Entitlement

I read something today that I found rather interesting.   

"Merrill Lynch & Co Chief Executive John Thain has suggested to directors that he get a 2008 bonus of as much as $10 million" 

I responded in my away message with the quote and "its kinda sad that this isnt the craziest thing Ive heard about this whole economic crisis."  

But is it really that crazy. Thain's own justification was that he helped to orchestrate the buyout of merrill lynch by BOA, and that this buyout created the differnce between the company going under and the company staying alive in some form.  

Now, that means his decisions were probably worth more than ten million dollars, but to be honest the situation was at least partially his own fault, so, directing people to rowboats and to get life vests on a sinking ship shouldnt really warrant a bonus if you were the guy crashing the ship. (although I guess it would be worse if you didnt and just let everybody die) 

But this brought attention to the fact that people in my own company were talking about entitlement for their own bonuses and other pleasantries afforded by my working condition (flexible hours, free lunch on occasion and snacks in the kitchen with a small donation jar).  

Now is where I am getting into the actual thinking that I am undergoing. 

Should people be paid for the effect of their decisions? I am currently imagining a system where benefits of decision making processes on large scale are tracked and traced up and down trees to assign blame or reward. Thus if you were the HR director for marketing and one marketing division failed, but the majority of the people responsible for poor choices were appointed by your own decisions you would be to blame.  

But, doesnt the CEO deserve some entitlement? There must be some level in the company or some distance from events that leaves somebody immune to its effects. Yet if the company goes under because of a few people's decisions everybody is negatively effected.  

Also, who decides what the strength of all the connections are? If I am in HR and hire a super genius who doubles our profit in two days how much of that do I deserve? There needs to be distinction between what the person in the position did versus what somebody else would do, and how valuable their expertise in the situation was at the point in time.  

Clearly the methods of compensation are gray at best. But asking for a 10 million dollar bonus from a company that just sank and was only righted because it was worth so little to the open market that competition swooped in to buy up the rest at wholesale seems a bit ridiculous.  

After finishing school I felt entitled to a job that paid what I thought was industry average. And to be fair, it seems about right. But I dont think my salary should have been set until some level of productivity had been determined about how much money I should be making based on how much money I was making my company.

Exponential Growth of Technology

I wrote the following

"So, the future is now, or soon, or something. I was just reading somebody else's blog, and they were saying that the storage space problem is no longer a problem. their point was centered around the fact that new memory cards are being designed which are capable of storing two terabytes. which is a large amount of space for anybody who grew up in the days where hard drives were smaller than the amount of ram most computers have now. but I digress.

So, computers are getting faster. They do show signs of slowing. but something always comes along to keep them getting faster and faster every year."

and was going to turn it into a dystopian future post. possibly about how this expectation of speed increase will cause a sudden cataclysm of sorts, but I got distracted and never went back to it. I also wrote a related bit below

"Aright, I will admit, I may be chicken little.

I will also admit that although moores law has held, I do not believe that tech will continue to evolve at an exponential rate. It just isn't possible given what we know about physics (simply moving about the information, starts to get awfully energy intensive, and even starting to use quantum computers and storing the information in entanglement and phases of matter and spin only grants so much more ability and also at a major dropoff in rate of growth of tech). But I do think that we still have a ways to go before we start hitting limits, and will continue at least linearly for a while now.

But aside from those two statements I still seriously believe that people are underestimating technology.

Please tell me why these jobs shouldnt be done by robots: manufacturing, mining?"

which are both very standard fare for my line of thinking. I mean, whatever. I just figured Id post instead of leaving it unedited in my edit section forever.

so I wrote this in my away message:"I dont get it. neither does anybody else. I dont know if the second statement is oddly comforting, pointlessly liberating, or debilitatingly painful."

being bipolar is fun.

but the point remains, meaning... direction ... purpose ... they are impossible to find without assuming something to be true which is not necessarily true.

My perfect world.

