Fahrenheit 451 : Levels of censorship

     I just finished listening to the audiobook for Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. I read a dozen, or more, books each month but I have to listen to books (for obvious reasons) when I am driving. In the set of CDs in the audiobook, there was an afterword where the narrator relayed Ray Bradbury's thoughts and writings about some of the motivations for the book as well as some views about types of censorship. These items jogged my thoughts as I rrecognized that there certainly is not just ONE form of censorship. They follow the range from self-censorship to George Orwell's Newspeak from 1984.

Self-censorship. Everyone censors their own reading. There is no alternative. There are between 600,000 to a million books published (many self-published nowadays) each year. I read a lot. Some people read more. But, no one could possibly read every book. How do we censor? First, of course, we are not aware of all of those 100s of thousands of books. Maybe we encounter, or a friend talks about, or we see a reference to, a few thousand books a year (some of us much fewer, others more). Of those, some are interested in only a few topics, others many. Maybe we don't like (or do like) the cover or flyleaf. Maybe we have a favorite author -- or someone we refuse to read. At any rate, from those million books, I choose 130 or so to read each year (my wife reads more).

Community censorship. This is likely to be the type of censorship that most people think about. A group of people in a town come together and decide that some book is not something they want others to easily read -- so they try (or succeed) to force the local library/bookstore to not carry the book. Or a CD. Or a Podcast. The community can encompass a neighborhood, an ethnic group, a city, a state, or even an entire country. At this level of censorship, a group is actively trying to prevent others from making their own choices as to what they want to read -- but it isn't illegal to read it.

Politically reinforced censorship. This does not necessarily mean that a particular political party is trying to ban a book (although it is possible). This is when the community decides to make it a legal issue. Not only is it made difficult to read, it is actively made illegal to read and, perhaps, to purchase or possess. They may even decide to burn books or otherwise get rid of copies. This is the level of censorship described in Fahrenheit 451. Note that, in Ray Bradbury's book, it is not imposed "top down" from the government but "bottom up" (from the citizens) based on not wanting to be disturbed, or "made" unhappy, by having to think about issues and conflicting ideas. It also applies to such book burnings as happened during WW II by the Nazi party in Germany (which might be considered "top down" but are authorized by passive, or active, participation by the citizens).

_________

     The above types of censorship are of the "all or none" type. The book can be read or not -- but the book, itself, stays unaltered. The contents can also be censored such that language is changed, or parts are eliminated, or areas extended. Such falls into the same categories as the above but apply only to portions.

__________

Editorial censorship. This can be done by the author, the editor, or the publisher. The author does it as a matter of course during her, or his, process of determining the "best" state for the material to be presented. Words and sentences are changed, added, deleted, put into different spots. Except for a very, very few authors, there are various drafts of material before it is presented in a form meant to be published.
     If an author is well-known, or with a great publishing record, an editor will usually give, at most, recommendations. (There have been times when I have read books by well-known authors when I really have wished the editor had been more insistent on changes.) More often, changes suggested/required by an editor become part of an argument between author and editor. The less published the author, the less clout they have. Changes by the editor may be involved with grammar, spelling, flow, content or whatever else the editor thinks is important. For one of my books, the editor slashed out a number of sections in order to shorten the book -- leaving references in without the material to which they referred.
     Finally, at the publisher, they may require changes to meet their publishing criteria. If it requires substantial changes to be readable then they will probably just reject it -- unless the name of the author is considered to be more valuable than the content.

Community censorship by parts. This falls into two categories -- meeting current socially acceptable standards or a desire to change history such that current social standards are applied to works written during older periods. For current standards, it will be usually be applied by the editor and/or publisher.
     There are instances, however, when the actual material is not the objection -- it is just the fact that the author is not part of the group of which they are writing. A man writing about a woman; a woman writing about a man; a white woman writing about a black man; a Christian person writing about a Muslim person, ... Certainly, an author should always be careful not to generalize about their own groups or about other groups. But, every person in the world is unique. If we are not allowed to write about anyone different, then the only acceptable writings are autobiographies without reference to anyone with whom we have interacted.
     In 1904, a series about a family called The Bobbsey Twins was started. They were children's books about a family that had adventures and vacations in different places. In 1960, the early books were rewritten. Part of the rewrite was to bring them "up to date" -- eliminate the horse and buggies and bring in automobiles and so forth. Other parts, however, were to rewrite for current social standards. The rewritten books looked very little like the originals. Mark Twain's books are often heavily criticized for language and for interactions between characters -- not because they are not accurate for the time but because they ARE accurate for the time. In the comments of Ray Bradbury relayed at the end of the audiobooks for Fahrenheit 451, the narrator talked about how many groups wanted Ray Bradbury to change his book for their desires -- add more female characters, shorten sections, add new section, ...

