I've been reading and writing odds and ends and tids and bits about the seven sins, and I've come to the conclusion that - contrary to popular belief - corporations are not greedy.
And now you're thinking to yourself, "but Michael! This goes against everything you've written! Have you lost your mind? Has the machine gotten to you?!" Trust me, good friend, the machine has not gotten to me, and I've as much mind as I've ever had.
Corporations are just simply not greedy. They are gluttonous, which is something far worse.
Greed and gluttony are nearly indistinguishable in definition, as they are both a desire for personal gain. The difference is that gluttony takes it to excess.
For example. Someone who is greedy will eat more cookies than anyone else; someone who is gluttonous will eat all of the cookies on the table, then all the cookies in the cupboards, then all of the cookies in the store, and will not stop until they've eaten every cookie possible.
A corporation that is greedy will demand greater profits than its competitors; a corporation that is gluttonous will do whatever it takes to make those profits, including layoffs and dubious production tactics.
And to be perfectly honest, I'm not even totally sure where I stand on this whole capitalism issue. While there is logic behind competition creating better products, in a hypothetical communist and technology-driven society, couldn't products be made better for the simple goal of creating better products? Why does capitalism only function on the premise that some people must lose? And greed and gluttony and inflation aside, how can corporations consider only a marginal profit a loss? This mentality is most certainly not for the benefit of society, it can only be a manufacturer's defect.
In conclusion, because I'm not feeling particularly wordy today: up yours, corporate thugs.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Sunday, March 1, 2009
As Dug Up from an Old Pile of Ignorance
A few years ago, I received an e-mail. It was forwarded to me probably with the intention of humour, although I seriously question the mental state of someone who would actually think it were funny. Strictly for context purposes, this is a condensation of what it read:
"Everyone seems to be wondering why Muslim terrorists are so quick to commit suicide. Let's see now; no Jesus, no Christmas, no television, no cheerleaders, no hot dogs, no beer, no tailgate parties, no Wal-Mart, rags for clothes, towels for hats, your wives can't shave, you can't shower to wash off the smell of donkey cooked over burning camel dung, and women wear baggy dresses and veils and smell like your donkey. Then they tell you that when you die it all gets better! Is there a mystery here?"
I replied immediately, not only to the ignorant twit who sent it to me, but also to everyone else addressed. I was livid; as I imagined any sensible person would be. This is what I wrote:
"The message that was sent to you is a slanderous e-mail containing more outright racism than humour. Please do not propogate hatred by forwarding it. The very first criteria listed is the best example of the ignorance lining the entire body; not only do Muslims believe in Jesus, he is the most quoted prophet in the Qur'an, their holy book. The blunt truth is that the only mystery to be found is the intolerance one would require in order to type this all up in the first place. It insinuates that our questionable values are the base for the only legitimate culture; that a feudalistic capitalist society is the ideal utopian template! As if television, beer, and Wal-Mart are actually great accomplishments in history! Further, its direct xenophobic/isolationist language is a catalyst for all international hatred that seems endemic in North America. Please. Please. Please. Do not help spread this disease."
"Everyone seems to be wondering why Muslim terrorists are so quick to commit suicide. Let's see now; no Jesus, no Christmas, no television, no cheerleaders, no hot dogs, no beer, no tailgate parties, no Wal-Mart, rags for clothes, towels for hats, your wives can't shave, you can't shower to wash off the smell of donkey cooked over burning camel dung, and women wear baggy dresses and veils and smell like your donkey. Then they tell you that when you die it all gets better! Is there a mystery here?"
I replied immediately, not only to the ignorant twit who sent it to me, but also to everyone else addressed. I was livid; as I imagined any sensible person would be. This is what I wrote:
"The message that was sent to you is a slanderous e-mail containing more outright racism than humour. Please do not propogate hatred by forwarding it. The very first criteria listed is the best example of the ignorance lining the entire body; not only do Muslims believe in Jesus, he is the most quoted prophet in the Qur'an, their holy book. The blunt truth is that the only mystery to be found is the intolerance one would require in order to type this all up in the first place. It insinuates that our questionable values are the base for the only legitimate culture; that a feudalistic capitalist society is the ideal utopian template! As if television, beer, and Wal-Mart are actually great accomplishments in history! Further, its direct xenophobic/isolationist language is a catalyst for all international hatred that seems endemic in North America. Please. Please. Please. Do not help spread this disease."