We are in a unique place right now.  

Technology is incredible, and shows no signs of stopping in the near future. So Im just gonna go ahead and throw out some of my favorite ideas that I think are pretty sweet and semi inevitable. 

Lets start with the automation of all processes which are necesarry for people to live.  

Homes that are built entirely by machines, from blueprints that are designed in cooperation with machines for ideal aestetics while structural integrity is maximized with new green building materials and solar panels are incorporated as well as other green energy initiatives so energy is practically a non issue in some areas if not most areas.  Of course some energy will still be required for other things including but not limited to transportation, so nuclear energy should make a come back unless some new tech somes around.  

Fields that are planted by machines and farmed by machines. Maximizing output of the land while at the same time doing it in a sustainable manner that doesnt destroy the land. Raising, slaughtering, and shipping animals in a humane sanitary way, meat is delicious even though it wastes 90% of the energy you put into it, I dont want to live in a future without steak (although paying a premium for wasted products makes sense, assuming commerce makes sense with whatever systems are in place).  

Water purification remains to be seen where it will take place.  It depends what things are being filtered out of water and where those chemicals would best be used.  

Next... Computer integration with everything.  

Somebody once said that there would only ever be the need for six computers in the united states, and as my professor responded to that statement by saying he probably has six computers on his person or on his desk at any given moment.  

I started to include this above and then it got really long, so I separated it out into its own section.

So, your camera phone, is also going to be a video recorder, and your credit card, and practically everything you need. It will unlock your car, it will have all your personal records secured by your dna, a voice print, a finger print whatever makes the most sense with biometric security standards that havent been invented yet.  Some of this information will be available to authority figures at different levels depending on what is going on (my theory is that if there is perfect information there is no real reason for a court system as we think of them now[as far as I see it, it is inevitable that there will be moderately universal surveillence in public areas, cameras and data storage and processing power are getting so cheap that the government will have no choice but to implement a series of full motion cameras that store all the data forever and are admissible as evidence and have facial and gait reccognition{the new big thing apparently is gait reccognition because it is significantly harder to fake than facial features } software.  My favorite thing to say is that it makes perfect sense to put them on every piece of hardware that the government owns that has power running through it. namely light posts they already have this on traffic lights].  If we rewrite laws to be reasonable and set fair but have different standards for different people [in my mind somebody who has never been in an accident deserves to drive faster than somebody who is constantly in accidents {then again, cars will be able to drive themselves and there will be very little chance of accidents in the future, so who knows if that example is really valuable} ] then perfect information would make people commit less crime because they KNOW they are going to get caught) although this does require a massive overhaul in thinking and law and practice.  This phone will also track your location as long as you carry it with you and in the case that you suffer some form of injury there will be an automatic emergency alarm that alerts whatever authority is necesary. This phone will also be a gaming system/ controller. It will have a fairly large flexible touch screen using OLED screens that fold/roll into the phone. The phone will also be a study guide giving you flash cards and quizes whenever you want.  You will be able to download whatever content you want at a reasonable price, and if you are sharing this content between multiple people different pricing mechanisms will take care of lowering the price for joint showings while maximizing profits to encourage consumption of the product.  Along with the sharing of media, any media that you own will be on this device or linked to this device so when you are in a place alone only your favorite songs will be playing, but when you are in an area in a mall the collaborative collections of everybody will vote and trade to pick a song that will maximize appreciation in the crowd.  the same thing should be true of bars, and of course the device will situationally know that you have different preferences based on different environments.  The phone will keep track of all your preferences of everything. When you walk into a store it will take your data versus the anonomized data from everybody else who had shopped there and point you towards clothing that you will probably like. Along with this, it will have the preferences of those around you, so if you wanted the advice of your girlfriend, but didnt want to take her to the mall because shopping would take ten times as long you could just ask the phone to analyze her previous preferences for your choices and will pick something that both of you like (when I say pick of course I mean give you a number of options ranked from top to bottom, and you can search through everything if you really want).  These preferences will also extend to food and drink and practically every commercial choice you make.  When you are watching streaming content there will be minor commercials that are based on your preferences as well and are targeted directly towards you in a way that isnt really irritating.  Ie if the computer knows you want a shirt it will be an advertisement for a clothing store that features products, comedy, and imagery geared towards your age group and your preferences.  Along with knowing what you already like the phone will also be able to suggest things you havent tried yet but might like because it is similar to other things, or because people who had the same preferences you do also liked that thing. 

