"I'm going to kill you." Have you ever uttered that phrase? Someone was doing something that you didn't like, something that might've had unpleasant consequences to yourself, and you blurted out, "I'm going to kill you." Most likely, you didn't mean it. You quickly made up with whomever perpetrated the minor offense and the phrase was forgotten. But in certain circumstances, you watch your language. We all know the words we shouldn't use in polite society, though many of us now do so anyway these days. Even when referencing them as words and not expletives we are wary to enunciate them. The f-word. The c-word. The n-word. To some religious, there might be the G-word. Or the J-word. Don't take that dude's name in vain. But where is the k-word?
There are and will continue to be people speaking out against the tragedy in Tucson. And rightly so. They are and will say that the discourse in our society is vitriolic, that we need to tone it down, because the shooter might've been impressed by such rhetoric. Maybe he was. After every tragedy, the media certainly likes that narrative. And while some of that may be true, it goes much deeper than that.
We live in a society of casual violence. In network TV, cop dramas depict violence on a weekly basis. PG-13 movies have some violence, as long as it doesn't cross a given arbitrary line into R-rated territory. But God (oops, I just broke a commandment, sorry) forbid if someone drops the f-bomb.
And then there's...(I take a deep breath as I approach the third rail) War. Yes, War: we make heroes out of people who kill other people for a living because some politician or group told them the enemy are "the bad guys." We demonize "the bad guys" like they are some oppressive evil from hell. For some of our warriors, that may work. But for others, they get shell-shocked into PTSD. Yes, that Iraqi or Afghani our soldier just killed was human; he or she was loved.
So yes, our public discourse should be more civil. Right-Wing Tea-Partiers and Left-Wing Radicals--and the media personalities who support them--should not wish violence toward the other side. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. We should start by never using the k-word and end by being kind to ALL our fellow human beings.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Monday, December 20, 2010
A (Not So) Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Life
A letter to some friends (and the rest of humanity):
Some of you know parts of this story; some of you know most of it; some of you would probably want to know it. Instead of saying the same thing several times, or have it get corrupted through the grapevine, I'm sending it out to all of you once.
Yes, I know by evoking the film and play A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum I'm evoking humor even though I say in the subject line it's not that humorous. But to borrow and modify Socrates: "Life without humor is not worth living." I promise it has a happy (so far) ending.
So: Last Thursday I went to the doctor's office about pain in my left leg I'd been experiencing since that Sunday. It'd gotten progressive worse till by the time of the appointment I was in a lot of pain from simply walking. She sent me to an imaging center to have an ultrasound taken. There I was diagnosed as having a large blood clot. The doctor called in a prescription for blood thinners; I picked them up, and went home. Saturday, with the leg pain a little worse, I started experiencing mild chest pain. It was very mild, but I knew that that was a symptom that part of the clot had migrated to my lungs. I went to the ER where I was hospitalized and was put on a more aggressive blood-thinning regimen. They discharged me today. I'm relatively fine. Chest pain is gone and leg feels much better. I'll be on blood-thinners for possibly a year, maybe even longer since I have a history of blood clotting; I had a blood clot once before about ten years ago.
Blood clots are serious. They can kill. But they are also easily preventable. In the grand scheme of things having blood that likes to clot is NO BIG DEAL. There are vast numbers of people who suffer from afflictions--physical, mental, economic, social, political--much greater than the afflictions I have ever suffered. Thank you all for the well wishes you've given me--whether personally or in your hearts--but honestly, truly, wish wellness more for those far less fortunate than I.
Some of you know parts of this story; some of you know most of it; some of you would probably want to know it. Instead of saying the same thing several times, or have it get corrupted through the grapevine, I'm sending it out to all of you once.
Yes, I know by evoking the film and play A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum I'm evoking humor even though I say in the subject line it's not that humorous. But to borrow and modify Socrates: "Life without humor is not worth living." I promise it has a happy (so far) ending.
So: Last Thursday I went to the doctor's office about pain in my left leg I'd been experiencing since that Sunday. It'd gotten progressive worse till by the time of the appointment I was in a lot of pain from simply walking. She sent me to an imaging center to have an ultrasound taken. There I was diagnosed as having a large blood clot. The doctor called in a prescription for blood thinners; I picked them up, and went home. Saturday, with the leg pain a little worse, I started experiencing mild chest pain. It was very mild, but I knew that that was a symptom that part of the clot had migrated to my lungs. I went to the ER where I was hospitalized and was put on a more aggressive blood-thinning regimen. They discharged me today. I'm relatively fine. Chest pain is gone and leg feels much better. I'll be on blood-thinners for possibly a year, maybe even longer since I have a history of blood clotting; I had a blood clot once before about ten years ago.
