Years ago, I was IMing with a friend who was a devout born-again Christian. He said that he knew God existed because when he had been tutoring some local underprivileged kids, he felt sure that those kids' academic improvements were, at least in some cases, due to God's touch. To him, it was evidence this was a world that had God in it.

I didn't think to ask this at the time, but I wish I had:

How do you tell the difference between a world where God exists, and one where he doesn't?  ¶ 23:29 0 Comments

"Spim" is a word I made up, that refers to the processed crap that the food industry has inundated us with for the past sixty years. Food is cheap, because giant agribusinesses have spent decades figuring out how to produce stuff that's technically edible and not immediately toxic, at the lowest possible cost, by using preservatives, refrigeration, and bulk production methods.

The side-effect is that this stuff, while technically something you can sustain yourself on, is relatively bereft of actual nutrients, and frequently contains substances whose long-term health effects are not known (or are known to be toxic).

"Spim" was from a joke acronym, Synthetic Processed Indigestible Matter. Its proximity to "SPAM" was actually an unconscious choice, but I like it. I wanted to pick a word that didn't sound anything like "food," so as to avoid the association between spim and real food.

Most food out there is spim. Anything that's really cheap is likely spim; it's really not possible to produce good, nutritious, non-processed, non-preserved food for as cheap as the agribusinesses can spit out their spim. Conversely, though, expensive doesn't mean it's real food, either.

My New Year's resolution this year is to minimize my intake of spim. For health's sake? Not really. Mostly I'm angry at the fact that the giant agribusinesses have profited endlessly at our expense. I don't really want to give them my money any more if I can avoid it... but it's hard. Good luck finding restaurants that don't serve spim, for instance.

Food labeling laws have brought us a long way toward a healthier society; being able to know what's in your food means you can make better decisions about what you eat. But there's still a lot more that should be done. For example, "natural flavor" sounds... well, natural, right? Except a company can call a substance "natural flavor" as long as the substance has been found in nature, even if the actual substance in the product was produced by artificial means in a lab, and not extracted from naturally occurring plants or animals.

There's two ways to make this change happen:

1. Write my elected officials. From my city councilman all the way up, they need to know that I care about this issue and that I'll vote for politicians who support the health of the population over the profits of giant agribusinesses.
   
2. Spread information to other individuals that helps this cause. What exactly goes into spim; how factory farming methods reduce nutrients and increase toxins and disease; how agribusinesses spend millions lobbying Congress to do things in their interests that are not in our interests. This is best done without sounding shrill or evangelical.
   

  ¶ 11:07 0 Comments

I'm not planning on any kind of Walden-esque simplification of my life as a result of these posts. At least, not yet. :-) I still appreciate many of the things -- not the least of which, safety and stability -- that civilization has provided.

But civilization has also replaced one set of worries -- food, shelter, safety from animal predators -- with another, manufactured set of worries: that you aren't as young, sexy, or attractive as you should be, or that you'll be left behind if you don't have all the latest and greatest consumer goods, or that you won't be happy unless you dress like so and cover your face with toxic chemicals.

Oft-mentioned is the importance of the Christmas shopping season to our national economy. Some absurd percentage of annual revenue comes from people buying presents for one another -- things that, in most cases, are relatively unnecessary luxuries. In fact, societally we see it as inappropriate to buy basic necessities as gifts; think of the dismay with which gifts of clothing are greeted by children and teenagers. Imagine the reaction if you bought someone a bag of rice for Christmas.

Why is it so important that billions of dollars get spend on luxuries every fall? Apparently, if that doesn't happen, the economy stagnates; people whose jobs depend on the production and selling of those luxuries end up out of work. Unemployment soars, crime goes up, everyone wrings their hands about how we're going to get out of this slump/recession/downturn/disaster.

Surely this can't be the only way our civilization can exist. Let's say we, as a society, suddely decided that we just don't need all those commercialized extras -- makeup, consumer electronics, "convenience" devices, processed junk food, DVDs, decorative tchochkes, and so on. We decide that those things distract from the truly important things in life -- being healthy, spending time with friends and family, facing our social problems together instead of trudging to the voting booth once in a while and otherwise letting politicians run amok. What would happen?

