Good Morning Reader,
Capitalism was a genius idea. At it's core you harness people's nature to compete and excel and by allowing them to compete you ensure a high level of productivity. It encourages high levels of economic growth, satisfaction for people who work hard and reward for people who innovate.
To allow capitalism to flourish requires a free market. Unfettered by government or irrational intervention. The problem with these kinds of intervention is that they restrict capitalism and run the risk of destroying the reward of capitalism; if you innovate and work hard you might still get nothing and then people lose faith in capitalism and the whole system breaks down.
However for some time I have considered capitalism to have a flaw that it seems to me that not many people have identified. When people are competing eventually someone wins. That winner then receives the prizes and rewards which give them an edge in the next race. To use an analogy capitalism is like putting everyone in a running race. The runners do their thing and at the end the top 3 get medals and recognition. But that's not all they get, other people see their talent and want to invest in them. They get support including expert training, better equipment and as a result a better chance at winning in the next race. In the market it's exactly the same thing. The purpose of capitalism is to get everyone to work as hard as they can and innovate as much as possible and when one group or business does so they make more money and gain more resources. They get better applicants wanting to work with them, can buy better equipment and offer better services meaning they continue to pull further ahead of the rest of the competition. It's then only natural for them to absorb some of their competitors where they can and suddenly you have less of a free market and more of an oligopoly where only a few of the best remain.
So how do you get everyone to compete in a competition where nobody wins but people still try their hardest? Any parent with a child at one of these new fangled weekend football events where they don't keep score can tell you that people don't try their hardest. Balanced situations (as we have in most Western nations today) where you try to keep markets relatively free but with government controls to protect the spirit of the competition also have frequent problems. For now there is no solution. The only one I can see would require people to genuinely start believing in doing what they can for the good of our species.
Tuesday, 24 March 2015
Wednesday, 18 March 2015
Who Enjoys Counting?
Ahoy Reader,
Those of you who know me know that I love mathematics. I love learning mathematics, using mathematics and I love how everything in the entire universe can be simplified to mathematical equations and formulae (sort of).
But it was while enjoying a riveting tale of Sherlock Holmes that it struck me that maybe we're all using numbers wrong. Today if you would like to say or write a number we go from biggest to smallest. For example you would say "five hundred and twenty three"; we start with the biggest denomination, hundreds, then descend to tens then singles. However there was a time when it was not unusual to express smaller denominations first and I would imagine in many other languages/numeric systems this is the norm. For example in Sherlock Holmes' tale of The Red-Headed League the tradesman, Mr. Wilson, states that he was paid "two and thirty" pounds.
This got me thinking about whether stating the larger denominations first is actually more efficient and whether it would be easier to start with smaller denominations. On paper and verbally it is the same amount of work to write or say. You are still stating the same total quantity of numbers and stating the denominations in the same way, hundreds, thousands, etc. However there is a benefit to starting with the smallest that is not compensated for by starting with the largest and that is if you start with the smallest number you don't need to know what the biggest is going to be. To help explain I will use an example; if you needed to read out the number 21427871005 most people would need to count the numbers first to check where they are starting (in this case with twenty-one billion, four hundred and twenty-seven thousand, eight hundred and seventy-one thousand, ). If this were a number starting from smallest and ending with largest however there is no preliminary work required. You can start talking straight away. The exact organisation of saying it would be a little confusing at first and it's probably far too impractical to actually change how to arrange numbers but I found it amusing to consider.
Those of you who know me know that I love mathematics. I love learning mathematics, using mathematics and I love how everything in the entire universe can be simplified to mathematical equations and formulae (sort of).
But it was while enjoying a riveting tale of Sherlock Holmes that it struck me that maybe we're all using numbers wrong. Today if you would like to say or write a number we go from biggest to smallest. For example you would say "five hundred and twenty three"; we start with the biggest denomination, hundreds, then descend to tens then singles. However there was a time when it was not unusual to express smaller denominations first and I would imagine in many other languages/numeric systems this is the norm. For example in Sherlock Holmes' tale of The Red-Headed League the tradesman, Mr. Wilson, states that he was paid "two and thirty" pounds.
