Normal: Each person has their own definition

     It isn’t unusual for someone to say “that’s normal” or “that’s not normal”. But what do they really mean by that? What is this standard of normal to which they are comparing to whatever it is that they are noticing? “Normal” is what is normal to the person doing the perception. If I see something that would be something that is normal to me, then I might say “that looks normal”. It is possible that, if I know the other person well enough to know their regular habits, I might still say “that looks normal” even though it might not be normal for me. In whatever manner, the word “normal” will not have a single definition.

     Each person has their own “rituals”. This doesn’t necessarily mean religious behaviors (though it might). For example, I get up in the morning, use the restroom, inspect (and usually have to clean) the kitchen, get caught up with mail and social media, get hot tea and breakfast for my wife, and then do my morning language lessons (currently Spanish). And on it goes. But that schedule may seem extraordinary, strange, or peculiar to someone else.

     Our personal definition is based from our own histories. If I grew up as an orphan, I would have a different baseline from someone growing up in a “nuclear” family. Each would consider their own life to be normal — and the other person’s life something about which one might read in a book. If I was home-schooled, I would avoid certain experiences that someone attending a public, or “private”, school would expect to be as a part of their day. The other people of the household would have their own routines which interact with everyone else’s. And this combination will become unique for each person.

     Much of the time, these activities done by all the people interacting together are innocuous. But not necessarily. Alas, a child who grows up in a household in which they, or other members of the household, are abused in some manner will also consider that behavior to be “normal”. Unless corrected in their perceptions, they will grow up to consider the behavior as “something that everyone does and may have happen to them”. So, it is completely natural if they perpetuate the behavior with the people in their later-formed household. They would not consider it to be “abuse” — they would consider it to be “normal”.

     People are also influenced by their environment. On an island of Hawai’i, a school child may find it normal to go swimming, or surfing, on their way to, or from, school. That would certainly not occur to an Inuit who might be walking home across the snow and packed ice. Of course, since I grew up in a different environment from either of these children, I don’t really know what they would do or what they would each consider to be normal.

     Within the US, income class will make a huge difference between what is considered normal for a person. It will make a difference elsewhere in the world also but it may be cross-referenced with another social system such as caste or level of nobility. The behaviors, and expectations, within that group will seem “normal” to those who live within it — and the behaviors of those outside of that group will either be elevated or denigrated depending on perspective about those outside of the group.

     Although “rags to riches” stories do exist, it causes internal strain, and strains within relationships, when a person moves from one segment of society to another — even if they have “risen” in level. And it is very difficult for a person in one societal segment to truly represent, or understand, other segments because they live within different normalities and have very little insight into that of other segments.

     While it somewhat depends upon physical and cultural environment, people will do different activities. These activities will be different based on their histories, what resources are available, and their interests. Surfing, ice fishing, going to a mall — normal to the person doing it and, perhaps, quite exotic to someone else. A normal activity to one person may seem exotic to another.

     A child growing up in a war zone is in constant flux. There is little they can rely upon. Their house may be gone the next day — or a parent or sibling. There is no security possible. A child goes to school one day and is a refugee the next. This high aspect of instability must affect the perspective, and behavior, of the child. But it would still be normal to them. In older days of medicine — and still in too many segments of the world society — a large percentage of children died before they were a couple of years old. It was sad for all, but expected and “normal”.

     In my household a number of years ago, we adopted (or she adopted us) a cat from an animal shelter. We did not see her much for the first three weeks after we brought her to our house as she immediately ran for the back of our refrigerator as soon as we released her from the carrier. She did eat, and drink, as such resources would disappear overnight — but she had a huge readjustment to her own personal “normal”. I am sad to say that, after ten years with us, some of her baseline characteristics were still present.

     “All the world is a stage and we are only players”. A rich, well-nourished, male child in a stable city with easily accessible parents will absorb a very different normal from that of a poor, malnourished, female child surviving in a war zone.

     It is a cliché to say “walk a mile in another’s moccasins — yet it is still true that everyone has their own individual “normal”. We may have judgements on the other normals but they may have arguments, of equal weight from their points of view. of “incorrectness” of your own behavior.

     As long as the thoughts, behaviors, and actions do not impinge upon another’s ability to follow their own normal, it is best to just recognize that each person is unique and what is normal for them is what they expect to do.

     “Normality” only exists as a unique attribute that applies to each of us.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Comparison shopping: When no choice seems to be a good one.

     I am a consumer. I admit it. I also try to make conscious choices -- picking products from companies that are less harsh to the earth, that work constructively with their employees rather than against them, and so forth. These are characteristics of the companies that are important to me that lead me to consider products in the first place.