Politically reinforced censorship by parts. This is active rewriting of history. George Orwell's book 1984 goes into this in great depth. However, it has also been done by various governments -- Stalin, within the USSR, is documented as having destroyed many writings and replaced them with other writings that give different accounts of events. He would also change photos -- not with the degree of credibility that can be done now but sufficiently well that it lent doubt to the original records. Some state governments change the wordings within history books to match what they want to present. As the ability, and ease, to create "deep fakes" accelerates, this will become a greater and greater danger.

What If : the game of possibilities

     Once upon a time, there was a science fiction/fantasy magazine called "Worlds of If" (with "If" highlighted). The basis for the title is that many stories and ideas begin with the premise of "what if?" What if there was Faster-Than-Light (FTL) travel? What if we woke up one morning able to "hear" everyone's thoughts. Some of the more prestigious early science fiction authors (such as Isaac Asimov) had a general rule -- you can break currently known laws of nature and physics ONCE. More than that and it was "fantasy". You could extrapolate stories that extended current knowledge without breaking any of the currently known laws of nature and physics, of course. Such were often classified as "hard" science fiction.
     The phrase of "Worlds of If" also marked the idea of parallel time streams or universes. This is used in many stories of "alternate" histories. Wars with "what ifs" have been used in many different books and video takeoffs such as Philip K. Dick's "The Man in the High Castle" or Harry Turtledove's "The Guns of the South". These deal with changing the present by changing the past. The author is no longer living in the same time stream, or universe, as that created within the alternate history.
     Stories of time travel have the possibility to create these splits on purpose or accidentally. They usually don't end well -- pointing out that omniscience (knowing everything) is not a human characteristic. In these cases, the "current" timeline "vanishes" because it is no longer "real".
     Of course, there is a third method/history of splitting history -- and that is deliberately deciding that something that did happen -- didn't (or that something that did NOT happen -- did). As would be true in the "time travel" situation, it may be hard to determine reality of the past (and it is getting harder and harder with the increasing ability to do "deep fakes" of information) -- but events move forward with consequences.
     IF the world was flat, then a number of astronomical and celestial mechanical equations would not work as they do. IF the Holocaust never happened, then there would be descendants from those who were killed, concentration camps (able to be tracked back to points in time) would not exist, and photographs and other media evidence (which, unfortunately, WILL become easier and easier to fake) would not exist. IF there was never a landing on the moon then it would have had to have been faked. And, in 1969, the technology did not exist to fake it to the level needed -- and if such technology DID exist to be able to fake it, it would have required a much deeper and greater level of investment than that of the space program. Events have consequences -- so that they can be checked from what did, or did not occur.
     On a more general level, the same situation occurs for us in the present, recognizing that our present decisions, actions, and reactions have a large influence on what will occur in the future. A story of the future describing ONE potential sequence of events and future history is still science fiction (or fantasy) -- but it is also possible to fragment future history and describe multiple paths that time may follow.
     Away from science fiction or shifted perceptions, most of us have probably indulged in some "what if" scenarios. What if I had majored in Art rather than Computer Science? What if I had gone to the Senior Prom instead of sitting at home watching TV? What if I had accepted that Rhodes scholarship? It doesn't matter what the "what if?" is -- it is still a shift. And that shift would have changed the present. So, look around and see what exists -- your current family, friends, achievements, expectations. IF that "what if" had occurred, your current situation would be changed. Maybe some items are more "resilient" -- the change in the past would not affect the present -- but some changes "ripple" more. If you like much of what is in the present, and possible for the future, then accept and forgive any "mistakes" of the past. They brought you here.