This got me thinking about whether stating the larger denominations first is actually more efficient and whether it would be easier to start with smaller denominations. On paper and verbally it is the same amount of work to write or say. You are still stating the same total quantity of numbers and stating the denominations in the same way, hundreds, thousands, etc. However there is a benefit to starting with the smallest that is not compensated for by starting with the largest and that is if you start with the smallest number you don't need to know what the biggest is going to be. To help explain I will use an example; if you needed to read out the number 21427871005 most people would need to count the numbers first to check where they are starting (in this case with twenty-one billion, four hundred and twenty-seven thousand, eight hundred and seventy-one thousand, ). If this were a number starting from smallest and ending with largest however there is no preliminary work required. You can start talking straight away. The exact organisation of saying it would be a little confusing at first and it's probably far too impractical to actually change how to arrange numbers but I found it amusing to consider.
Thursday, 12 March 2015
Political Parties in Australia
Good Morning Reader,
It's been a little while since my last post, things have been a little crazy with work and uni since I'm doing an additional unit this term (in robotics for those interested). But I've had a little time to consider one of my favourite topics, elections in Australia. This time specifically about the parties and the requirements of a party to run for office in the magical land of Oz.
Currently, and for a very long time, one of the main requirements for any party to run for a seat in parliament is that they have 500 registered, paying members of their party. Parties who do not meet this requirement can not run and if it is found out post-election that they did not have the necessary members it may result in a High Court enquiry and a Bi-election, an expensive outcome for taxpayers especially given the cause. Elections are costly and re-running an election because of an under-supported party with less than 500 members is a particularly undesirable event in my eyes.
But when you consider the requirement itself it may be that we aren't doing it right. 500 people out of the (approximately) 23 million current population of Australia is not very much. 0.00217% of our population in fact. Does having 0.002% of the population really merit a genuine run for office where you are suppose to be representing an electorate of roughly 15,000 people. It seems to me that it would be far more appropriate for us to set the minimum membership requirement as a percentage of our population, ensuring continued fairness of this requirement and preventing the need to review it as our population grows. My personal opinion is that parties should be required to enjoy the support of at least 0.05% of the population (although I think this is still rather low considering what they are running for). Perhaps that would be a good transitional level to set it at with the goal of building to a minimum of 0.5% of the population eventually.
It's been a little while since my last post, things have been a little crazy with work and uni since I'm doing an additional unit this term (in robotics for those interested). But I've had a little time to consider one of my favourite topics, elections in Australia. This time specifically about the parties and the requirements of a party to run for office in the magical land of Oz.
Currently, and for a very long time, one of the main requirements for any party to run for a seat in parliament is that they have 500 registered, paying members of their party. Parties who do not meet this requirement can not run and if it is found out post-election that they did not have the necessary members it may result in a High Court enquiry and a Bi-election, an expensive outcome for taxpayers especially given the cause. Elections are costly and re-running an election because of an under-supported party with less than 500 members is a particularly undesirable event in my eyes.
But when you consider the requirement itself it may be that we aren't doing it right. 500 people out of the (approximately) 23 million current population of Australia is not very much. 0.00217% of our population in fact. Does having 0.002% of the population really merit a genuine run for office where you are suppose to be representing an electorate of roughly 15,000 people. It seems to me that it would be far more appropriate for us to set the minimum membership requirement as a percentage of our population, ensuring continued fairness of this requirement and preventing the need to review it as our population grows. My personal opinion is that parties should be required to enjoy the support of at least 0.05% of the population (although I think this is still rather low considering what they are running for). Perhaps that would be a good transitional level to set it at with the goal of building to a minimum of 0.5% of the population eventually.