Blood clots are serious. They can kill. But they are also easily preventable. In the grand scheme of things having blood that likes to clot is NO BIG DEAL. There are vast numbers of people who suffer from afflictions--physical, mental, economic, social, political--much greater than the afflictions I have ever suffered. Thank you all for the well wishes you've given me--whether personally or in your hearts--but honestly, truly, wish wellness more for those far less fortunate than I.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
The Scarlet "A"
In Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, Hester Prynne commits adultery and is forced to live in shame in the outskirts of puritanical Boston. As part of her punishment she must wear a scarlet "A" on her chest at all times to remind everyone that she committed adultery. Eventually she becomes a somewhat respectable seamstress as time goes on, while her husband and lover die from their unpunished sins of jealousy and adultery, respectively. It is a morality tale, to be sure, and a Christian one at that, meant to showcase the principles of forgiveness and forbearance. But who is this God who is meant to forgive? Does he even exist?
Most probably not. And if he does, I don't want to worship him. For he is a jealous god, he even says so in the bible. A god who would condemn me simply for not worshipping him is not a good god. He shares much with Hester Prynne's husband. And adultery? Yes, he will forgive as long as you believe and worship him. He puts that above rape and murder and an uncounted number of other heinous things people commit against each other. He's like a little kid that wants you to swear to be his bestest friend in the whole world, or else... God is, in short, a major prick who doesn't even exist.
Yet, over two billion people believe in him? Why? Can so many people suffer from, as Richard Dawkins calls it, The God Delusion? Some, certainly yes. But I believe many do it out of habit and community. One thing religious groups have that non-religious groups don't have is a sense of community. Churches are great places to meet people and hang out. In fact, I heard recently that according to a study, community is the number one reason people go to church.
Where are atheists supposed to hang out? I firmly believe that we're a greater part of the population than most think. Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part, but I don't want to believe that in the 21st century most people on Earth passionately believe in some magical fairy(ies), 'cause that's all god(s) are. But again, religions have community. I know atheists are notoriously resistant to organizing. Some fear that some sort of atheistic religion may develop. Others feel that religion (or lack thereof) is not part of their lives, so just let them be. Well, for the latter group, especially in the United States, religious fundamentalists are making it very much a part of our lives. For the former, you're just going to have to be wary of that sort of thing; theoretically you have a greater chance of avoiding blind faith dogma than the religious zealot. There is a third group I'll get to a little later.
The religious right are a vocal group and a voting constituency. And I suspect they drag much of the moderate Christians, the holiday Christians, and the community Christians along with them. Those people who haven't really thought about The God Question but call themselves Christian or religious stand at the voting booth and vote for the fundie Republican because they think they agree with that candidate. But chances are, if those Christians get their way, America will resemble the puritan Boston of Hawthorne's novel much more closely than a moderate Christian would care to want. Perhaps in this hypothetical Dystopia, the scarlet "A" will stand for "Atheist."
Except, the atheists have already beaten them to the punch. The Out Campaign--inspired by the gay community--encourages atheists to "out" themselves. One way to out yourself is to put a scarlet "A" on your website like the one at the top of this page. It's unobtrusive. It's an identifying mark to those who know what it means. To those who don't know what it means, they'll either not care, or perhaps they'll look it up and maybe learn something. And best of all, it's ironic.
Above, I did not include one group of atheists who don't organize: the "closeted" atheists, those who fear losing their job or social/family repercussions if they come out as an atheist. That's why I think those who are able to say they are atheists should do so unambiguously, unequivocally. We need to show the world we are not some tiny minority. We need to change society so that those that fear loss of their lifestyle will someday no longer fear.
Though I strongly disagree with the religiosity of Hawthorne's novel, I agree with a lot of its themes. One is that it's no fun living a lie. Hester Prynne's lover, who confesses only as he's dying, knows that all too well. Whether someone is gay, atheist, or something else outside the social mainstream but engages in harmless activity, that person closeted also knows all too well the pain of living a lie. We need to show our numbers. But most of all, we need to be more understanding, more open, more kind to each other.