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Money and the Fiction of Interest
Please, I beg you, correct me if I'm wrong. (Will, I'm looking at you here, pal!) I'm not an economist, have never worked in a finance, and can hardly balance a checkbook. Still, there's less to the concept of money than banks would like you to think; that's how they intimidate you into submission.
Between the beginning of organized community-based civilization and the adoption of monetary currency, people traded to acquire what they needed. The fisherman traded his fish for grain, the farmer traded his grain for wood, et cetera. This worked well until someone had all the grain they needed, and the farmer had nothing else to trade with. So along comes the banker.
The banker whips up some money; for example, $1000 for everyone. He affirms that he owns the money, but he'll gladly borrow it out to the community for a small fee, which he'll collect at the end of the year. The bank even offers a generously low interest rate of 5%. Not bad, huh?
Yet, once the year is over, everyone discovers something: even though they all end the year with exactly as much as they began, nobody has enough to pay the borrowing fee. So the banker makes them an offer. Pay attention, because this next part is the swindle.
Everyone in the community borrowed $1000, and now because of interest, they all owe $1050. The bank then takes back all the money that exists, leaving everyone with no actual way to pay their debt. The bank records that everyone owes $50, then lends out another $1000 to everyone for the upcoming year, still with 5% interest.
So even in a best-case scenario that assumes everyone in the community ends the year with as much as they began, debt is still perpetual. In a worst-case scenario, of course, a few people are able to pay their debt back, most are in perpetual debt, and a few are bankrupt and left to starve.
Today, banks operate on the same principle, but without the inconvenience of tangible, physical money. Currency is nearly completely theoretical. It exists electronically, being created out of thin air. It's fiction. This is why if everyone withdrew all their savings at the same time, there would not be enough money for everyone. It is a debt-based system.
Unfortunately, money is the dominant system of our civilization. And while I do support a money-free society, it is simply not possible in the near future. Realistically, even a complete collapse of the current financial system wouldn't be enough to implement something different. It is still quite impossible to buy food and shelter with good intentions, so whether or not money is a good thing, it is a wretched necessity of the present. And yet, it doesn't even exist.
Between the beginning of organized community-based civilization and the adoption of monetary currency, people traded to acquire what they needed. The fisherman traded his fish for grain, the farmer traded his grain for wood, et cetera. This worked well until someone had all the grain they needed, and the farmer had nothing else to trade with. So along comes the banker.
The banker whips up some money; for example, $1000 for everyone. He affirms that he owns the money, but he'll gladly borrow it out to the community for a small fee, which he'll collect at the end of the year. The bank even offers a generously low interest rate of 5%. Not bad, huh?
Yet, once the year is over, everyone discovers something: even though they all end the year with exactly as much as they began, nobody has enough to pay the borrowing fee. So the banker makes them an offer. Pay attention, because this next part is the swindle.
Everyone in the community borrowed $1000, and now because of interest, they all owe $1050. The bank then takes back all the money that exists, leaving everyone with no actual way to pay their debt. The bank records that everyone owes $50, then lends out another $1000 to everyone for the upcoming year, still with 5% interest.
So even in a best-case scenario that assumes everyone in the community ends the year with as much as they began, debt is still perpetual. In a worst-case scenario, of course, a few people are able to pay their debt back, most are in perpetual debt, and a few are bankrupt and left to starve.
Today, banks operate on the same principle, but without the inconvenience of tangible, physical money. Currency is nearly completely theoretical. It exists electronically, being created out of thin air. It's fiction. This is why if everyone withdrew all their savings at the same time, there would not be enough money for everyone. It is a debt-based system.
Unfortunately, money is the dominant system of our civilization. And while I do support a money-free society, it is simply not possible in the near future. Realistically, even a complete collapse of the current financial system wouldn't be enough to implement something different. It is still quite impossible to buy food and shelter with good intentions, so whether or not money is a good thing, it is a wretched necessity of the present. And yet, it doesn't even exist.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
The Electoral Process
(This is a message to anybody who doesn't vote, an excerpt from conversations I've had, once quite recently.)
It's true; democracy doesn't work. I've voted for a losing party in absolutely every election since I turned 18. In each instance, my vote truly did not matter, and so it was effectively the same as if I hadn't voted at all. So yes, the system is flawed.
However, to change the system, the choice isn't between voting and not voting. That's a false dichotomy. The real choice is between voting and revolution. Either the system is changed from within or it is changed by force, so unless you're willing to pick up a weapon and literally fight for change, your only choice is to vote.