Idle hands are the devil's playthings. People need to be doing something or they're going to get up to mischief. "Something" doesn't need to be working in a factory, enriching an oligarchy on the backs up the people. They just need to have their time occupied, but not feel constrained in their choices of what to do.

Radical change almost always entails bloodshed and chaos. How can we transform our society slowly, but in an entirely positive direction?  ¶ 09:58 0 Comments

In my last post, I listed several potential positives and negatives that go along with the acquisition of a new thing. I want to go over those in detail and try to establish exactly how they affect quality of life.

Not every item on the list of positives and negatives will be along a strictly linear scale. Past a certain point, an item's potential effect on your QOL might flatline, or slow down logarithmically, or even (in theory) grow exponentially. There's only so much faster that a new thing can allow you to do a certain thing, so the impact of new things on speed-of-doing-things is limited in that regard. Also, the effect on your available living space by acquiring new things is based more on the total number of things you have, rather than any individual thing. Regardless of all other attributes, you can only fit a total volume of N items into your house before having so little space that it negatively affects your QOL, and it's not any one item's fault that you got above N.

Let's go through the list and analyze:

Positives:

1. You can do new things you couldn't do before
   
   A new piece of kitchen equipment allows you to make a dish you couldn't make before. A new computer allows you watch videos or play computer games. This category also covers media, such as books or movies -- you couldn't watch "The Matrix" before, and now you can, because you acquired it.
   
   Why are these positives? Part of life is about exploring and growing, and being able to do new things and experience new things brings us happiness and fulfillment.
   
   
2. You can do old things faster or better
   
   A clothes washer lets you wash a load of clothes with only five minutes' worth of effort, instead of spending an hour or more scrubbing clothes in a tub. A faster computer lets you play newer games or store more data. A stand mixer lets you mix batter better, for improved baking output in less time.
   
   Why are these positives? Being able to do things faster means you have more time available to do other things. Tedious chores can be replaced with entertainment, edification, and personal achievement.
   
   
3. The new thing is smaller, more durable, more efficient, or prettier than something it replaces
   
   A flash drive lets you store ten times more data in a package one-twentieth the size compared to your old Zip drive. A new high-efficiency washer uses less water and detergent to do a load of dishes. A heavier-duty power drill will last longer than the cheapo drill you've had since college.
   
   Why are these positives? Smaller items take up less space, and space is a limited resource. More durable items need to be replaced less often. More efficient items use up less of other resources, like water or electricity. Prettier items are aesthetically pleasing, which increases happiness.
   
   
4. The new thing replaces more than one other thing, allowing you to reduce the number of things you have
   
   A good large frying pan could replace a few smaller, crappier pans. A combo Blu-Ray DVD-VCR could replace two separate, older units. A telephone with a built-in alarm clock could replace a separate phone and clock by your bed.
   
   Why is this positive? All else being equal, reducing the number of things is a strict positive.
   
   
5. The item may have sentimental value after a while
   
   Why is this positive? Having a few items with sentimental value is a way for us to reconnect with our past, and feel nostalgia for it. It can help us stay grounded in what has happened, keeping us from feeling too detached from our personal history.
   
   

Negatives:

1. The new thing might not replace an old thing, so now you have more things to worry about: it might get stolen, it might get damaged or destroyed, it occupies more of the finite space in your home, etc.
   
   Why is this negative? There's only so much time in the day. Time is in fact our most precious resource. We can only deal with so much; the more things you have to deal with, the less time you have to focus on more important things.
   
   
2. You have to maintain the new thing (or you don't, but if you don't you'll likely have to replace it sooner, which results in more money spent per unit time; a stitch in time, and all that)
   
   You buy a new MP3 player. Well, now you need to read the instructions, to learn how to take care of it. That might take half an hour or an hour. And you need to remember to clean it periodically, and how to properly clean it (damp cloth, no soap... or was it mild soap, warm sponge?). You might need to refresh your memory about it later, which again takes time (and that also means you have to have kept track of the instructions during the intervening period).
   