Most probably not. And if he does, I don't want to worship him. For he is a jealous god, he even says so in the bible. A god who would condemn me simply for not worshipping him is not a good god. He shares much with Hester Prynne's husband. And adultery? Yes, he will forgive as long as you believe and worship him. He puts that above rape and murder and an uncounted number of other heinous things people commit against each other. He's like a little kid that wants you to swear to be his bestest friend in the whole world, or else... God is, in short, a major prick who doesn't even exist.
Yet, over two billion people believe in him? Why? Can so many people suffer from, as Richard Dawkins calls it, The God Delusion? Some, certainly yes. But I believe many do it out of habit and community. One thing religious groups have that non-religious groups don't have is a sense of community. Churches are great places to meet people and hang out. In fact, I heard recently that according to a study, community is the number one reason people go to church.
Where are atheists supposed to hang out? I firmly believe that we're a greater part of the population than most think. Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part, but I don't want to believe that in the 21st century most people on Earth passionately believe in some magical fairy(ies), 'cause that's all god(s) are. But again, religions have community. I know atheists are notoriously resistant to organizing. Some fear that some sort of atheistic religion may develop. Others feel that religion (or lack thereof) is not part of their lives, so just let them be. Well, for the latter group, especially in the United States, religious fundamentalists are making it very much a part of our lives. For the former, you're just going to have to be wary of that sort of thing; theoretically you have a greater chance of avoiding blind faith dogma than the religious zealot. There is a third group I'll get to a little later.
The religious right are a vocal group and a voting constituency. And I suspect they drag much of the moderate Christians, the holiday Christians, and the community Christians along with them. Those people who haven't really thought about The God Question but call themselves Christian or religious stand at the voting booth and vote for the fundie Republican because they think they agree with that candidate. But chances are, if those Christians get their way, America will resemble the puritan Boston of Hawthorne's novel much more closely than a moderate Christian would care to want. Perhaps in this hypothetical Dystopia, the scarlet "A" will stand for "Atheist."
Except, the atheists have already beaten them to the punch. The Out Campaign--inspired by the gay community--encourages atheists to "out" themselves. One way to out yourself is to put a scarlet "A" on your website like the one at the top of this page. It's unobtrusive. It's an identifying mark to those who know what it means. To those who don't know what it means, they'll either not care, or perhaps they'll look it up and maybe learn something. And best of all, it's ironic.
Above, I did not include one group of atheists who don't organize: the "closeted" atheists, those who fear losing their job or social/family repercussions if they come out as an atheist. That's why I think those who are able to say they are atheists should do so unambiguously, unequivocally. We need to show the world we are not some tiny minority. We need to change society so that those that fear loss of their lifestyle will someday no longer fear.
Though I strongly disagree with the religiosity of Hawthorne's novel, I agree with a lot of its themes. One is that it's no fun living a lie. Hester Prynne's lover, who confesses only as he's dying, knows that all too well. Whether someone is gay, atheist, or something else outside the social mainstream but engages in harmless activity, that person closeted also knows all too well the pain of living a lie. We need to show our numbers. But most of all, we need to be more understanding, more open, more kind to each other.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
NaNoWriMo is for the Birds
In an earlier post I implied that someday I would decry our culture's obsession with "less is more." Specifically, I implied that the 140 character streams in Twitter was not enough info. This is not that essay. Though I still feel that way for a lot of things, Twitter (and small packages in general) do have their uses.
A few days ago I finished a novel. I wrote in about a month. It was for a challenge called National Novel Writing Mouth (NaNoWriMo for short), held annually in the month of November. Sounds like an impossible challenge, until you consider two things: 1) If you break it down to a daily amount, it's not that many words (1,667) and 2) It's a short novel (50,000 words). In an industry that considers 80,000 to be the lower limit, 50K sounds too short. And many continue their novels into December to beef it up into publishable range. But not I; I went 2,068 words over the 50K finish line and I reached the story's natural end. And I'm not going to beef it up. Why? Because I know of a publisher that'd be willing to see it as a 50K novel. So there's at least one, and probably more, willing to accept short novel submissions. And I think, indirectly, that Twitter has something to do with that.
This publisher is mostly an epublisher. Their clientele is comfortable reading their books on a screen instead of on a page. And many are comfortable with Twitter. They get their information in bits and flashes; they don't want to waste their time on that chapter about belly lint as metaphor for oppressive capitalism. And while this cultural ADHD has its problems (that alluded to future essay), it also boils everything down to just the essentials. There's something to be said about crystallizing communication down to the basics--a sort of right speech principle. Then, after we're done reading the short novel, we can go about doing something else in this short life. I think the Internet and sites like Twitter are helping lead the way. I don't think it'll be a bad thing in the future to see less 200K monsters out there and more 50K lean novels.