Im running out of steam, but computers are crazy and I dont know how ridiculous the future is going to be except that it might be entirely different.  

Make up your own mind

To be fair, along with the previously stated question of fate versus free will, making up your own mind is far more complicated than it seems. How can you possibly avoid all of the information that pummels the average person on a day to day basis, and how can you decide which bits you hear and see and then from there which ones you trust?  Clearly some of these things are based on indoctination.  

But, stop and think every once in a while.  Why are you doing what you are doing? 

In my opinion, people are in power because they are able to make people believe that they deserve to be in power.  Yet at the same time anybody who wants that much power probably isnt trustworthy enough to yield that power.  So we are in a bit of a conundrum.  This of course leads to the classic situation where the people with the real power are behind the scenes because people would see through their devious intentions if they were to step out from behind the curtain.  I could site historical examples or current ones, but a dummy frontman is the way to go in terms of keeping the people happy while manipulating the hell out of them.  

If a truly magnanimous, leader were to emerge on the planet at this point in time, how much could they get accomplished.  What restrictions are there in place to prevent good things from getting done?  And what type of leadership is the best for our planet?  Would we prefer an incredibly inteligent leader who simply does what is right even if it doesnt happy to be what everybody is looking for? Would we prefer a purely democratic situation where each decision is only made when the majority of people agree? Or, would we prefer a consensus building leader who goes straight down the middle path only when all parties agree that it is a fair situation?  

As I have said before, we are at a tipping point, our world markets are unified, and material wealth is at an all time high (as with every moment in history outside of environmental, health and diplomacy disasters). So why is it that there are people starving in places around the world? And why is our relative level of stress higher than ever before.  I know that utopia is a world that cannot exist, but we can always strive for a better world.  I am a communist at heart I guess, not to say I dont think democrazy is a livable situation, and is clearly far better than a number of the alternatives. 

There is just too much to say.  Perfection is a path not a destination.  And a perfect world for one may not be a perfect world for another.  But make up your mind, and see what you can do to help yourself.  

The next ice age

Now, most people don't know this, but our planet has been through a series of climate changes in the past. There have been numerous ice ages and there have been numerous warm periods of time. The term global warming was thrown around a lot for a while and now it is climate change because people are too slow to realize that a warming of a quarter of a degree in 4 years doesnt seem like a big deal. But climate change can be associated with any number of strange weather phenomenon which can be addressed at any point in time before during and after. Which is precisely what the media loves(I honestly suggest that people read Crichton's state of fear).

Aside from those random instances of the media using science to stir up support, I think we honestly need to be more concerned about an ice age. If you look at the temperature data that has been collected through ice core samples over the past thousands of years, temperature goes up until it reaches a critical peak and then shoots down. There are theories as to why this is, ranging from random to most things die because the environment is so messed up but then since most things are dead things cool down, to the theory I believe in. When it is hot, there is severe weather. If you take this summer as an example right now there are three hurricanes back to back to back in the atlantic ocean, and there was one last week that went through the gulf of mexico and came close to wrecking New Orleans again. When there are lots of storms there is lots of moisture in the air when there is moisture in the air there are clouds. A couple hundred years ago there was a well documented minor ice age, which provides us our best evidence of what happens, people claim to have not seen the sun for over a year (even if this is only a regional effect, if over two years there is not enough sun to keep vegitation alive it could seriously alter ecosystems and survivability). My theory, well it was somebody else's theory first, but the theory that I believe in is that once you hit a certain threshold there is enough latent heat to keep clouds floating up in the atmosphere, and once you lose sunlight, you lose almost all the energy at the surface of the planet and you get an ice age.

