I wish you the best
but if you get there before me
take me with you.
~ Ambassador Shabazz, the eldest daughter of Malcolm X, at the Reviving the Islamic Spirit convention, 2011.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
I wish you the best
~ Ambassador Shabazz, the eldest daughter of Malcolm X, at the Reviving the Islamic Spirit convention, 2011.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Making a difference
We all want to "make a difference". The truth is, whether we want to or not, we do make a difference. It's just a question of what kind of difference are we making.
Every purchase we make makes a difference. Every dollar we spend is a vote for what we want to exist in the world. By choosing to buy something, we're voting to keep that thing available for sale and to have more of it produced in the future. By choosing not to buy something, we're doing the opposite.
Just in terms of food, we can choose to eat local foods, local organic foods, organic foods, foods that we grow ourselves or just the cheapest thing on the shelf. Each one of these is a choice and each of these choices make a difference. It makes a difference in terms of what foods will continue to be produced, which methods of production will be more profitable, which will be less, and thereby what we'll likely have more of in the future and what we'll likely have less of.
Each one of these methods of production has an impact on the world. They use different amounts of fossil fuels in the production and transportation of the food. They use different amounts of pesticides and fertilizers. And all of that makes a difference.
Even without spending money, we make a difference by the things we say and do. We can encourage people and give them fuel for their endeavours or we can ignore them. We can be extraordinarily kind or generous or industrious and inspire others to do the same. Or, we can do the bare minimum and perpetuate a culture where that becomes as the norm.
We all make a difference. It's just a matter of what kind of difference we're making.
(I'd like to credit Jeff Short for the ideas about different foods and how they make a difference. This was the topic of his speech at Toastmaster's last week)
Every purchase we make makes a difference. Every dollar we spend is a vote for what we want to exist in the world. By choosing to buy something, we're voting to keep that thing available for sale and to have more of it produced in the future. By choosing not to buy something, we're doing the opposite.
Just in terms of food, we can choose to eat local foods, local organic foods, organic foods, foods that we grow ourselves or just the cheapest thing on the shelf. Each one of these is a choice and each of these choices make a difference. It makes a difference in terms of what foods will continue to be produced, which methods of production will be more profitable, which will be less, and thereby what we'll likely have more of in the future and what we'll likely have less of.
Each one of these methods of production has an impact on the world. They use different amounts of fossil fuels in the production and transportation of the food. They use different amounts of pesticides and fertilizers. And all of that makes a difference.
Even without spending money, we make a difference by the things we say and do. We can encourage people and give them fuel for their endeavours or we can ignore them. We can be extraordinarily kind or generous or industrious and inspire others to do the same. Or, we can do the bare minimum and perpetuate a culture where that becomes as the norm.
We all make a difference. It's just a matter of what kind of difference we're making.
(I'd like to credit Jeff Short for the ideas about different foods and how they make a difference. This was the topic of his speech at Toastmaster's last week)
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Explaining myself
I find that I'm explaining myself quite a bit these days. When I was in school, it was clear. I was in school, working on my PhD. It's a known box. No further explanation necessary.
Now I'm not in school. I've got the PhD but I'm not interested in working in biomedical engineering. That's where the explanations start.
"Why?" people ask.
I don't like the work, the tedium of research. I haven't found it to be a good use of my skill set or a good fit with my personality. I'm disturbed by the amount of biohazardous and chemical waste we produce in research -- and the amount of waste in general -- especially when we use plastic disposable everything to run our experiments in aseptic conditions. I question whether this allocation of resources into research is really the best way to alleviate the suffering of people who are sick.
Having spent many, many hours with people who were terminally ill, I wonder how much better patients' lives might be if the same effort we put into extending their lives was put into improving the quality of the days they already have. Actually, even a fraction of the effort would make a huge difference. Improving the quality of their days doesn't require brilliant scientists in state-of-the-art research facilities using expensive equipment and toxic chemicals. Just a visit by someone who cares would do it. Some time spent reading a book or holding a hand or just sitting by the bedside would do it.
Aside from all that, I believe that we have more pressing problems. I believe that our train of progress is heading for an abyss of environmental catastrophe and social crises. I could ignore that, go on with business as usual and tinker about inside the train like a good engineer. Or, I could try to do something to prevent our train from reaching the abyss. Somehow, the latter course of action just makes more sense to me.