Below is a list of Tweets related to writing my novel. I didn't update my word count everyday (the days I didn't will be obvious). It was an interesting experience to give short, pertinent, themed, updates; the information Twitter is good for (not telling the world what you had for breakfast). So, in reverse order from newest to oldest, are the tweets:
A few days ago I finished a novel. I wrote in about a month. It was for a challenge called National Novel Writing Mouth (NaNoWriMo for short), held annually in the month of November. Sounds like an impossible challenge, until you consider two things: 1) If you break it down to a daily amount, it's not that many words (1,667) and 2) It's a short novel (50,000 words). In an industry that considers 80,000 to be the lower limit, 50K sounds too short. And many continue their novels into December to beef it up into publishable range. But not I; I went 2,068 words over the 50K finish line and I reached the story's natural end. And I'm not going to beef it up. Why? Because I know of a publisher that'd be willing to see it as a 50K novel. So there's at least one, and probably more, willing to accept short novel submissions. And I think, indirectly, that Twitter has something to do with that.
This publisher is mostly an epublisher. Their clientele is comfortable reading their books on a screen instead of on a page. And many are comfortable with Twitter. They get their information in bits and flashes; they don't want to waste their time on that chapter about belly lint as metaphor for oppressive capitalism. And while this cultural ADHD has its problems (that alluded to future essay), it also boils everything down to just the essentials. There's something to be said about crystallizing communication down to the basics--a sort of right speech principle. Then, after we're done reading the short novel, we can go about doing something else in this short life. I think the Internet and sites like Twitter are helping lead the way. I don't think it'll be a bad thing in the future to see less 200K monsters out there and more 50K lean novels.
Below is a list of Tweets related to writing my novel. I didn't update my word count everyday (the days I didn't will be obvious). It was an interesting experience to give short, pertinent, themed, updates; the information Twitter is good for (not telling the world what you had for breakfast). So, in reverse order from newest to oldest, are the tweets:
246 pages. 52068 words. 1st draft of novel is DONE!!!! Now to editor, where he'll hate it. Or maybe he'll say,"Sean, I'm so stoked for you."
2 Dec
I won! (Though I'm not done w/ novel) Winning word count: 50035. I think another 1 or 2K and it'll be finished. To bed now. #nanowrimo#nano
30 Nov
48161 words for day 29. I'm at a 24 hour coffee shop/bookstore till I get to 50k. #nanowrimo #nano
30 Nov
2 days to go. I think I settled on a title. I might try to do a final word push tomorrow to finish it. D28. 46678 words. #nanowrimo #nano
29 Nov
2 scenes (I think) away from the end! And I'm all caught up. Day 27. 45303 words. #nanowrimo #nano
28 Nov
My story's officially a novel by sfwa standards (40K+ words) woohoo! Tomorrow I do a 26 hour write-in. D26, 41115 words#nanowrimo #nano
27 Nov
Too full of turkey to get to 40K today, but just barely. 2 days till another overnight write-in. Day 25. 39703 words. #nanowrimo #nano
26 Nov
Got my 1667 word count in. Good considering I had story to critique. Hopefully be @ 40K by end of Turkey Day. D24, 37673 wrds.#nanowrimo
25 Nov
Spent the day w/ Boulder Wrimos @ Atlas & Dark Horse. 2600 words written. Thanks @nicolejleboeuf 4 organizing. D23, 36013 wrds. #nanowrimo
24 Nov
The Denver Broncos suck again, which is good 'cause I had more time to write. Day 22. 33415 words. #DenverBroncos #nanowrimo#nano
23 Nov
24 hour write-in a success!Wrote about 7000 words.Think next time I'll get a bed instead of sleeping on hardwood.D21, 32031 words.#nanowrimo
21 Nov
4888 words today. Most productive day so far, by far. Hope I can continue the steam tomorrow. Day 20. 30017 total words.#nanowrimo #nano
20 Nov