Now, as I have said before, I am not here to force any beliefs, but I got started thinking about global warming, and it led me right into a little bit of my belief about what we should really be worrying about. And my suggestion is that you do a little bit of research and make up your own mind.

Global population crisis

Go kill yourself may seem a little bit harsh (I always think it should be spelled harshe, just to give it a little more emphasis, but whatever) but think about it. There are people who think that technology will be the savior of us all when it comes down to the carrying capacity of the planet. But think about it, there are well over 6 billion people on the planet (as of 2008). Our society as a whole has no natural predators at this point, population grows exponentially, and application of technologies (despite new technology growing exponentially) grows practically linearly.

In my opinion we need to face the fact that there is simply not enough to sustain our current state of affairs. There is only a limited amount of water on this planet, assuming we develop fusion of some sort and can create more oxygen or can get it from other planets, we could be ok. But as it stands there is only enough water on the planet to fill a certain number of bodies, a very high number, but when you include basic sanitation and the fact that waste water needs to be purified and americans like to live a lavish lifestyle (basic comfort aside we waste a ton)... its a dire conundrum when the population gets above a certain threshold. We are nearing a point where it will also be impossible to force any kind of restriction upon this type of endeavor. Free will aside, governments cannot forcibly make people do anything and people are prone to disagree when their own opinions on the matter are not taken into account. And if we have learned anything from people over the last 5000 years, we are prone to violent uprising when we arent happy. To address this issue, we need to slow the growth of our species so we dont hit the point only to have our entire infrastructure fail because we didnt anticipate. We also need to make the issue stand out in the minds of everybody so that they know what our situation is and make informed decisions in place, and we need to adjust policy so that we do not die out.

My thoughts on the subject are that if I am to have a child, will I want them to grow old in a world that is dying due to its own inability to face a crisis of the survival of our very species. And I cant say no because my children will need to make that decision for themselves. I will not likely need to deal with it. I can however imply to those whose essence lies in the shallow end of the gene pool that it may be in humanity's best interest to go kill themselves.

Man, now I am thinking about global warming, but I dont really want to get started on that.

My most recent why moment

I am instantly reminded of a recent encounter where the question of why actually forced somebody to leave the pleasant conversation I was involved in.

I was at a party, Chicken and Beer to be precise. I was not one of the well connected members at the party in that I knew a few people well, and a few people hardly and a very many people not at all. So I was expecting an uninteresting afternoon, following my close acquaintances around, as my friend put it, with a lot of alcohol but not a lot of substance (he was referring to fraternity parties when he made the comment but I could [probably fairly] assume that he heard it elsewhere and that it was intended for broader application). Unfortunately, I was left alone at some point in the party, so as people are apt to do, I headed towards the beer.

Note: at a party, if you are standing near the keg, you are probably lonely. But fortunately for everybody involved, the alcohol tends to be a focal point, and thus you are bound to happen upon somebody else with whom a rapport can be established.

So there I was standing near the keg expecting only to find one of my friends when they happened towards the same location, when I suddenly became involved in conversation with somebody whose name I do not know. I do not know the initial course of the conversation, but I assume basic pleasantries and introductions took place, and as with most conversations with strangers we familiarized ourselves with our occupations, educations, hobbies and such. My occupation at the time bored me, and I made it readily apparent. But the person with whom I was speaking was not satisfied with my own discontent because I had a better education than they, and I shouldn't be wasting my brain.

I have come upon this conversation many times in my life. Everybody likes to think they can solve other people's problems and I am no different. But having somebody point blank look at you and say "you are smarter than I am", and say "you need to do something with your life", and then aimlessly look for something to peak your interest as if the thought had never occurred to you to think about what to do with your life, piques my sense of condescension. And thus, the why.