Now I'm not in school. I've got the PhD but I'm not interested in working in biomedical engineering. That's where the explanations start.
"Why?" people ask.
I don't like the work, the tedium of research. I haven't found it to be a good use of my skill set or a good fit with my personality. I'm disturbed by the amount of biohazardous and chemical waste we produce in research -- and the amount of waste in general -- especially when we use plastic disposable everything to run our experiments in aseptic conditions. I question whether this allocation of resources into research is really the best way to alleviate the suffering of people who are sick.
Having spent many, many hours with people who were terminally ill, I wonder how much better patients' lives might be if the same effort we put into extending their lives was put into improving the quality of the days they already have. Actually, even a fraction of the effort would make a huge difference. Improving the quality of their days doesn't require brilliant scientists in state-of-the-art research facilities using expensive equipment and toxic chemicals. Just a visit by someone who cares would do it. Some time spent reading a book or holding a hand or just sitting by the bedside would do it.
Aside from all that, I believe that we have more pressing problems. I believe that our train of progress is heading for an abyss of environmental catastrophe and social crises. I could ignore that, go on with business as usual and tinker about inside the train like a good engineer. Or, I could try to do something to prevent our train from reaching the abyss. Somehow, the latter course of action just makes more sense to me.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Plenitude by Juliet Schor
This is the text of the speech I wrote and delivered for Toastmaster's this week.
I’ve been doing quite a bit of reading and thinking recently. Having spent most of the past 12 years in university, that really shouldn’t be anything new, but once I finished school and wrapped up my work contracts, I got to do a different kind of thinking and reading. My reading was no longer limited to quantum dots, viruses and nanotechnology. I started thinking about bigger things – literally and figuratively.
Two of the issues that interest me most are unemployment and environmental sustainability. How do we build a society where everyone can make a living? And how do we do that while preserving the environment we depend on to live?
We live in one of the most prosperous societies that have ever existed. At a mundane level, just look at our grocery stores and the abundance and variety of food on the shelves. I remember going to my local Loblaws a few years ago and counting 18 different kinds of apples available for sale. 18! Our grocery stores are brimming with foods from every corner of the world. And yet, so many people in this society struggle to put food on the table for their families because they are unemployed or underemployed.
In first year economics, we learned that to decrease unemployment, we have to increase growth. We need to pump more money into the economy so that people will spend more and buy more. This increased demand will lead to increased production and the creation of new jobs.
But this solution comes with its own problems. In a world with finite resources, we can’t grow indefinitely. Even the seemingly infinite stock of fish in the sea will dwindle and disappear if we keep fishing more and more – as we’ve seen with the collapse of the cod fishery in Newfoundland. In the past 30 years alone, we have consumed one third of the planet’s resources. Besides that, this production and consumption is polluting our air, water and land. So, given these environmental constraints, growth does not appear to be a feasible solution to the problem of unemployment.
So, what is?
Well, a few months ago, I read a book by Juliet Schor, which suggests an interesting alternative. The book I read was called True Wealth. It was previously published as Plenitude.
Dr. Schor, who is a professor of sociology at Boston College, proposes that we can reduce unemployment and protect the environment by working less. Yes, that’s right, we should each work less. Instead of working 40 hours a week, what if we worked at 80% of full time? That’s 32 hours a week -- 4 days a week instead of 5. Effectively, this would enable us to share the existing workload amongst more people.
You’re probably thinking right now about all the reasons this pie-in-the-sky socialist idea wouldn’t work, right? Well, in the early 1980’s, there was a worldwide economic downturn and Western Europe was particularly hard hit. The Netherlands decided to take a proactive stance and started hiring new government employees at an 80% work week. The idea caught on and public sector workers were joined by academics. Eventually, even their whole banking industry joined in the 80% schedule.
But what would people do with 20% less income. Well, for one, they would buy less. Immediately, that would reduce the strain on scarce environmental resources. Instead of shopping or buying new gadgets for our entertainment, we could spend time outside, read a book or hang out with friends. Instead of paying other people to make our food or coffee, we would do it ourselves – and thereby not only save money, but save on the packaging and disposable cups or napkins or cutlery that comes with having take-out.