Today I battled dragons, so didn't have any time to write. Interesting factoids about dragons: they metabolize platinum (hence their love of precious metals). Actually, they use it to catalyze the reaction that produces fire. And they use their hydrogen bladders as both a fuel source and to help them fly. So a good strategy--if you are a dragon slayer--is to piss a dragon off so much that she'll burn up all her (male dragons are flightless and cannot breath fire, and usually get roasted to death when they mate) hydrogen and thus cannot easily fly on her puny wings. Then it's just a matter of walking up and shooting her with a dragon pistol. Of course, the trick is not to get any casualties while doing all this. #entirely,totally,absolutely100%without-a-doubtdon'tevenneedtoaskyourgrandmotheroryourgrandfatheroryourfatherormotheroranybrothersandsistersorcousinfrankwhojoinedtheteapartybecausehethoughthe'dhaveawesomegaysex,nanowrimoupdate
20 Nov (Or something like that)
Zero more words today. But I did get 2nd place in a spelling bee. Can you spell "procrastination?" Day 18. 25129 words. #nanowrimo
19 Nov
Very unproductive day. 97 more words. Yes, you read that correctly. day 17. 25129 words total. #nanowrimo
18 Nov
1/2-way done! Sure I'm a day late, but I'm looking at at 24 hour write-in this weekend, so it's all good. Day 16. 25032 words.#nanowrimo
17 Nov
Day 15. 21382 words. But not done for the night. The Muse is up and the Sandman's nowhere is sight. #nanowrimo
16 Nov
Nighty-night Twitterverse. Now have written over 100 pages. 21382 words. Day 14. #nanowrimo
15 Nov
Casting for my novel: Simon Baker, Lady Gaga, and Samuel L. Jackson. Day 13. 19529 words. #nanowrimo
13 Nov
Gotta stop going to write-ins where every1's talking. Like going to a meditation session where every1's talking.Day 12.16721 wrds#nanowrimo
12 Nov
Minor character meant to be a red herring & comic relief has turned out to be quite important. Day 11. 16054 words #nanowrimo
12 Nov
Still behind on 10th day. Tomorrow weather's supposed to be bad, so play catch up, I hope. 14358 words. #nanowrimo
11 Nov
I must've gotten abducted by aliens on November 10. No Twitter updates. Nothing. I think it must be aliens. I think I wrote that day but I just didn't tweet about it. The alien anal probe must've been too irritating for me to concentrate on Tweeter updates. Or maybe I had a conversation with God that day. Or Zeus. Or Harry Potter. Something magical, not rational, 'cause, really, any unexplained phenomena must have a magical origin. Otherwise, why would you need God? #philosophicalranttoolongtofitinatweet
10 Nov
Not very productive day. Began to weave a neglected subplot thru-out the story. 8th day. 12040 total words. #nanowrimo
9 Nov
My characters are doing some weird shit. I'll figure them out, I hope. 7th day. 11674 words. #nanowrimo
7 Nov
Zero, zilch, nada, naught, nihil, null, non, nothing, empty set, less than 1 more words today.But not behind.woohoo!Still @ 10046#nanowrimo
6 Nov
Saw no ghosts (or Stephen King characters) @ Stanley Hotel write-in. Very productive 5th day. One day ahead now. 10046 words#nanowrimo
5 Nov
Nighty-night for fourth day. Tomorrow I write in the Stanley Hotel. All work and no play makes... 7174 words. #nanowrimo
5 Nov
Not as productive 3rd day. But hit my target almost on bullseye. 5001 words. #nanowrimo
3 Nov
Fiction better than reality. 3874 words. #election2010 #nanowrimo
2 Nov
1926 words. Done for 1st day. #nanowrimo
1 Nov
I'm nanowrimoing! #nanowrimo
1 Nov
Sunday, October 17, 2010
On Writing Likable Characters
A woman lies face down on the floor of an abandoned visitors' center. She's slit her wrist, but not enough to kill her. Enough, she hopes, that her captor thinks she's dead. Her captor returns to the center, unlocking the door and sees her lying on the floor. He bends over her and she moves, hitting him in the head and bolts for the door. She runs into the wilderness, a swampy, semi-tropical forest with her captor chasing her from behind. After trampling through some trees and underbrush she comes to a road where she flags down a car. The car is full of teenagers and she believes they want her for sex. So she backs off from the road. This gives her captor time to grab and pull her into the camouflage of the forest. Are we disappointed that she lost this battle? No. 'Cause the captor is none other than Dexter Morgan, a forensic blood-spatter scientist by day, a serial killer by night, and we the audience have been rooting for him for five seasons.