     But, beyond that, I want to pick the product that seems to be the "best" to me. In order to do that, I need to understand what qualities I want, or feel that I need. Once I understand that, I check reviews and product comparisons to see what products best match to my desires. It is a logical process but it can drive people around me totally nuts if this is not the way they approach purchasing items. (The way they approach evaluations also drives me nuts -- it is an equal opportunity situation 😄 )

     In what is referred to as a "free market" situation, it is possible to make decisions solely upon the perceived qualities of a product. Qualities can include appearance, durability, price, features, societal responsibility, and so forth. Note that the perception is what counts. If a societal section decides that orange is the most beautiful color for eyeglasses then that is it. If a tall person is looking for a car then the head and leg room of the driver's seat area will be of great importance and value. If a short person is looking then they will consider a completely different selection of cars based upon their own needs -- probably for seat adjustment and ease of access to hand and foot controls. Each person has different needs and, thus, different sets of qualities.

     Some qualities should be more objective. A new tire with a lifetime of 50,000 miles should be considered to have better wear than another tire that has a lifetime of 20,000 miles. Of course, there may be other qualities that are more important than lifetime -- such as the ability to handle wet roads in Seattle (which may be of no interest in the Sahara).

     But what happens when you have only two choices of tires -- one that has a lifetime of 20,000 miles and one that has a lifetime of 15,000? All other qualities equal, people choose the tires that last 20,000 and the manufacturer of the 15,000 mile tire goes back to their labs and tries to develop a tire that lasts 25,000 miles. This is called constructive competition. The end result of such competition is the development of better products and lower prices for consumers. This is the ideal situation for the consumer.

     What happens when there is only ONE (1) supplier of tires for a region? They sell 20,000 mile tires for a while and then they decide to start selling the 20,000 mile tires for a higher price and selling a 15,000 mile tire for the same price as they used to get for the 20,000 mile tire. This is called a monopoly situation and is not a good one for the consumer or the quality of products. Monopolies can either be established by "natural" restriction of access to resources (all of the widgets are found only in areas controlled by a company) or by economic leverage (all of the competitors are under-priced until they go out of business or are purchased by the larger company). Laws can be created to control this situation to improve the situation for the consumer and for the improving qualities of the product -- but sometimes no laws are created and the monopoly continues to exist and degrade quality and inflate prices.

     By definition, there cannot be a monopoly with more than one company in active competition. But there can be private agreements between two or more companies that allow both, or all, to expand their profits at the expense of the consumers and which produce no constructive competition. This group of two or more companies can be called a "cartel". Although no single company within the group is a monopoly, they are able to control access to resources and to the consumers so that other companies that are not part of the cartel cannot compete. Laws can be devised to restrict this but they are much more difficult to monitor and enforce -- and, once again, it is possible that no law will be created.

     Finally, it is also to the advantage of each company to restrict comparisons. This can be done by restriction of the movement of information (control of media access, for example). It can also be done by creating "brand loyalty" -- such that the consumers directly identify with the product of the company rather than the qualities of the product. With sufficient brand loyalty, a company has a base of consumers for which it needs to provide neither quality nor value.

     So, on to the title of the blog. What happens when no choice seems to be a good one? In a free market situation new companies will arise if adequate constructive competition does not take place among existing companies. Old companies die away if they cannot maintain satisfaction of their consumer base. This can only happen in a truly free market and a truly free market can only exist with regulation and supervision. Otherwise, monopolies, cartels, and other restrictions penalize the consumers and the quality of the products in favor of the profits of the companies.

     I used tires as an example of a product. In reality, anything that people choose (or do NOT choose) is a product. This may include political candidates, or services (education, for example), or resources (water, for example), as well as manufactured products. Within any product marketing situation the free market allows consumers the best options. Giving the illusion of a free market while actually controlling the choices of the consumer favors the producers. It is a continual struggle as the needs of each are weighed against each other.

Regulations create level playing fields for businesses

   It seems to be fairly "normal" for businesses to complain about, and fight, every new regulation that is proposed or enacted. This isn't unreasonable as it will be true that a new regulation will require different procedures (and probably additional paperwork). However, that is not the same as saying that regulations are bad for businesses -- but it can be a difficult balancing act within the global economy.

   Regulations are a way to tell businesses what practices are acceptable to the society in which they function. They fall into three general categories (actually, almost anything can be broken up into however many categories as are desired -- I am choosing three). These categories are economics, labor, and environment. There is also a fourth category which involves product regulations -- for the product quality and safety of the consumer but that does not directly apply to this blog.

   Economic regulations involve the way the products of a company become part of the general economy. This will involve taxes. Generally, businesses want to pay fewer taxes and the general population wants them to pay more taxes. It will also involve tariffs -- both import and export. Tariffs are special taxes that are involved with the movement of products and money across country borders. This is a part of the balancing act.

   Let us say that Country A, as part of the standards for their society, requires all businesses to ensure that any water used by the business to be cleaned to drinking standards before being released back to the environment. This requirement (or regulation) adds 5% to the cost of doing business in Country A. Country B does NOT have such a requirement and, thus, businesses can produce the same product for 5% less. This puts businesses in Country A at a price disadvantage. A tariff on products imported from country B gives the businesses a more equal competitive situation. (Note that the tariff does not help the environment in country B.)