All in the Numbers: Popular Economic Numbers as Used by Politicians

     There was "good news" in the U.S. in October 2019 (see article). The U.S. added 128,000 jobs to the economy. Unemployment is down. But, wait, what ARE those 128,000 jobs? According to CNBC, "The Labor Department explained in a press release that much of the upswing in leisure and hospitality came from a surge in hiring at food and beverage establishments, which alone added more than 45,000 jobs for the sector’s best month since January" The article further indicated that 60,000 were from the leisure and hospitality sector while health care and social assistance added 34,200 jobs. Is there a pattern here? Ah -- 22,000 jobs were created for professional and business services which is defined as management consultant positions, computer system design, and architectural and engineering services.
     So, we have 105,000 jobs added in fairly low-wage areas, 22,000 added in relatively high-wage areas, 36,000 lost in medium-wage manufacturing, and a few dozen thousand added in low medium-wage areas. Is this a success? Or is it a failure?
     The point is that the number of jobs added is not very relevant unless one also knows the median wage paid for those jobs. In the U.S., and in most of the more industrialized areas of the world, "income inequality" continues to accelerate. Numbers such as the "number of jobs created" are meant to encourage and say things are great. Maybe they are -- but the analysis of the October 2019 job results don't tend to lend themselves to that conclusion. Lots of low-paying jobs and many fewer higher-paying jobs do not start to spread the economy out to more and more people.
     "The average wage for people in the U.S. has gone up!"  Sounds great. Wait a minute. If I have 10 people working and five earn $10, 3 earn $15, 1 earns $20, and 1 earns $100 -- we have an average wage of $21.50. What happens if that person earning $100 now earns $200? Wow. We now have an average wage of $31.50. Doesn't that sound great! probably not for the lower-earning 9 people.
     So average doesn't tell us much. How about median or mode? Median is the value given when, sorted in order, the number of instances of a value below a point is the same as that above that point. In our example above, with an even number of instances (10), the median is the average of the values at position 5 and position 6 -- so, for the above example, it would be $12.50. Note that, unlike for average, if the person in position 10 (highest earner) doubles their income, the median does not change.
     How about mode? Mode is the "most popular" instance. Since, in the above example, five people earn $10, $10 is the mode. Once again, when the most highly paid person gets paid double, the mode remains the same.
     There is a quote popularized by Mark Twain which I have always liked: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". Although this does call out the need to both understand, and interpret correctly, statistics -- it is not really fair to statisticians. But statistics are a politician's best friend largely because most people do NOT know what statistics mean or how they are calculated.
     "The average wage has doubled!" Sounds good, right? Not necessarily. "500,000 jobs have been produced in the past month!" Wow, things are completely rosy. Once again, not necessarily. If 400,000 jobs were lost then it is actually terrible. Usually, what is reported is NET gain so if 500,000 jobs were added and 400,000 were lost it would be reported as 100,000 jobs added. Sound good? Well, with that great of a turnover of labor, the chances are not wonderful that those 400,000 (actually, probably not the same people) who lost and got a job improved their wages and benefits.
     "$70 million dollars of welfare fraud found". Horrible, right? Well, yes, it should certainly be reduced if possible but total welfare funding is about $67 billion. So, this atrocious fraud is actually part of 1/1000 of all of the welfare funding -- or 999/1000 are NOT committing fraud. In most businesses, this would be a resounding success. In Florida, politicians stamped the ground and screamed about all of the welfare fraud -- and spent MORE money investigating the fraud than the net amount of the fraud. A net taxpayer loss.
      Let's take the above $67 billion in welfare funding mentioned, once again. A lot of money isn't it? It certainly is and I would not mind getting my $200 share of that money. But, within the context of overall spending, the $67 billion is insignificant in comparison to the overall federal budget -- about 0.5% or 1 part out of 2000 [note that it is about 21% of the federal social support budget but that is also not a high percentage of the overall federal budget]. The $67 billion is not significant overall but politicians blow it up to seem significant so that people will ignore the other 99.5%.
     Another side track of statistics from the politician's mouth is rankings. We are number one! OK. We probably are -- but number one in ranking for what characteristic? Hopefully, the people of most countries think that their country is the best -- a subjective ranking that has multiple truths based on who is saying it and where they are saying it. But, when we get to rankings based on quantitative (countable) characteristics, the record isn't so great. Yes, if a specific formula is applied to the countable numbers, there will be a most highly ranked (# 1) and a most lowly ranked (# xxx). But not many countries have multiple "# 1 rankings" for their country. Given a large enough population and land mass, most countries will have A (one or more) "#1 ranking". But, even in this case is being first in numbers of prisoners equivalent to being first in the number of books per household? So, relative rankings are fairly useless -- dependent on many different factorsl 
     Numbers do mean something -- but not always what they are implied to mean.

Holiday Epistles: If and Why?