Sunday, 22 February 2015
Saving Lives, Responsibility and Euthanasia
Good Morning Reader,
I have always been rather fond of novels featuring castaways or similar scenarios where a person is stranded and must do whatever they can to survive. Recently I re-read Robinson Crusoe (for those who haven't read it I strongly recommend it) and was struck by an occurrence that seems unusual by today's standards and is also mentioned in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Both Dr. Frankenstein and Poor Mr Crusoe find themselves shipwrecked during their misadventures and are rescued by other people who furnish them with clothing, shelter, food and money to ensure their continued survival. This is at odd with what I would call the norm today where saving someone's life would generally mean they are in your debt instead of the other way round.
Having encountered similar themes in a few literary sources now I have been wondering about this change in the way people consider saving another persons life and the implications of doing so. In a situation of life and death most of us would not (or hope they would not) hesitate to save another person if you have the ability to do so. Whether this puts that person in your debt or you in theirs is something I would like to examine more closely.
So let's start at the beginning. Where does the idea of someone owing you if you save their life come from? On the surface it seems very obvious. You have done something for them so they should do something for you. It is in line with a basic understanding of fairness. Many tribal cultures had concepts of "life debts" or similar scenarios where saving someone's life means that they owe you that life and should spend it repaying you.
On the other hand figuring out how people started feeling responsibility for those they save is a bit harder to identify. In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein it is expressed as the kind of thing any "good Christian" would do for another, implying that at some point at least some groups of Christianity were encouraging such a practice and where one religion is doing it I imagine others must have also promoted such behaviour. It is also a hallmark of clearly defined "civility" to me in that it requires the average person to have the means to assist beyond just saving someone's life.
My personal feelings on the matter is that if you do save someone's life you are responsible for ensuring that person has the means to continue supporting their own life. In most circumstances of life-saving actions you do not have the opportunity to confirm that a person wants their life saved prior to saving their life and as such it is unfair to render a service to someone without prior confirmation of the price of that service and then expect them to pay for it. Following that logic if you save someone you should not expect any kind of reward for doing so (other than the warm feelings and gratitude you are likely to receive for doing such a good deed). Furthermore in saving a life you are actually taking something from a person; their free will and right to determine their own fate. If you want to take away someone's right to choose how their life concludes you have to be willing to accept responsibility for that which includes ensuring that person has the means to continue living in a dignified and comfortable manner. Which leads into a related topic which I feel needs to be mentioned due to it's importance; euthanasia.
Based on my previous statements in this article I'm sure most of you can tell that I believe euthanasia is a right everyone has. I am a supporter of free will and a person's right to make their own choices as long as they are not harming other people (although quite confusingly I do not believe free will exists). As such I think if a person is at a point where they no longer wish to continue their life (and have not agreed to support another person or dependant) it is their right to end their life or to have the end of their life assisted by another if they are not capable of doing so themselves. Of course this is a very controversial issue and I expect many people will disagree with me so I look forward to hearing any additional information that might convince me otherwise.
I have always been rather fond of novels featuring castaways or similar scenarios where a person is stranded and must do whatever they can to survive. Recently I re-read Robinson Crusoe (for those who haven't read it I strongly recommend it) and was struck by an occurrence that seems unusual by today's standards and is also mentioned in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Both Dr. Frankenstein and Poor Mr Crusoe find themselves shipwrecked during their misadventures and are rescued by other people who furnish them with clothing, shelter, food and money to ensure their continued survival. This is at odd with what I would call the norm today where saving someone's life would generally mean they are in your debt instead of the other way round.
Having encountered similar themes in a few literary sources now I have been wondering about this change in the way people consider saving another persons life and the implications of doing so. In a situation of life and death most of us would not (or hope they would not) hesitate to save another person if you have the ability to do so. Whether this puts that person in your debt or you in theirs is something I would like to examine more closely.
So let's start at the beginning. Where does the idea of someone owing you if you save their life come from? On the surface it seems very obvious. You have done something for them so they should do something for you. It is in line with a basic understanding of fairness. Many tribal cultures had concepts of "life debts" or similar scenarios where saving someone's life means that they owe you that life and should spend it repaying you.