If you are forcing your beliefs on somebody else, you better have a damned good reason for it. My personal opinion is that nobody has the right to force beliefs on somebody else, but then again, that point doesn't really mean anything, because its just my belief. But, I asked why. And she clearly didn't understand what I was talking about, because she gave me this odd look as if the question didn't make any sense. I thought it did however, and thus I repeated myself. Why should I do anything, why should I be more productive, why should I do something to help others, why anything.

Now that last one there is where I got into trouble. At some point in the conversation the boyfriend of the instigator of my why moment had stumbled upon us and possibly even had added a few words, but when I got to my why anything, I brought up God. Now everybody says religion and politics and beer don't mix, but I'll be damned if they aren't the most interesting things to mix. Unfortunately, the concept of a higher being scared off the boyfriend. He was apparently not comfortable arguing religious rhetoric against somebody who considers God to be the answer to a question of why. He was an atheist.

I was an atheist at one point, but I asked myself long and hard the question of why and got nowhere. I read a little bit of philosophy, I found it rather boring tedious and obvious (actually a hilarious moment occurred my freshman year at college, somebody was reading socrates for their intro to philosophy class and I called them out on it, and they started to say how important he was in the development of blah blah blah... and started on one of his thoughts, and I actually word for word finished the next two sentences of the dialouge, because most of philosophy is really just logic.... ok I thought it was funny, I guess you had to be there, or maybe it helps to know that the person in question was annoying, no ... nothing? ok I guess its just funny for me but thats why you dont need to read the parenthisized comments along the way). I looked around at the world, and I realized something that I still believe to this day. In my mind the world is too beautiful to be created by random chance. Now, I dont actually believe that, random chance is practically the most beautiful thing out there (fractals are pretty sweet when you think about it), and random chance is surely a driving force in the universe. This realization occurred to me the summer of tenth grade (in fact I wrote my college essay about it), but as I said, I am not here to instill my beliefs on anybody, it was simply an explanation for why I brought it up. My best bet at a true answer to why is God, a being that nobody can begin to understand or concieve of beyond our own hidden dreams and goals of a higher being. My guess as to God's plan is only equally as valid as the guess of the crack head screaming "YALL MY BITCHES" in the streets of baltimore, in broad daylight, at a parking meter. So when I ask why, on some level I am saying please enlighten me, while on an entirely different level I am saying go kill yourself.

Where To Begin.

I was born.

I was going to end the post with that, but it reminds me of a philosophical discussion which may impact the rest of this blog, so I shall share it despite losing the nice concise lead in that I had originally hoped for.

When I was in tenth grade the discussion of fate and predetermination versus free will came up. This was related to a number of things, I am sure it had something to do with whatever fairly trivial thing I decided not to take home from the discussion was, but I digress. Fate versus free will. The question of whether the person can be blamed for their circumstances or whether they can cop out and simply say, but it was a product of my birth.

In tenth grade I was a devil's advocate. I was smarter than other people, and people didn't hesitate to tell me that, so I abused people with little minds. I would love to say that I stopped, or that I found fewer little minds at college, but I might be lying. Trends tend to continue and even if you stop noticing them they may have just developed into the status quo.

So I was arguing against my imbecile of a teacher and her teachers pet. My claim was for fate, while their claim was for free will. The example, a man walks into a bank unfortunately during a robbery and gets shot. Their argument was he chose to walk into the bank. My response why did he walk into the bank. now to say that either of these arguments holds water is weak at best, but my point to them was that if you were to trace any decision in this mans life, it could be traced back to where he started, and before his first choice, he was placed somewhere out of his control. Nobody listened to me of course, as the teacher and her pet were arguing for the right side, but my point stands to this very day. The question of why is a very powerful one. The most difficult question, the most pointed question, and by far the most important question.