     Each year, for the past 40 years, I have composed something to send off to friends and family for the holiday season. They started as letters, moved to cards and letters, then to cards including a letter and a sheet of photos, and finally just a letter and sheet of photos.
     Why do I do it? It certainly takes a lot of time and effort (and some money -- less since I stopped sending cards). And, of course, I could probably send them out electronically to 80% of the recipients -- but the catch is that there are those 20% to whom I cannot send them electronically. So, I support the postal service and have them delivered to their mailboxes. Sometimes, I have a vision of them progressing around the globe -- following the distribution pattern of mail sorting centers (yes, I am a geek and a nerd).
     Hopefully, there are very few who say to themselves "why is this person bothering me again this year?" But it is highly unlikely that every person is fascinated with all of the events recorded within the letter -- or is even aware of all of the people, places, and events mentioned. Most probably fall into the middle range -- glad to know I am still alive and somewhat interested in what has happened (but not always glad of the length of the letter).
     I don't keep a journal (it would be great if I did but my focus gets redirected on an irregular basis). So, these annual summaries of the life of my family become an archive. Trips, milestones, tragedies, triumphs follow through in the stream of my past 40 years as reflected in my epistles. This is a wonderful side-effect of my sharing my life via the annual epistles.
     The epistles also act as a prompt. They say to others "I am glad I am in contact with you". Their responses (if any) vary tremendously. A card with a printed message and signature indicates a desire to stay in touch. A message (of whatever length) indicates a desire to share their year with you.
     LACK of a response does not give a clear indication. Just as in the Paul Simon song, "Something So Right" -- "Some people never say the words 'I love you'. It's not their style to be so bold". What is the sound of one hand clapping? There is no set formula as to whether to continue to send to a non-responsive recipient. Do you hear from them, or about them, at some other point in the year? Are they significant people in your life such that you want to make sure they have the option of knowing what is going on in your life?
     Sometimes, it is time to allow someone to slip away. No more letters. No keeping up with changes of address. This doesn't mean that person was not important within your life -- only that it is not continuing into the present and future.
     A final aspect is the actual list of recipients. These are the people you want to keep informed. Not all are your best friends. Some might be work associates. Some used to be close but are not anymore. The list summarizes a good portion of the relationships, you have established in your life, that continue to have some type of impact for you. Looking over the list, you may discover that "hey, I would like to talk to person A once again. Do I have their phone number?" In other cases, it may trigger sadness. A person has died within the past year. Or they have entered into a non-responsive limbo and it is time to make a decision as to whether you should keep sending to them.
     It is a record but not a static item. I am working on this year's epistle -- but wondering what will be in next year's.

Euphemisms: Language Shadows and Thieves

     I have loved learning languages for as long as I can remember. Of course, first I learned the "mother tongue" -- in my case, English. But, with each language that I endeavored to learn, I gained that little bit additional understanding of a people and a culture (and of myself). Russian loves indirection and passive sentence structure. German goes for precision and building block structuring. Farsi brings a bit of poetry into a people who have often had to struggle. And so forth.
     There are many different stages of proficiency with a language. To become truly fluent in a language, it is necessary to fully live with those for whom the language reflects their thoughts. Three final tests for fluency exist -- music, humor, and euphemisms. Music is the test to make sure that you can interpolate sounds even when they are not standard and, indeed, possibly quite distorted. Humor tests the ability to think about matters in similar ways as "native" speakers. And euphemisms -- which are a reflection on the language's associated social interactions, taboos, and insecurities.
     I have not had the (or, perhaps, created the) opportunities to immerse myself into any language to the fully fluent stage (except for English). But, even in English, I find myself fighting against the world of euphemisms.
     From my point of view, euphemisms can fall into two areas -- which I call language shadows and language thieves. A language shadow substitutes one word or phrase, which still has the same meaning, for another. This is done to "soften" the phrase -- to not be "blunt". "Passed away" or "Meet their maker" instead of "died". You would never use the phrase "passed away" for anything other than "died". Although I may still prefer to be more direct, I don't consider language shadowing to be a bad thing since it does not take away from the language but overlays the meaning with social, spiritual, or religious overtones.
     Euphemisms as language thieves substitutes a word or phase, which has its own distinct meaning, for another word or phrase which is "uncomfortable" to be said. In this manner, the original meaning of the euphemistic phrase is either lost (can no longer easily say what the words would normally mean) or require mental substitution which depends on sentence, or conversational, context. Euphemisms as language thieves could also be called a form of "doublespeak" or even "newspeak" -- as defined, and used, by George Orwell in his book1984.
     Language thieves are used when a subject makes us uncomfortable -- "sleeping with" rather than "having sex with". They are used when we want to avoid moral consequences -- "collateral damage" instead of "murdering civilians and bystanders" or "friendly fire" instead of "killing our allies instead of our declared enemies". They are used when we want to avoid responsibility -- "I'm washing my hair" rather than "I am not interested in you, please find someone else".
    Once again, the distinction between a language shadow and a language thief is whether the substituted word or phrase has, or should have, its own meaning. It is extremely difficult (a person has to double the number of words to explain what it is NOT) to use the phrase "sleeping with" to actually mean individually sleeping together without any sexual contact. It could be argued that "friendly fire" is a language shadow since it is an absurd phrase that has no inherent use or meaning. Perhaps we should refine the definition of a language thief to include substituting words or phrases that have no real use or meaning?