Common advise among writing circles is that the protagonist must be likable. She may have flaws, but at the end of the day, we want her to win. Ergo, we must like her. Right? Wrong. Take Dexter, for example. From the beginning we are invited into his world, his thoughts, his warped sense of justice. If he has redeeming qualities, it's maybe that he (usually) only kills the bad guys. So he's a vigilante, appealing to the "dark passenger" in each of us of wishing the bad guys get their just deserves not with courts or law, but with the blind force of rage. But his victims are usually guilty. Sometimes new evidence comes to light that shows the victim's innocence. Sometimes someone gets too close and he must kill them to protect his secret. In season 2 Dexter framed a man for his own murders. The man was guilty only of being an asshole. Dexter probably would've killed the man but Dexter's mistress did it for him. As thanks, Dexter murdered her to protect his secret hobby. Through the thick and thin of it all the audience roots for Dexter. Maybe we can empathize with him because his traumatic childhood made him who he is. But if Dexter were real and I knew who he was, I'd stay as far away from him as possible. And I'd turn him into the cops. In real life, I would want the cops to win. In fiction, I'll root for him all the time. Likable he is not.
So why does Dexter have a following? It has five seasons and several rewards and nominations. But it violates this "rule" that the main character must be likable. Melanie Tem, a well published author I know, said that the key to the protagonist is that she or he is interesting. Dexter is definitely that. We watch because he is complex and nuanced. He reveals our dark nature and--through him--we revel in it. In a way he's cathartic. He forces us to examine where our sympathies and empathies lie. He's certainly a fine definition of an antihero. As there were antiheroes before, there will be antiheroes after, always proving the rule of likable characters wrong. We like antiheroes not because we like them, but because they force us to examine ourselves.
Common advise among writing circles is that the protagonist must be likable. She may have flaws, but at the end of the day, we want her to win. Ergo, we must like her. Right? Wrong. Take Dexter, for example. From the beginning we are invited into his world, his thoughts, his warped sense of justice. If he has redeeming qualities, it's maybe that he (usually) only kills the bad guys. So he's a vigilante, appealing to the "dark passenger" in each of us of wishing the bad guys get their just deserves not with courts or law, but with the blind force of rage. But his victims are usually guilty. Sometimes new evidence comes to light that shows the victim's innocence. Sometimes someone gets too close and he must kill them to protect his secret. In season 2 Dexter framed a man for his own murders. The man was guilty only of being an asshole. Dexter probably would've killed the man but Dexter's mistress did it for him. As thanks, Dexter murdered her to protect his secret hobby. Through the thick and thin of it all the audience roots for Dexter. Maybe we can empathize with him because his traumatic childhood made him who he is. But if Dexter were real and I knew who he was, I'd stay as far away from him as possible. And I'd turn him into the cops. In real life, I would want the cops to win. In fiction, I'll root for him all the time. Likable he is not.
So why does Dexter have a following? It has five seasons and several rewards and nominations. But it violates this "rule" that the main character must be likable. Melanie Tem, a well published author I know, said that the key to the protagonist is that she or he is interesting. Dexter is definitely that. We watch because he is complex and nuanced. He reveals our dark nature and--through him--we revel in it. In a way he's cathartic. He forces us to examine where our sympathies and empathies lie. He's certainly a fine definition of an antihero. As there were antiheroes before, there will be antiheroes after, always proving the rule of likable characters wrong. We like antiheroes not because we like them, but because they force us to examine ourselves.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Our Addiction to Space and Going Against Our Hard-Wiring
The next time you're stuck in rush-hour traffic, look at the cars around you. How many have only one person in them? Are you the only occupant in your car? How often do you have someone ride with you? Of the cars around you, how many are designed to seat only one or two people? The answers are semi-rhetorical but few people stop to think about it. Most of the time you and everyone else who drives on a regular basis drive only yourself in a car designed to seat at least four people. Think of the space and energy wasted hauling around tons of plastic and metal and empty space. Now consider this: as urban areas grow, cities are forced to expand their highway systems to accommodate more traffic (which temporarily causes the situation to worsen). More traffic because of more people? No. Most of that expansion is for hauling around more empty space. Sure, more lanes mean more cars on the freeway, but most of the space is taken up by empty passenger seats. Where are all these cars going to anyway? To homes in suburbia, to empty, spacious homes. So why is this a problem? Because there's nearly seven billion of us on the planet.
We humans are somewhat territorial; we value our space. And we get pissed if someone violates it. In a lot of causes, it's illegal. Someone breaking into your house? That's a space violation. Picking up a hitchhiker? Many don't do it because they say it's dangerous, but I suspect that the real reason is that it's a space violation: "I enjoy sitting in my empty car." It's an almost unconscious fact, like a hard wiring, perhaps even on the genetic level: we humans need our space. That's why the environmental movement is all about recycling and driving electric vehicles and reducing our carbon footprint. But it's rarely about reducing our actual footprint, reducing the space our civilization takes up. Few ever say, "Live in the city where you can actually walk or ride (bike, bus, or subway) to work. If you need to, get a one or two person electric vehicle with just enough space to put groceries in."