   
3. The new thing takes time and energy to learn how to use properly
   
   Again, this is time you could be spending doing other things. While learning in general is a good thing, learning the intricacies of a particular device (an MP3 player, for example) may not be particularly edifying or useful knowledge. Especially if the device is counterintuitive.
   
   
4. Whatever the new thing allows you to do might not be something you really need to be doing, wasting time or distracting you from things that are more important
   
   Self-explanatory, although this clearly depends on your priorities. One principle in play here is that modern society warps the things we consider important, and so we may end up valuing things which actually hurt us, and then we wonder why life is so difficult, when in fact we are making it difficult for ourselves.
   
   
5. It cost finite resources to acquire (money, time) that might have been better spent in other ways
   
   Self-explanatory. People are trained by modern society to be spendthrifts, to live on credit, and to spend time and money on things which are harmful.
   
   
6. The new thing might not be as useful or effective as advertised, leading to disappointment or frustration
   
   This is really just an element of risk; something might be MORE useful or effective than advertised, although this is rare, as companies rarely understate the virtues of their products.
   
   
7. The new thing, if it conveys information (books, movies, TV, magazines), might contain messages which are detrimental (advertising) to your well-being
   
   Advertising; materialism; the idea that everyone can be (or has a right to be) famous, wealthy, or powerful. These are not realistic or helpful ideas, and yet modern society flogs them constantly.
   
   
8. Even if something is generally positive, you might use it so infrequently that you get very little benefit out of it
   
   An expensive new kitchen tool might be very durable, efficient, and effective, but if you only use it once and then put it in a closet for five years, was it really worth what you spend on it? The money (and any other resources spent to acquire it) has, effectively, been wasted.
   
   
9. The new thing might have unknown dangers (toxic chemicals) that no one knows about, or that the producers of the thing know about but have kept hidden
10. The item may have sentimental value after a while -- yes, this is both a positive and a negative
    
    Again, another risk. Many new things have no particular toxins associated with them, so this may not be an issue.
    
    

So as a material example, let's say you buy an MP3 player of some kind. Without dwelling on a particular brand or model, let's figure out its positives and negatives.

On the plus side, you are now capable of listening to music wherever you go. Walking down the street, you no longer have to be bothered by the sound of traffic. The device can hold MP3 versions of your entire music collection, so you're not limited in your choice of what music to bring with you. The device is very small and has only two accessories: earbud headphones, and a USB cord that is used both for transferring music files to it, and charging its internal battery. Using it is fairly simple and only requires about 5 minutes of time in order to learn the things you'll need to know to use it 95% of the time. The sound quality is decent, and the device cost about $110 after tax.

Aside from the device, headphones, and USB cable, there are no other physical objects you need to retain. The box packaging can be disposed of; the paper "quick start guide" that came with it is available in PDF form on the company's website (and, conveniently, the full PDF manual for the device is stored ON the device); there's a small "stand" for propping the player upon, but you quickly decide it's useless and throw it away.

Now, unless the thing breaks, you have probably a few years of relatively convenient portable music listening. The only ongoing maintenance is to wipe the thing off with a soft cloth once in a while, and periodically put new music onto it as you acquire that music. It's tiny, no larger than a credit card and not even half an inch thick. It also picks up FM radio and can play videos.

Are there any downsides? A few. The earbud cords are a little awkward, so getting the thing in and out of your pocket takes some time and is frustrating. The earbuds themselves have good sound quality (for earbuds, anyway) but get uncomfortable after a relatively short time -- 10 or 15 minutes. The battery doesn't last all that long, so if you make heavy use of the device for two days in a row, you need to plug it into your computer to charge it. And the only way to charge it is to plug it into a powered-on computer, which means you need to remember to do so. If you forget until the end of the day, you can leave it plugged into your computer overnight, but the player only takes two hours to charge, meaning your computer stays on all night using power. And if you happen to go somewhere but forget the USB cord (either you take it with you all the time, even though you usually never need it; or you leave it at home and sometimes need it and don't have it), then you've got this little device taking up space and effort and being of no use at all.