Most people that don't participate in elections use the "my vote doesn't matter" argument simply to justify their apathy, their laziness. They are actually unwilling to take steps towards any type of change, let alone the simpler of the two. There's an old saying, a well-worn Hollywood cliché, "we can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way." Well, in our society, the easy way is voting and the hard way is revolution. The irony is, to actually change anything, the easy way is actually very hard. And it takes a long time.
So yes, it's true, my vote never made a difference. But somebody else's did. And I can live with this because I'm aware that I'm not willing to pick up a gun and fight. Not alone.
The system is flawed, but it's not enough just to talk about its failure. You have to understand its weaknesses; and the biggest weakness of all is to do absolutely nothing.
It's true; democracy doesn't work. I've voted for a losing party in absolutely every election since I turned 18. In each instance, my vote truly did not matter, and so it was effectively the same as if I hadn't voted at all. So yes, the system is flawed.
However, to change the system, the choice isn't between voting and not voting. That's a false dichotomy. The real choice is between voting and revolution. Either the system is changed from within or it is changed by force, so unless you're willing to pick up a weapon and literally fight for change, your only choice is to vote.
Most people that don't participate in elections use the "my vote doesn't matter" argument simply to justify their apathy, their laziness. They are actually unwilling to take steps towards any type of change, let alone the simpler of the two. There's an old saying, a well-worn Hollywood cliché, "we can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way." Well, in our society, the easy way is voting and the hard way is revolution. The irony is, to actually change anything, the easy way is actually very hard. And it takes a long time.
So yes, it's true, my vote never made a difference. But somebody else's did. And I can live with this because I'm aware that I'm not willing to pick up a gun and fight. Not alone.
The system is flawed, but it's not enough just to talk about its failure. You have to understand its weaknesses; and the biggest weakness of all is to do absolutely nothing.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Thought on Vegetarianism
Note: If you are completely set on eating meat or are stubbornly argumentative in the face of sound reasoning, you’d be best to return to whatever it was you were looking at beforehand.
Over the course of two years, I have experienced discrimination for my dietary choices. This discrimination isn’t in the popularly conceived sense of being confined to certain water fountains or sections of the bus, but it does exist. Occasionally it’s a light-hearted jab, which I can find some humour in; but other times it’s not. Like the old condescending, “… oh, that’s right, you don’t eat meat,” as if to imply that it’s me who’s out of his senses.
It is quite rare for me to go out of my way to push my choice to minimize animal consumption on others. In fact, even the light-hearted jab isn’t something I do to anyone that I don’t know well. I don’t question anybody else’s decision to buy the food that they want, but if I’m pressed upon it, then yes, I will give my firm opinion on the subject. And to prevent any of said pressing, my opinion is that people who eat meat haven’t given it enough thought.
(For the sake of fair argument, I will remove moral ethics from my point completely.)
Consider the meat industry. Their chief responsibility is to make money. In many factory farms, the animals are given regular injections of various chemicals to increase their growth. These chemicals continue along through the food chain both by direct and indirect consumption, meaning that in some capacity, you are ingesting the same chemicals. They affect all physiological aspects of your health.
Consider the pharmaceutical industry, which supplies the meat industry with the chemicals. Their chief responsibility is also to make money, and the best way to do this is to keep manufacturing costs low, which includes health standards. These chemicals are, of course, unnecessary, because animals will grow so long as they eat and exercise; however, the main goal of these industries, as with all industries, is to make money.
Consider the environment, this place that we live. The process of farming animals is an incredible source of unnecessary waste. This includes direct biological waste as well as the emissions from the transportation of the animals and products. And while it’s true that fruits and vegetables are also transported, this counter-argument is meaningless since the process of harvesting animals requires seven times as much food.
Consider global economics. The majority of the world’s population is starving when there is enough food on the planet to feed everyone. The problem is, as mentioned previously, most of this food is being used to feed the animals that are subsequently consumed by humans. For the sake of comparison, one acre of land could produce 20,000 kg of potatoes or 110 kg of beef.
Consider local economics. Our country currently spends between $60 billion to $120 billion annually to treat medical problems – such as heart disease, cancer, obesity, and food poisoning – that are by-products of consuming animals.