   Regulations may also be in the category of labor use. Minimum wage laws (or "living wage" laws whenever they start being enacted) say that people cannot officially be employed without a certain level of pay. Restrictions on number of hours worked per day, or week, directly affect the number of people employed. "Child Labor laws" restrict the age of workers and the number of hours per day that they can work at what ages. Mandatory sick days allowed (paid or unpaid) create a situation where workers are not compelled to work even when sick (this also benefits the general population when the food industry is involved). Vacation days, holidays, and other types of paid, or unpaid, absences help the overall health of the people who work for a business.

   Environmental regulations are basically a matter of how businesses are allowed to affect the environment. Usually a person thinks of manufacturing companies for this. However, the requirement that a business have, and maintain, a parking garage would also be an example of an environmental regulation as it reduces the amount of land that cannot be used for vegetation. Another non-manufacturing law might be a requirement to turn off 70% of the lighting during non-working hours.

   Of course, environmental regulations apply more directly to manufacturing businesses. It is similar to teaching a child to "clean up their own mess". A business would, naturally, prefer other people to take care of their messes. Note that not having environmental regulations does NOT decrease the cost to clean up -- it moves it from the business to the general public. In fact, it probably costs less for the mess to be cleaned up at the site of creation of the mess than after it has dispersed and damaged other parts of the environment.

   It would be completely possible for a business to do everything well on their own initiative. They can treat their people well, be good to the environment, and be a good neighbor within their communities. There are many small businesses that strive hard to do such and other, larger, businesses that recognize that there are inherent benefits (lower turnover of staff, better public image, etc.) to do such. However, businesses that do NOT behave well can have financial advantages over their competitors -- and this does not help society as a whole.

   Regulations provide a framework that is acceptable to the local society that allows businesses to compete without having uneven costs of providing services.

Fracking: what's the big deal?

Fracking is talked about a lot nowadays -- mostly heatedly and almost always in a binary fashion (YES/Good or NO/Bad). What is fracking all about?

When we think of drilling for some liquid substance, what first comes to mind is something similar to putting a straw into an underground reservoir. Some may include the idea of a bunch of very wet sand, where the liquid is dispersed through the area but freely available.

Both of these were probably true for the earliest wells. A hole was pierced in the soil and it either hit an area of liquid (water, oil, also natural gas -- which is not liquid but, in this case, has the important properties of a liquid) or it was able to find an area that the liquid could collect in from the surrounding area.  For water, this is called the aquifer. For water and other "liquids" (including natural gas), this ability to collect from the surrounding area is making use of a quality called "permeability" -- the ease of movement of liquids/gases through solids.

Pool are pools. It is a matter of finding them and using them. Permeability decreases as the area gets deeper because of the weight of the earth above. Greater pressure lowers the permeability of the surrounding area.

As we make use of more of our natural reservoirs of water, oil, and other liquid/gas resources, it is harder to find easy-to-use locations. Isolated pools become deeper (or underwater) and smaller (making them less economically possible to exploit). Natural permeability occurs more towards the surface and is harder to find. Thus, there is the desire to go where we have not gone before (national parks, wilderness, and beneath beds of water) and to promote artificial permeability.

Finally, you say, we get to fracking. Fracking is the process of breaking up the surrounding rock and creating permeability where none (or little) existed before. Early fracking mainly used explosives to break up the ground underneath. Although it usually worked, it was not very effective because of the irregularity of the fissures (or cracks) created and because, if it was deep, those cracks were likely to close back up from the pressure.

The modern practice of fracking usually involves hydrologic pressure. A liquid (often water) is injected into the well under great pressure and this causes the surrounding area to crack. Additives are put into the liquid to help keep the cracks open (thus, allowing permeability) after the pressure is removed. One method is called "acid etching" where an acid makes "grooves" in the cracks as they expand leaving little furrows when pressure is removed. This is done to make access to reserves more possible.

There are two primary problems with fracking. First, it requires a lot of liquid to achieve fracking. While that didn't use to be looked at as a problem -- with global climate change and uncertain icepacks and rains and overused aquifers it is quite a problem nowadays. I don't know the exact proportion of water to newly accessible liquid (you wouldn't normally use this technique for water wells, obviously) but there is a lot of water used. In addition, the additives put into water may not be either environmentally or health beneficial and those additives will find their way into the surrounding area.

The second problem is that the cracking of the earth is indiscriminate -- it does not JUST allow the desired liquid/gas to pool together. If there are pockets of water and gas or oil nearby, the fracking is likely to allow the mixing of such -- and causing health and environmental problems with use of the water.

The first problem might be addressable with new techniques (air fracking, perhaps, with environmentally safe additives) but the second problem is inherent to the process.

The only real method of eliminating the need for fracking to access dwindling natural reserves is to use alternate energy/base material sources.

What are your thoughts about fracking?