Plus, the screen is tiny, so watching videos is basically pointless, meaning that some of the device's functionality is wasted. You probably could have gotten an audio-only player for cheaper. Knowing that the thing plays videos takes up a little mental space, and knowing that it plays videos but that doing so is pointless is both frustrating ("I'll try watching a video again, maybe it's not as bad as I remember... Bah, it IS as bad as I remember!") and irritating from a design perspective ("Why bother even PUTTING video capability into this device?!").

Also, we're assuming that you had $110 of money to spend on this that you didn't spend on something else that might be more important -- rent, utilities, healthier food, retirement investing. This isn't to say that being able to listen to music on the go isn't important, or shouldn't be important to people; but sometimes people think, "Oh, just this once I'll spend this money on something relatively frivolous," except "just this once" actually means "practically every time." Then they wonder why they're always struggling to break even.

But that's for another post. First we need to discuss the basic things in life that we need, and how to assess what's beyond those necessities.  ¶ 21:44 0 Comments

How do you measure quality of life? Or more precisely: how do you measure the change in quality of life caused by acquiring a new item?

Any item you acquire potentially affects your life in numerous ways, which can be split into positives and negatives:

Positives:

1. You can do new things you couldn't do before
2. You can do old things faster or better
3. The new thing is smaller, more durable, more efficient, or prettier than something it replaces
4. The new thing replaces more than one other thing, allowing you to reduce the number of things you have
5. The item may have sentimental value after a while
6. Others...?

Negatives:

1. The new thing might not replace an old thing, so now you have more things to worry about: it might get stolen, it might get damaged or destroyed, it occupies more of the finite space in your home, etc.
2. You have to maintain the new thing (or you don't, but if you don't you'll likely have to replace it sooner, which results in more money spent per unit time; a stitch in time, and all that)
3. The new thing takes time and energy to learn how to use properly
4. Whatever the new thing allows you to do might not be something you really need to be doing, wasting time or distracting you from things that are more important
5. It cost finite resources to acquire (money, time) that might have been better spent in other ways
6. The new thing might not be as useful or effective as advertised, leading to disappointment or frustration
7. The new thing, if it conveys information (books, movies, TV, magazines), might contain messages which are detrimental (advertising) to your well-being
8. Even if something is generally positive, you might use it so infrequently that you get very little benefit out of it
9. The new thing might have unknown dangers (toxic chemicals) that no one knows about, or that the producers of the thing know about but have kept hidden
10. The item may have sentimental value after a while -- yes, this is both a positive and a negative
11. Others...?

(These obviously don't all operate on the same scale of importance, and each item's scale might not be linear. I'll analyze these in more detail in another post.)

One (relatively simple) way to look at it is that you could quantify each of these things, add them up, and if the total score is positive, then the thing improves your quality of life.

Let's assume you want to reduce the amount of stuff you have. You sort all the objects by their score and get rid of the lowest-scoring ones first. So when do you stop? You need to establish a threshold score above which you keep the items. One hopes that this score is high enough that you no longer have to spend very much time worrying about stuff.

Another factor is that your state of mind affects all this. It's not just objective judgments of whether an item is helpful or not; if you don't care about watching TV, then it doesn't matter how high-scoring a particular TV is, it's irrelevant to you. A TV's only function might then be for receiving emergency notifications in case of a disaster, which still gives it value, but of a very different kind than what most people use it for (entertainment). So one can make it easier to reduce the number of things in one's life by changing one's priorities. (Which is obviously not as easy as throwing an item in the trash.)

So what to do? If you're at home, look around you. There's probably fifty items within your sight that you could throw in the trash and not really ever miss once. Recently I read a blog entry by a woman who decided to chuck it all and go live on a boat, roaming the seas. She only brought what she thought were the absolute necessities. A few weeks out, she was hit by a storm that nearly capsized her boat, and half of what she had went overboard. She realized that she hadn't needed most of those things she had considered necessities.

Don't you think we landlubbers can do better than we are? Because it's not just our immediate, day-to-day quality of life that's at stake here... but I'll talk about that later.

Labels: quality-of-life

  ¶ 07:17 0 Comments