It's Not the Change, It's the Rapidity of Change

     Humans can be looked at as the "adapting animal". We have a history of adapting to different environments as well as altering those environments to make them more compatible. We do this more than any other animal. Not that animals (and plants, to a lesser degree) have not adapted to a wide variety of conditions -- they have. But they have little ability to live well within a different environment to which they have adapted.
     Humans largely adapt with use of technology. Clothing is a huge advantage to allow continued survival and activity within an annually changing climate. Other animals can do this to a limited extent with added fur in the winter or hibernation but it affects their daily activity. Fire! There are good reasons why the achievement of (usually) controlled fire is considered perhaps the most important discovery/ability of humans. Good old Prometheus! Stealing fire from the gods and giving it to us poor mortals. Fire (or controlled heat with advancing technology) kept predators at bay, broke down food elements to allow better nutrition, allowed us to roast marshmallows around the campfire, and (in conjunction with shelters) changed the seasons for us.
     On the other end of the temperature scale, air conditioning has allowed greater comfort within warm seasons or climates. During this period of climate change, air conditioning has been shifting from a comfortable luxury to a life-sustaining requirement. On July 12, 2019 a temperature of 108.6 degrees Fahrenheit (42.6 degrees Celsius) was reached in Paris. In Kuwait, on July 21, 2016, a temperature of 128.7 degrees Fahrenheit (53.7 degrees Celsius) was recorded. In India, these types of temperatures, combined with droughts partially caused by the receding of the Himalayan glaciers, have proven quite deadly in the countrysides.
     Adapting via the use of technology inherently requires energy though, by use of a combination of older architectures and new materials, there is the possibility of reducing energy needs with long-term buildings and structures to better adapt to changing climates. Thick insulating walls that can bring in cooler night-time air or retain heat/cool with less ongoing energy use. Digging deep into the earth (which use of caves, both natural and artificial, have been used throughout the ages) can achieve better thermal stability.
     As ocean levels rise, coastlines move backward toward higher ground. In the case of islands, that may cause much of the area to disappear. Water, being necessary for life in different ways, has always been a local attraction for living space. Location, location, location -- as the real estate agents declare. By rivers, lakes, and oceans, humans have built up cities and other concentrations of population. Because of this, even though the percentage of land lost by means of the rise of ocean level is rather small -- the direct effect on human populations is much greater.
     Compensation for climate change is possible via adapted architecture or technology/energy use but it is not economically feasible for most locations -- mass migrations are starting to happen and will continue to accelerate.
     Humans can continue to adapt with the use of technology/energy and ingenuity. When change occurs, as is typical over recorded history (not counting cataclysms such as the dinosaur-extinguishing asteroid or global cold waves caused by sulfur and particulate emissions of huge volcanic eruptions), on a slow extended basis over centuries, humans can (and will) adapt. But changes that occur over decades -- within a human lifespan! These are changes that require global coordination, planning, and cooperation. Even with such, it only facilitates the mass migrations, changing of local food crops, and abandonment of no-longer-livable areas.
     Within this blog, I have concentrated on the effects of climate change directly on humans. But humans are not the only life upon the planet (though sometimes such is ignored). The great coral reefs are dying and polar bears are losing their habitats. Some areas are turning into deserts while other areas undergo periodic flooding which affects not only crops but plants and animals in general. Extinctions rise in number. How will the food chains adapt -- and can they? Humans can, and will, adapt but the landscape of the future will likely be quite different.