When I decided to minimize my meat consumption years ago, I did so with all of these things in mind. I thought about all of these points very carefully before I made my personal choice. So when I say I believe that people who eat meat haven’t thought about it enough, I don’t say it to make anyone else feel inferior or myself superior. I say it to highlight the fact that this sort of decision is not as simple as is often implied. I was asked once if it was because I didn’t want to kill animals. The answer is no, I have killed animals in my life. Most people that eat meat can’t even say this much.
I am not out of my senses because of what I choose to eat; I am in more sense than most. The reason people choose to eat meat is not for any logical reason, it’s simply one of those things in life that we’ve come to accept. And believe me, I accept that. I understand that people have their own personal tastes and beliefs. They have the right to that, and I don’t dispute that, and I certainly won’t ridicule someone for it. And for this same reason, I also don’t think that my tastes and beliefs should be blindly ridiculed. I’ve thought about it. Have you?
Over the course of two years, I have experienced discrimination for my dietary choices. This discrimination isn’t in the popularly conceived sense of being confined to certain water fountains or sections of the bus, but it does exist. Occasionally it’s a light-hearted jab, which I can find some humour in; but other times it’s not. Like the old condescending, “… oh, that’s right, you don’t eat meat,” as if to imply that it’s me who’s out of his senses.
It is quite rare for me to go out of my way to push my choice to minimize animal consumption on others. In fact, even the light-hearted jab isn’t something I do to anyone that I don’t know well. I don’t question anybody else’s decision to buy the food that they want, but if I’m pressed upon it, then yes, I will give my firm opinion on the subject. And to prevent any of said pressing, my opinion is that people who eat meat haven’t given it enough thought.
(For the sake of fair argument, I will remove moral ethics from my point completely.)
Consider the meat industry. Their chief responsibility is to make money. In many factory farms, the animals are given regular injections of various chemicals to increase their growth. These chemicals continue along through the food chain both by direct and indirect consumption, meaning that in some capacity, you are ingesting the same chemicals. They affect all physiological aspects of your health.
Consider the pharmaceutical industry, which supplies the meat industry with the chemicals. Their chief responsibility is also to make money, and the best way to do this is to keep manufacturing costs low, which includes health standards. These chemicals are, of course, unnecessary, because animals will grow so long as they eat and exercise; however, the main goal of these industries, as with all industries, is to make money.
Consider the environment, this place that we live. The process of farming animals is an incredible source of unnecessary waste. This includes direct biological waste as well as the emissions from the transportation of the animals and products. And while it’s true that fruits and vegetables are also transported, this counter-argument is meaningless since the process of harvesting animals requires seven times as much food.
Consider global economics. The majority of the world’s population is starving when there is enough food on the planet to feed everyone. The problem is, as mentioned previously, most of this food is being used to feed the animals that are subsequently consumed by humans. For the sake of comparison, one acre of land could produce 20,000 kg of potatoes or 110 kg of beef.
Consider local economics. Our country currently spends between $60 billion to $120 billion annually to treat medical problems – such as heart disease, cancer, obesity, and food poisoning – that are by-products of consuming animals.
When I decided to minimize my meat consumption years ago, I did so with all of these things in mind. I thought about all of these points very carefully before I made my personal choice. So when I say I believe that people who eat meat haven’t thought about it enough, I don’t say it to make anyone else feel inferior or myself superior. I say it to highlight the fact that this sort of decision is not as simple as is often implied. I was asked once if it was because I didn’t want to kill animals. The answer is no, I have killed animals in my life. Most people that eat meat can’t even say this much.
I am not out of my senses because of what I choose to eat; I am in more sense than most. The reason people choose to eat meat is not for any logical reason, it’s simply one of those things in life that we’ve come to accept. And believe me, I accept that. I understand that people have their own personal tastes and beliefs. They have the right to that, and I don’t dispute that, and I certainly won’t ridicule someone for it. And for this same reason, I also don’t think that my tastes and beliefs should be blindly ridiculed. I’ve thought about it. Have you?
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Mythbuster (A Quote)
"Myth: We have to save the Earth. Frankly, the Earth doesn't need to be saved. Nature doesn't give a hoot if human beings are here or not. The planet has survived cataclysmic and catastrophic changes for millions upon millions of years. Over that time, it is widely believed that 99 percent of all species have come and gone while the planet has remained. Saving the environment is really about saving our environment: making it safe for ourselves, our children, and the world as we know it. If more people saw the issue as one of saving themselves, we would probably see increased motivation and commitment to actually do so."