No, one usually thinks the opposite: a home in the woods, with passive and active solar energy, maybe a wind turbine, and maybe even a small farm to "live of the land." And the transportation? Maybe an electric car's the way to go in this "environmental" home, but it probably sits at least four. What if this home is far from town (because, after all, this home is "environmental" and needs to commune with nature), say twenty miles. That's a forty mile commute, pushing the range upper-limits on some electric cars. OK, fine, make it a hybrid. But what about winters? The city isn't going to make that neighborhood a priority (those pesky "unenvironmental" city-dwellers have priority). What about a small Jeep to navigate the snow? But if the snow is high, a small Jeep isn't going to cut it. Better get something a little heavier. A pickup, maybe, with a plow attachment, to get rid of the snow. But you need to take the kids to soccer practice, so make it an extended cab. But they don't like to be crowded--they always fight over that--so make it a four-door extended cab. Lots of room for growing girls and boys. Oooo! You know what? You could take the neighbor's kids to soccer practice too. Carpooling sometimes, now that's "environmental!" Better make it a large SUV, you don't need the pickup bed anyway. By the way, I don't mean to be disparaging you and your choices. If you're a stranger reading this, I obviously never met you. So when I say "you," I often mean the generic "you." It just sounds better than using "one" to refer to a generic person. OK, now back to the rant.
So you totally threw out your transportation environmentalism out the window. But you're living off the grid--on renewable energy--and communing with nature. But how much space you take up? Don't just include the actual footprint of the house, but also the road that goes to your house. Is the road that goes to your house only for you, or is it shared? If it's shared, what's its traffic density? What's the traffic density of all the roads you use to go to all the places you go to? Say you took your house and made it an apartment unit. Same size, but now it's part of a larger building instead of a stand-alone structure. Say it's a two story house and now you've moved it into a twenty story apartment building. What's its footprint? It's taking up the same amount of space as in the woods, so it's the same, right? Wrong. It's at least ten times smaller because it's shared space by ten other two-story apartment units. Now I know ground space is saved by building up, not out. But resources are still saved. Heat escaping the "roof" of your apartment home becomes heat for the apartment above you. Whereas, in the woods, it's lost to the environment, even with super-good insulation (no insulation is perfect). And, remember, when I said at least ten-times less a footprint? Well, you no longer have your own road, you have a shared road by a lot of people. More shared resources. More environmental. Not the sarcastic "environmental," but truly environmental. That forty-mile commute in that giant SUV? Well, ideally work now will be within walking or riding (bike, bus, or subway) distance. And the streets are plowed!--because a million people demanding clear streets carry a lot more weight than the ten living in the woods. And if you need to, you can buy that one or two seat electric vehicle (not the four-seater) to run errands. Your kids and the neighbor's kids can walk or take the bus.
Obviously, I have a lot of issues with the current environmental movement. I think wasted space and lack of shared resources is of paramount importance. Of course, the reason we got to this point is because--to put it bluntly--we fuck too much. Sex just feels good, and despite birth control, we have the fundamental Darwinian urge to reproduce. Study-after-study has shown that people derive much satisfaction from raising children even though those same people also say it's hard work and sometimes more stressful than their jobs. So what should we do? We need to first acknowledge that our hard-wiring is working against us; we need to be less territorial, less horny, and less desiring to propagate the species.
Much of what I've said I've taken from other sources. I think the genesis came when I read an article arguing how New York is one of the most environmental cities, and how living in the woods is not. Much of what I said above is simply paraphrasing that article. I've tried to find that article to cite, but unfortunately I could not. So sue me; this ain't no academic treatise. The actor Nathan Fillion posted on twitter info on a car company he and actor Jon Huertas had found. That car company Arcimoto Motors will make small three-wheeled two passenger electric cars. The actors flew out to the company's headquarters in Eugene, OR and became unpaid celebrity endorsers, which gave the company publicity and spurred R&D contributions from fans of Nathan Fillion (and crashed the Arcimoto website). Finding this company spurred me to write this blog post. I can cite them as a source: www.arcimoto.com.
From their website:
Of course, this is an advertisement to get you to buy their car (or to put down a $500 deposit to reserve your car when they start production). But the point of showing this is to showing that there is some noise out there that's an alternative to the "environmental" cabin in the woods. It's a start.