Energy, Trade-offs, and Automation

     It takes energy to do things. The verb "do" pretty much says that effort is needed. To "think" may not require direct physical work -- but, in order to be able to think, it is necessary that the body and brain (and the "mind" -- whatever that truly is) function -- which requires a lot of physical work by the parts of the body.
     The basic source of energy is, of course, the sun. Energy from the sun allows both physical and biological processes to continue. Plants grow and the energy is stored. Animals eat plants and other animals. As something is consumed, it is used as energy for further activity. From a physics point of view, matter is exchangeable with energy but, within biological systems such as a stalk of wheat, a butterfly, or a human, it is a release of stored energy via biochemical processes that keep one foot going after another.
     So, we "do" things. We walk. We run. We hunt. We eat. The first level was that all the energy was supplied directly from our bodies. The next level has us working with tools -- tools that allow use of other types of stored energy (kinetic, gravitational, wind, tidal, ...) Our use of energy allows us to make use of other forms of energy. This is called "leveraging" (probably not coincidentally similar to one of the basic tools -- the lever).
     The next level is to build other devices that can make use of stored energy autonomously (without active control and manipulation by humans or other animals). So, we make use of a wind-up or an electrically-powered clock. We use appliances that can be started and then will continue to work on their own. A train uses stores of fuel to move lots of other things. On a track, they can continue on their own (although normally a human is required to start them, stop them, or change tracks).
     There was once a statement (I cannot remember, or find, the source) that it was wise to consider the time needed to walk to a destination versus the amount of time and work needed to be able to buy a ticket on a train to a destination. Of course, such a comparison requires the need to value your time. If a ticket cost $100 and it takes you 20 hours at $5/hour to earn the money but it only takes you 15 hours to walk the distance then walking is less expensive. Of course, if you earn $10/hour then it is advisable to take the train.
     This type of value/cost comparison is relevant in the case of automation. If a human (or group of humans) with tools can create a shoe in 1 hour at $10/hour, then the base cost (plus materials and tools and so forth) is $10. If a machine can make 1 shoe a minute and it can operate 24 hours a day and it costs $300,000 to design and purchase it, with $500/month maintenance then it would pay for itself in less than six months. Obviously, if the humans can create a shoe in 1 hour at $1/hour, it would take more a little less than five years.
     But, let us return to energy. An automated shoe maker will need energy. If that is easily available and cheap then the formula just mentioned will be a guiding force for what to do in a company. What if it isn't? Then that human who converts their own energy has a clear claim to the work. So, we now have three factors, cost of tools/machinery cost of labor, and availability and cost of energy to run the machinery.
     As discussed in previous blogs, capital/money is a form of stored labor -- or stored energy. A final factor in calculation involving the profitability is the locking up of capital. A company that has 6 shoe making machines would have $1.8 million tied up in the machinery. What else could they be doing with that money? Perhaps they could make more profit using that money elsewhere?
     We now have four factors to determine the attractiveness of outsourcing or automation: cost of labor, cost of tools/machinery, cost of energy, and loss of flexibility via the locking up of capital into fixed equipment. Automation requires a consistent source of energy. Without that, it is best to stay with manual labor (because "cost of energy" becomes impractical to overcome).
     The economic practicality of automation can be defined in a straight-forward manner; accountants can determine best practices rather easily. The social implications are not so clear-cut. Automation shifts, and reduces, the needs from the labor force. More education is needed for design and maintenance of the automation and fewer people in those positions. This implies retraining of those who will take those positions as well as further education and training of those displaced from the industry. In addition, concentration of capital (via the owners of the automation and automated factories) continues concentration of wealth and income for which there needs to be methods of distribution.
   

Leveraging chaos: Maslow, fear, and empathy

     Alvin Toffler created the term Future Shock, in his book of the same name, in 1970, A short definition is that future shock is a condition where too much is changing, in too brief a period of time, for people to handle.
     People who are used to, or make a living from, the use of fossil fuels have fears concerning the future as they are aware that the ability to use them is finite -- they WILL run out. People who are used to living, and behaving, in a particular way will often be very resistant to changing even if it is well known that it is necessary -- as evidenced by reaction to the situation of rapid climate change. Changes in the acceptance of people, or groups, who were not previously accepted makes many people afraid and religious interpretations can be manufactured to justify mistreatment.
     Change is usually unsettling and change that occurs quickly is even more upsetting. Thus, there can be a desire to "turn back the clock"; restore slavery, keep the homosexuals and other gender variations in the closets, have codified behaviors for women and lower income people to be subordinate to those who have power. Re-concentrate power into the groups that previously held the power.
     This seems to be a period of time when politicians all around the world are trying to encourage fear (and anger) in order to be elected, stay elected, or promote their own agenda (often based on personal profit or ideological reasons). A time when many people are afraid, having difficulties finding enough upon which to live, or filled with shame; it is an ideal time for politicians to take advantage of that situation. Scapegoats are easy to manufacture, and use, as distractions from political actions and foundation reasons for problems.
     Post World War I was an ideal period of time within Germany and Italy to produce the conditions under which a Hitler or Mussolini could be attractive. Authoritarian control, rigidly enforced central rule, and a tightly focused, simplistic, program can be attractive and comforting for someone whose life appears chaotic and unreliable. A fascist philosophy, in particular, can be attractive to those who want to be "saved" from chaos or rapid change. They are willing to throw away those "higher" ideals of freedom, justice, or even love if they choose to give in to their fears.
     Abraham Maslow, an American psychologist, wrote a paper in 1943 describing what he called "a hierarchy of needs". There were three groupings: basic needs, psychological needs, and self-fulfillment needs as seen in the following diagram:

