathing, working. It is the official language of 53 countries. And I love it.
I wonder if any of them have read the book 1984. Respelling all the words in the English language has a far-reaching effect that people do not seem to grasp. English is not just our language, but shapes our thoughts and ideologies. It is a direct link to our past as well. Furthermore, there is a beauty in the English language that poets, playwrights, scholars and authors can tap into, creating works of true artistic beauty that go beyond the meaning of the words. No one will want to read "2 b r not 2 b? that iz thuh kwestyun."
In 1984, George Orwell uses the concept of "Newspeak." The government takes words out of the language and replaces them with simple ideas, making sure nothing inflammatory is left. This makes it very difficult for people to plot an uprising if they cannot even put such concepts into words. In fact, they wouldn't be able to think of the uprising itself because the words do not exist. There is scientific evidence which supports this theory. By dumbing down our words, we will dumb down our society and people. We will also open the door to concepts such as Newspeak to be introduced. We've already got enough of 1984 going on in real life, we don't need to add to it.
There is also evidence which supports the theory that the Japanese and Chinese, because of the complexities of their languages, think more quickly than people who speak more straight-forward languages. They have to think more carefully when they speak and write and read.
So by all means, let's rewrite history, throw out the subtle philosophies of our language (ever wonder why "awful" is a bad thing, why the plural of "radius" is "radii," where "-ology" really comes from, or what the word "philosophy" truly means?), rewrite every work of art and literature of the past 500 years or so, stagnate the thought processes of our people, and limit the potential of our children, all because some people are to uneducated, lazy, or "special" to learn how to spell correctly.
Some may say this is a class distinction. I disagree. It takes no money whatsoever to go to your library and pick up a book. There are cheap classes that can teach you how to read and write. The internet is filled with good (as well as poor) resources for someone who is truly interested in using grammar properly. And all the kids who can't write because they text all day long? I think this is a call to parents to force them to put those cell phones down. Your kids do not tell you what to do, you have to be role-models for your kids. Just stop paying the bills. Make them earn money to pay for their texting AND their phone. Soon they will see that it's not all it is cracked up to be. I do not text, and I get along just fine. So have billions of other people.
Now, this rant should end now. I'm sure people disagree with me on some of these statements. They might not see the connections I am making with spelling and newspeak. But let us all agree on one thing: The English language is not broken. It is living, breathing, working. It is the official language of 53 countries. And I love it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