But where are you going to find the time? Remember, the basis of this whole model is working less. Less time for work means more time for everything else. More time to do stuff can help offset the less money you have to buy stuff. So we’re buying less and creating more.
Of course, there are some things we can’t do on our own. Sometimes we’ll need help from other people. That’s also part of the model. With less time working, we could have more time connecting with other people. It could be friends helping friends move instead of hiring movers. It could be neighbours sharing a lawnmower rather each buying their own. We would be strengthening our social fabric while reducing unemployment and protecting the environment.
In summary, this model proposes that we work less, buy less, create more and connect more.
Albert Einstein once said that “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” This model of Plenitude, by Juliet Schor, is a different kind of thinking.
I’ve been doing quite a bit of reading and thinking recently. Having spent most of the past 12 years in university, that really shouldn’t be anything new, but once I finished school and wrapped up my work contracts, I got to do a different kind of thinking and reading. My reading was no longer limited to quantum dots, viruses and nanotechnology. I started thinking about bigger things – literally and figuratively.
Two of the issues that interest me most are unemployment and environmental sustainability. How do we build a society where everyone can make a living? And how do we do that while preserving the environment we depend on to live?
We live in one of the most prosperous societies that have ever existed. At a mundane level, just look at our grocery stores and the abundance and variety of food on the shelves. I remember going to my local Loblaws a few years ago and counting 18 different kinds of apples available for sale. 18! Our grocery stores are brimming with foods from every corner of the world. And yet, so many people in this society struggle to put food on the table for their families because they are unemployed or underemployed.
In first year economics, we learned that to decrease unemployment, we have to increase growth. We need to pump more money into the economy so that people will spend more and buy more. This increased demand will lead to increased production and the creation of new jobs.
But this solution comes with its own problems. In a world with finite resources, we can’t grow indefinitely. Even the seemingly infinite stock of fish in the sea will dwindle and disappear if we keep fishing more and more – as we’ve seen with the collapse of the cod fishery in Newfoundland. In the past 30 years alone, we have consumed one third of the planet’s resources. Besides that, this production and consumption is polluting our air, water and land. So, given these environmental constraints, growth does not appear to be a feasible solution to the problem of unemployment.
So, what is?
Well, a few months ago, I read a book by Juliet Schor, which suggests an interesting alternative. The book I read was called True Wealth. It was previously published as Plenitude.
Dr. Schor, who is a professor of sociology at Boston College, proposes that we can reduce unemployment and protect the environment by working less. Yes, that’s right, we should each work less. Instead of working 40 hours a week, what if we worked at 80% of full time? That’s 32 hours a week -- 4 days a week instead of 5. Effectively, this would enable us to share the existing workload amongst more people.
You’re probably thinking right now about all the reasons this pie-in-the-sky socialist idea wouldn’t work, right? Well, in the early 1980’s, there was a worldwide economic downturn and Western Europe was particularly hard hit. The Netherlands decided to take a proactive stance and started hiring new government employees at an 80% work week. The idea caught on and public sector workers were joined by academics. Eventually, even their whole banking industry joined in the 80% schedule.
But what would people do with 20% less income. Well, for one, they would buy less. Immediately, that would reduce the strain on scarce environmental resources. Instead of shopping or buying new gadgets for our entertainment, we could spend time outside, read a book or hang out with friends. Instead of paying other people to make our food or coffee, we would do it ourselves – and thereby not only save money, but save on the packaging and disposable cups or napkins or cutlery that comes with having take-out.
But where are you going to find the time? Remember, the basis of this whole model is working less. Less time for work means more time for everything else. More time to do stuff can help offset the less money you have to buy stuff. So we’re buying less and creating more.
Of course, there are some things we can’t do on our own. Sometimes we’ll need help from other people. That’s also part of the model. With less time working, we could have more time connecting with other people. It could be friends helping friends move instead of hiring movers. It could be neighbours sharing a lawnmower rather each buying their own. We would be strengthening our social fabric while reducing unemployment and protecting the environment.
In summary, this model proposes that we work less, buy less, create more and connect more.
Albert Einstein once said that “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” This model of Plenitude, by Juliet Schor, is a different kind of thinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)