     Each level builds upon the lower one. In order to be able to address safety needs, it is necessary to first satisfy biological and physiological needs. Or one can say -- you have to be able to stay alive to stay safe. You have to personally feel safe before you are able to start caring for others. And so forth. Note that, once a person has "climbed" the pyramid, it is possible to choose to override the lower needs. A parent may be willing to sacrifice their own life to save a child -- "love needs" become more important than anything lower on the pyramid. In a similar fashion, a person may have "climbed" the pyramid to the point where they are a dedicated follower of a belief system or avid proponent for others such that they are willing to forego all personal benefits in order to do their best for others. A person can make a choice to let the higher needs override the lower needs.
     According to Maslow, you can only start taking care of upper layer needs after the lower levels have been satisfied. But (not according to Maslow) the lower needs are threatened (in reality or in fantasy) such that the higher layers of needs are forsaken -- they have not been able to make a choice but, instead, have had their foundations shaken and broken.
     Tell people that their security is threatened by some other person, or group, (even if the accusation is completely false) and the religious or spiritual beliefs you hold can be suppressed, ignored, or twisted. Torture a person who has not gotten to the "self-actualization" level and they may toss away esteem, love, and safety to maintain their basic physiological needs (that is -- to live).
     When fear of loss of basic needs becomes sufficiently great, empathy disappears -- taking care of oneself becomes the overriding priority over taking care of others. It is something that politicians, people proclaiming themselves to be leaders of a religion, or other figures of authority have always recognized and have used to promote war or the mistreatment of individuals or groups.

Work life balance: A Matter of Energy

     Jeff Bezos, of Amazon fame, in an interview, indicated that he doesn't like the phrase "work-life balance" because he considers the phrase "debilitating" -- implying a trade-off between work and non-work time. His general idea is that your time at work will provide the energy for you to take home and your time at home (or off work) will provide the energy for you to jump-start yourself at work.
     There are a couple of fairly large assumptions in that. The first is that your work is something that you love, with people you enjoy working with, and has just the right amount of stress to keep you at optimum performance. The second is that the same is true for your time at home (or off-work). I applaud all of the people in the world in this situation and wish them the very best. It also can be considered as an ideal goal for businesses and individuals.
     This principle can be generalized in such a manner that it can be applied to everyone's life. Although the terms are not exactly applicable, each part of life can be considered endothermic (absorbing energy) or exothermic (producing energy). Jeff Bezos' situation describes something where both worktime and non-worktime are exothermic and contributing to a large net positive amount of energy to use for many purposes.
     While I hope that no one reading this is in such a situation, a work area where the same thing is done over and over, with little (or no) interpersonal interactions, could be considered to be a high endothermic situation. The person just cannot wait to get off work and all their energy that is produced off-work is used to allow them to get through their workday.
     It can be argued (and I cannot say that I am certain of the best answer) that a work situation where you hate the work, or have negative interactions with people at work, would be a more energy losing situation. Personally, I don't think that is true. It may be much more stressful and less healthy but you probably head home and talk about all the terrible things that have gone on during the day. That may be negative (and I would not encourage you to continue in such a position and situation) but I would not call it low energy.
     So, what is meant by "work-life balance"? I propose that it is a net positive amount of energy. As said earlier, an ideal goal is a very strong net positive result from a very energy-producing work-life AND a non-work-life. However, if you have a net positive amount of energy then you are probably able to live a life that you can enjoy. This definition removes the idea of a "trade-off" but it does imply that everything that a business can do to improve work life AND the support they can give to non-work life will be beneficial to both the business and the individual.