-Robert M. Lilienfeld and William L. Rathje
-Robert M. Lilienfeld and William L. Rathje
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
The Redefinition Of Humanity
We haven’t lost our humanity; we’ve redefined it as something more than muscle and blood and skin and bones. Now, our humanity is all batteries and pixels and satellites. We’ve extended ourselves so far outward that there’s nothing left inward. We’re entirely hollow, and ironically – but not surprisingly – hollow things are fragile and easily collapse in on themselves, which explains why our culture has become so self-centered.
Most people, and I’ll provide myself as an example, have an opinion of themselves that is diluted with self-importance. I drive just a little bit faster than the speed limit because I want to get there sooner than everyone else. I keep online journals because I think what I have to say is interesting. I think I’m a little bit better because I use proper punctuation, spell “yeah” correctly, and rarely – if ever – misuse a possessive s.
Lately grammar has become so ill-formed that it barely resembles the English language, which is clearly a reflection on our collective intelligence. Basic language skills are the only thing we have to communicate with, and if we can abandon these so easily, what else might we sacrifice as we evolve? What else have we already lost?
We’ve gone from fists to hammers, sundials to microchips, rocks to missiles. Technology is just an extension of our limbs. We’ve got devices that we can operate as easily as we can think, but this has not made us any more intelligent; it has made us detached. We do not hunt or harvest, we do not build, we do not have sex strictly to reproduce. We are not the creatures that came down from the trees to begin civilization. We are anachronisms on a cultural timeline, out of place and out of mind, doomed to a destiny of repetition simply because we do not correct our mistakes. Not that this matters, though; we do not make mistakes. We make oversights. We make excuses.
Our global conscience is of questionable existence because of our narrow focus. In a broader horizon, we would see our past and our future, with our present somewhere in-between on a skewed line drawing closer and closer to the edge. There are sustainable societies in both our past and our future, like the covers of a story gone absurdly out of control of its author, yet we continue to write. And the grammar that we use is as flawed and imperfect as we command it to be. They’re not just typos; they are examples of our sloth. And being lazy, even in what might seem to be the most minor instances, impedes our development as society, because it does not just stop at these tiny imperfections. The smallest crack in a pane of glass will make its way across the entire surface unnoticeably until one day there is nothing left to see through. Our humanity is already as fragile as this, with cracks running out from the center. Thankfully, we can still see the past, and thankfully, we can still see the future. The question is, can we see through the glass clearly enough to see the immediate and, hopefully, the best direction to proceed?
Most people, and I’ll provide myself as an example, have an opinion of themselves that is diluted with self-importance. I drive just a little bit faster than the speed limit because I want to get there sooner than everyone else. I keep online journals because I think what I have to say is interesting. I think I’m a little bit better because I use proper punctuation, spell “yeah” correctly, and rarely – if ever – misuse a possessive s.
Lately grammar has become so ill-formed that it barely resembles the English language, which is clearly a reflection on our collective intelligence. Basic language skills are the only thing we have to communicate with, and if we can abandon these so easily, what else might we sacrifice as we evolve? What else have we already lost?
We’ve gone from fists to hammers, sundials to microchips, rocks to missiles. Technology is just an extension of our limbs. We’ve got devices that we can operate as easily as we can think, but this has not made us any more intelligent; it has made us detached. We do not hunt or harvest, we do not build, we do not have sex strictly to reproduce. We are not the creatures that came down from the trees to begin civilization. We are anachronisms on a cultural timeline, out of place and out of mind, doomed to a destiny of repetition simply because we do not correct our mistakes. Not that this matters, though; we do not make mistakes. We make oversights. We make excuses.
Our global conscience is of questionable existence because of our narrow focus. In a broader horizon, we would see our past and our future, with our present somewhere in-between on a skewed line drawing closer and closer to the edge. There are sustainable societies in both our past and our future, like the covers of a story gone absurdly out of control of its author, yet we continue to write. And the grammar that we use is as flawed and imperfect as we command it to be. They’re not just typos; they are examples of our sloth. And being lazy, even in what might seem to be the most minor instances, impedes our development as society, because it does not just stop at these tiny imperfections. The smallest crack in a pane of glass will make its way across the entire surface unnoticeably until one day there is nothing left to see through. Our humanity is already as fragile as this, with cracks running out from the center. Thankfully, we can still see the past, and thankfully, we can still see the future. The question is, can we see through the glass clearly enough to see the immediate and, hopefully, the best direction to proceed?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