On the other hand figuring out how people started feeling responsibility for those they save is a bit harder to identify. In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein it is expressed as the kind of thing any "good Christian" would do for another, implying that at some point at least some groups of Christianity were encouraging such a practice and where one religion is doing it I imagine others must have also promoted such behaviour. It is also a hallmark of clearly defined "civility" to me in that it requires the average person to have the means to assist beyond just saving someone's life.
My personal feelings on the matter is that if you do save someone's life you are responsible for ensuring that person has the means to continue supporting their own life. In most circumstances of life-saving actions you do not have the opportunity to confirm that a person wants their life saved prior to saving their life and as such it is unfair to render a service to someone without prior confirmation of the price of that service and then expect them to pay for it. Following that logic if you save someone you should not expect any kind of reward for doing so (other than the warm feelings and gratitude you are likely to receive for doing such a good deed). Furthermore in saving a life you are actually taking something from a person; their free will and right to determine their own fate. If you want to take away someone's right to choose how their life concludes you have to be willing to accept responsibility for that which includes ensuring that person has the means to continue living in a dignified and comfortable manner. Which leads into a related topic which I feel needs to be mentioned due to it's importance; euthanasia.
Based on my previous statements in this article I'm sure most of you can tell that I believe euthanasia is a right everyone has. I am a supporter of free will and a person's right to make their own choices as long as they are not harming other people (although quite confusingly I do not believe free will exists). As such I think if a person is at a point where they no longer wish to continue their life (and have not agreed to support another person or dependant) it is their right to end their life or to have the end of their life assisted by another if they are not capable of doing so themselves. Of course this is a very controversial issue and I expect many people will disagree with me so I look forward to hearing any additional information that might convince me otherwise.
Saturday, 24 January 2015
Fears And My Experiences
Greetings Reader,
Today I would like to share a terrifying experience that occurred during my youth which has often returned to the forefront of my mind for well over a decade now. Whenever I am feeling introspective or unsafe it seems that this experience is never far from the surface of my conscious thought, waiting for a moment to jump up and seize me with irrational fright. I have never been able to identify the root of this fear and it is only recently that I have taken the initiative to do some Googling about the object of my fear and learned that it is somewhat of a phenomenon. So without further ado here is a recount of my experience:
It was quite late at night in the home of my parents. I was still a boy of about 14 years and had for some reason managed to stay up late but it was finally time for bed at around midnight or just a little after. I had just reached the cusp of sleep, my eyes had drooped almost to closing before I had even turned out my bedside light. My room was bathed in dim, shaded light. As my eyelids made their rounds of closing and opening, less and less each time as my sleepiness overcame my adolescent desire to never sleep I was suddenly confronted with an unprecedented event. As my eyes came open again I realised with great shock that I was not alone in my room. There was a dark figure standing in front of my bedroom door. He was taller than a person should be, the top of his head being just taller than the frame of my door. He was far skinnier than a person should be, despite his height his torso tapered in toward the waist inhumanly and his arms and legs could only be described as spindly at their thinnest points. His features were indistinguishable, his whole body appearing to be impossibly dark despite the light that should have been illuminating him like the door and posters behind him. I lied there, paralysed with extreme terror at this sudden and unexpected intruder. My mind barely functioning until suddenly he rushed toward me. His arm stretched out as he crossed the room in a fraction of a second, far quicker than any man is capable of until the moment he reached me he disappeared. I sat up, so shocked that I couldn't possibly conceive of sleeping however I was also far too afraid to get up and seek the company and safety of another human.
I am glad to say that I have never had another experience as harrowing as that one, never again has my sleep been disturbed so directly by this figure although he has occasionally appeared in my darkest nightmares. Despite having experienced intermittent visits to the memory of this deep-seated fear I have never until a few months ago sought any further information about the experience. However upon searching for "dark figures" I stumbled upon a world-wide myth known as Slender Man. Drawings and depictions of this Slender Man immediately stuck me as very similar to the figure I have been so fearful of and it appears many people have had varying experiences relating to him.