The spectrum of ethics: morality, amorality, and immorality

     All thoughts of morality are based within the social contexts and agreements of a society. In other words, in spite of our social upbringing and lessons, there are few (if any) actions that are universally "good" or "bad".
     However, we do not live within a potential, alternate, parallel universe. Within current Earth conditions, laws, and priorities, there ARE items of "good", "bad", and "mixed". It is within this context that people, and actions, are evaluated according to the morally approved/disapproved conditions of the society.
     In this context, the non legally sanctioned killing of another is considered murder (there are many times at which such killing IS legally sanctioned). In this context, there is the notion of personal ownership of property and the unwilling (and non legally sanctioned) transfer of such property is considered theft.
     The term ethics is generally used in the same manner as the matter of luck. If you wish someone luck, it is assumed that you are wishing GOOD luck for them. If you ask whether someone is meeting ethics standards, it is assumed that you are asking about the achievement of GOOD ethics codes.
     Ethics or morality, it is possible to be positive, neutral, or negative. Someone who is actively trying to achieve the "good" standards and actively avoid the "bad" standards is guiding their life/actions according to morality.
     Someone who does not care about meeting "good"/"bad" standards evaluates their actions according to some other criterion. It could be financial/money, ego-reinforcement/narcissism, or some other criteria. This is called amorality. A psychopath is, in fact, an amoral person. They don't actively go against the societal norms unless it meets some other desire -- for "fun", for profit, for self-aggrandizement, for curiosity, ... If it meets their criteria for desirability, they are perfectly agreeable to do what society wants them to do. It does not matter to them.
     In the corporate world, a business is more likely to be amoral than immoral -- as being moral or amoral is most likely to increase profits. Within recent (30 year) history, there is the story of the car manufacturer who determined that the gas tank was likely to explode in a certain percentage of accidents. Accountants determined that the number of likely accidents, and subsequent lawsuits and damages, was less expensive than changing the design. Another worldwide consumer corporation has run cost analysis figures on deaths from improper (but likely) use of their products -- determining the likely costs of lawsuits and damages versus the loss of profits in not heavily marketing the product. These are both instances of amorality.
     So, what is immorality? That is the active pursuit of "bad" actions and the avoidance of "good" actions. Sometimes, it is difficult to distinguish between amoral actions and immoral actions as the objective, observable, results are often the same. The above corporate actions might be considered by many to be immoral but they are not done primarily to violate societal standards -- violation of those standards is secondary to their primary goals (in the above cases -- to increase profits).
     It is, of course, completely possible for an individual, or group, to deliberately pursue immoral activities. These are the "villains" of history or within books or movies or even popular media. Unlike within amorality, it is the active pursuit of socially disapproved behavior that is the goal. Doing "bad" things is the purpose.
     Another factor in the morality spectrum is that, based upon societal approved/disapproved conditions, it is not constant and, thus, can change. What was moral in one century may be considered immoral (or amoral) in a subsequent century. For example, slavery was widely considered acceptable in the 1700s and before. While slavery still exists within the current period, it is no longer considered acceptable. It has moved from moral to immoral. And, during the transition period in the 1800s, people who fought to eliminate slavery were often considered to be behaving immorally while, from the viewpoint of our current time, it is now considered very moral and their opposition considered immoral.
     While it is quite natural to view things of the past according to the current standards of morality -- it is dangerous to alter historical records to impose current morality and lose the reality of the past.

It's dinnertime : logistics working from the end date

     A full-time homemaker requires a multitude of skills:

• chauffeur
• chef
• house cleaner
• laundry services
• facilities manager
• chief-of-Staff
• child care
• nutrition and menu planning
• buying goods
• finance manager 
• versatile errand runner
• ...

     Logistics is defined as "the detailed coordination of a complex operation involving many people, facilities, or supplies." If you need an experienced logistics manager, just find a successful homemaker.
     One of the everyday tasks of a homemaker is that of getting meals on the table and ready to eat. Let's decompose the task into parts.

1. Get the ingredients and preparation materials
2. Prepare the ingredients for cooking/assembly
3. Cook and/or assemble
4. Serve

     So, when do we do what -- what is our timeline? We must work backward, assuming that all food is expected to be ready at the same time. We must also treat the meal by components -- the dishes to be served -- such that we can coordinate all of them.
     Let's agree on a menu. How about a quiche, warm rolls, salad, and drinks? Also, agree on a time to serve everything -- say 6:00pm.

• A quiche requires preparation of the crust, preparation of the filling, baking, and cooling and serving.
• Warm rolls (assume pre-made rolls) must be warmed up (so an oven must be available).
• A salad must have the components (greenery, other vegetables or fruit, dressing if desired) assembled and then put into serving bowls (or a communal bowl from which to be served).
• Drinks must have glasses, the contents sorted and poured, and then served.

     Of these four items, two of them are time-independent. Salad and drinks can be prepared in advance. The quiche and the rolls both need to be served soon after completion -- and there is a competition for resources because both need an oven (assume only one oven is available).
     In order to arrange proper scheduling for these two items, let us list the times needed in reverse order. Ten minutes cooling, 40 minutes at 375 degrees Fahrenheit, 10 minutes filling preparation (could be done in 5 if needed), 8 minutes baking the crust at 375, 15 minutes crust preparation, 10 minutes gathering materials.
     For the rolls, it is fairly simple. 4 minutes at 400 degrees.
     Add up the times for the quiche (we could overlap the filling preparation time and the crust baking time but we will keep it simple) and we have 83 minutes. To have it ready at 6pm, we would thus have to start at 4:37pm. After we have pulled the quiche from the oven to cool, we can turn up the heat of the oven and put the rolls into the oven at 5:56.
     The time-independent items do not really enter into the planning except to make sure that they are done in time. I would recommend doing them during the time that the quiche is baking.
     That is a simple meal. What other duties are required from our homemaker/logistics manager? Here we may enter into the "shortest distance algorithms" area. If I have to pick up a child from school, go to the bank for a deposit, and drop off the dry cleaning then I have to figure out the best order and then the best route.
     All very small parts of a normal day.