I consider myself to be a very rational person and have never given any credit to the supernatural. But this has long been perhaps my deepest and darkest fear. I hope to dis-empower my fear by sharing it with others and hearing the rationalities of other people. If anyone else has anything to contribute or perhaps has had their own experience like this please feel free to comment or contact me.
Today I would like to share a terrifying experience that occurred during my youth which has often returned to the forefront of my mind for well over a decade now. Whenever I am feeling introspective or unsafe it seems that this experience is never far from the surface of my conscious thought, waiting for a moment to jump up and seize me with irrational fright. I have never been able to identify the root of this fear and it is only recently that I have taken the initiative to do some Googling about the object of my fear and learned that it is somewhat of a phenomenon. So without further ado here is a recount of my experience:
It was quite late at night in the home of my parents. I was still a boy of about 14 years and had for some reason managed to stay up late but it was finally time for bed at around midnight or just a little after. I had just reached the cusp of sleep, my eyes had drooped almost to closing before I had even turned out my bedside light. My room was bathed in dim, shaded light. As my eyelids made their rounds of closing and opening, less and less each time as my sleepiness overcame my adolescent desire to never sleep I was suddenly confronted with an unprecedented event. As my eyes came open again I realised with great shock that I was not alone in my room. There was a dark figure standing in front of my bedroom door. He was taller than a person should be, the top of his head being just taller than the frame of my door. He was far skinnier than a person should be, despite his height his torso tapered in toward the waist inhumanly and his arms and legs could only be described as spindly at their thinnest points. His features were indistinguishable, his whole body appearing to be impossibly dark despite the light that should have been illuminating him like the door and posters behind him. I lied there, paralysed with extreme terror at this sudden and unexpected intruder. My mind barely functioning until suddenly he rushed toward me. His arm stretched out as he crossed the room in a fraction of a second, far quicker than any man is capable of until the moment he reached me he disappeared. I sat up, so shocked that I couldn't possibly conceive of sleeping however I was also far too afraid to get up and seek the company and safety of another human.
I am glad to say that I have never had another experience as harrowing as that one, never again has my sleep been disturbed so directly by this figure although he has occasionally appeared in my darkest nightmares. Despite having experienced intermittent visits to the memory of this deep-seated fear I have never until a few months ago sought any further information about the experience. However upon searching for "dark figures" I stumbled upon a world-wide myth known as Slender Man. Drawings and depictions of this Slender Man immediately stuck me as very similar to the figure I have been so fearful of and it appears many people have had varying experiences relating to him.
I consider myself to be a very rational person and have never given any credit to the supernatural. But this has long been perhaps my deepest and darkest fear. I hope to dis-empower my fear by sharing it with others and hearing the rationalities of other people. If anyone else has anything to contribute or perhaps has had their own experience like this please feel free to comment or contact me.
Monday, 12 January 2015
Selling Out
Hello Reader,
Welcome back to my improved blog page. You may notice that I now have advertising because I'm a total sell out. This is very exciting for me as this has the potential to earn me a free scotch once every decade so be sure to visit regularly.
I've got a few new topics in the works now that the Christmas period is over but uni hasn't started, the perfect time for thinking deep thoughts about things that probably don't really matter and nothing can be done about anyway. I look forward to seeing you all back again.
Luke.
Welcome back to my improved blog page. You may notice that I now have advertising because I'm a total sell out. This is very exciting for me as this has the potential to earn me a free scotch once every decade so be sure to visit regularly.
I've got a few new topics in the works now that the Christmas period is over but uni hasn't started, the perfect time for thinking deep thoughts about things that probably don't really matter and nothing can be done about anyway. I look forward to seeing you all back again.
Luke.
Sunday, 4 January 2015
Right or Wrong
Good afternoon reader,
I hope everyone enjoyed their holidays. Mine was bittersweet after my uncle, Brian, passed away just before Christmas.
However the holiday period along with the passing meant I got to see many members of my family I haven't seen in a while. People who you get along with regardless of personal attitudes or beliefs just because they are family. I also got to catch up with quite a few friends and after seeing everyone found myself in quite an introspective mood.
My thoughts focused largely on people's need to be right and many of our outright refusal to acknowledge when we are wrong. I have certainly been guilty of this many times in my life and I'm sure those close to me see me as a stubborn know-it-all because of these situations. But why do we have this intense need to always appear to be right and what effects might it be having?
When I read novels and watch films from prior to the last 30-40ish years it doesn't appear to me that people had this particular trait; not like we have today at least. People seem more ready to acknowledge other's superiority over them and in many cases it was the norm to treat people as though they know things you don't until proven otherwise. A stark contrast to today where people often treat others like nothing until they prove their worth.
Following along a few theories I can see a few potential sources of this change in attitude. The first is popular culture. Films and novels like James Bond, Catch Me If You Can and other similar stories have enchanted us with the concept of a person going where they please and getting whatever they want simply by acting like they have the right. It's natural for people to emulate those they idolise and I imagine many people might have consciously or subconsciously tried this behavior out for themselves. I believe many people call this "fake it till you make it".
Another possible cause is a side-effect of our new found love of equality. If no one is below you then no one can be above you. This might subconsciously give one the idea that it doesn't matter how well informed, well researched or logical another person might be about any given matter. They are still your equal and their opinion still can't outweigh your own.
So what are the effects of this society of fakers we have become? I'm not quite sure what the effects are at an individual level. People still seem to be making friends, having meaningful relationships and living happy lives. On a larger scale though I suspect that this might be a contributing factor to the divisive nature of many societies today and is fueling increasingly aggressive conflicts as a result of that. When everyone thinks they know better than those with expertise, knowledge and wisdom it becomes much harder to unify people and implement good ideas. This blog is evidence of one guy presuming he has something meaningful to say about things like this very topic.
I hope everyone enjoyed their holidays. Mine was bittersweet after my uncle, Brian, passed away just before Christmas.
However the holiday period along with the passing meant I got to see many members of my family I haven't seen in a while. People who you get along with regardless of personal attitudes or beliefs just because they are family. I also got to catch up with quite a few friends and after seeing everyone found myself in quite an introspective mood.
My thoughts focused largely on people's need to be right and many of our outright refusal to acknowledge when we are wrong. I have certainly been guilty of this many times in my life and I'm sure those close to me see me as a stubborn know-it-all because of these situations. But why do we have this intense need to always appear to be right and what effects might it be having?
When I read novels and watch films from prior to the last 30-40ish years it doesn't appear to me that people had this particular trait; not like we have today at least. People seem more ready to acknowledge other's superiority over them and in many cases it was the norm to treat people as though they know things you don't until proven otherwise. A stark contrast to today where people often treat others like nothing until they prove their worth.
Following along a few theories I can see a few potential sources of this change in attitude. The first is popular culture. Films and novels like James Bond, Catch Me If You Can and other similar stories have enchanted us with the concept of a person going where they please and getting whatever they want simply by acting like they have the right. It's natural for people to emulate those they idolise and I imagine many people might have consciously or subconsciously tried this behavior out for themselves. I believe many people call this "fake it till you make it".
Another possible cause is a side-effect of our new found love of equality. If no one is below you then no one can be above you. This might subconsciously give one the idea that it doesn't matter how well informed, well researched or logical another person might be about any given matter. They are still your equal and their opinion still can't outweigh your own.
So what are the effects of this society of fakers we have become? I'm not quite sure what the effects are at an individual level. People still seem to be making friends, having meaningful relationships and living happy lives. On a larger scale though I suspect that this might be a contributing factor to the divisive nature of many societies today and is fueling increasingly aggressive conflicts as a result of that. When everyone thinks they know better than those with expertise, knowledge and wisdom it becomes much harder to unify people and implement good ideas. This blog is evidence of one guy presuming he has something meaningful to say about things like this very topic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)