And it's a start for me as well. I don't live the ideal outlined above: living in a high-rise apartment complex, driving a tiny electric vehicle when I need to, and paying more for my electricity to support the cost of my power company's wind-power farm. In fact, I think it's somewhat scary. I wrote a sci-fi novel fragment once where everyone lived in a super-dense city known as an archology (essentially a city within one building--talk about shared resources). The city was so dense that for most people, the closest thing to a home was a bed they would get for eight hours. The beds were stacked one-atop-another on a huge wall. A person would climb a ladder to get to their bed at the beginning of their sleep shift, sleep for eight hours, and then wake up and leave, only to have someone else sleep for the next eight hours. Three sleep shifts a day, every day. Because the beds were never unoccupied, a saying in that society developed to indicate the hyper-sharing of resources: "Box beds never get cold." The novel was not intended to portray that society as Utopian. In fact, just the opposite. So yes, the idea of being stacked into box beds is not appealing to me. My hard-wiring doesn't like it. But I think I can overcome it. We need to. Otherwise we and the environment are screwed.
We humans are somewhat territorial; we value our space. And we get pissed if someone violates it. In a lot of causes, it's illegal. Someone breaking into your house? That's a space violation. Picking up a hitchhiker? Many don't do it because they say it's dangerous, but I suspect that the real reason is that it's a space violation: "I enjoy sitting in my empty car." It's an almost unconscious fact, like a hard wiring, perhaps even on the genetic level: we humans need our space. That's why the environmental movement is all about recycling and driving electric vehicles and reducing our carbon footprint. But it's rarely about reducing our actual footprint, reducing the space our civilization takes up. Few ever say, "Live in the city where you can actually walk or ride (bike, bus, or subway) to work. If you need to, get a one or two person electric vehicle with just enough space to put groceries in."
No, one usually thinks the opposite: a home in the woods, with passive and active solar energy, maybe a wind turbine, and maybe even a small farm to "live of the land." And the transportation? Maybe an electric car's the way to go in this "environmental" home, but it probably sits at least four. What if this home is far from town (because, after all, this home is "environmental" and needs to commune with nature), say twenty miles. That's a forty mile commute, pushing the range upper-limits on some electric cars. OK, fine, make it a hybrid. But what about winters? The city isn't going to make that neighborhood a priority (those pesky "unenvironmental" city-dwellers have priority). What about a small Jeep to navigate the snow? But if the snow is high, a small Jeep isn't going to cut it. Better get something a little heavier. A pickup, maybe, with a plow attachment, to get rid of the snow. But you need to take the kids to soccer practice, so make it an extended cab. But they don't like to be crowded--they always fight over that--so make it a four-door extended cab. Lots of room for growing girls and boys. Oooo! You know what? You could take the neighbor's kids to soccer practice too. Carpooling sometimes, now that's "environmental!" Better make it a large SUV, you don't need the pickup bed anyway. By the way, I don't mean to be disparaging you and your choices. If you're a stranger reading this, I obviously never met you. So when I say "you," I often mean the generic "you." It just sounds better than using "one" to refer to a generic person. OK, now back to the rant.
So you totally threw out your transportation environmentalism out the window. But you're living off the grid--on renewable energy--and communing with nature. But how much space you take up? Don't just include the actual footprint of the house, but also the road that goes to your house. Is the road that goes to your house only for you, or is it shared? If it's shared, what's its traffic density? What's the traffic density of all the roads you use to go to all the places you go to? Say you took your house and made it an apartment unit. Same size, but now it's part of a larger building instead of a stand-alone structure. Say it's a two story house and now you've moved it into a twenty story apartment building. What's its footprint? It's taking up the same amount of space as in the woods, so it's the same, right? Wrong. It's at least ten times smaller because it's shared space by ten other two-story apartment units. Now I know ground space is saved by building up, not out. But resources are still saved. Heat escaping the "roof" of your apartment home becomes heat for the apartment above you. Whereas, in the woods, it's lost to the environment, even with super-good insulation (no insulation is perfect). And, remember, when I said at least ten-times less a footprint? Well, you no longer have your own road, you have a shared road by a lot of people. More shared resources. More environmental. Not the sarcastic "environmental," but truly environmental. That forty-mile commute in that giant SUV? Well, ideally work now will be within walking or riding (bike, bus, or subway) distance. And the streets are plowed!--because a million people demanding clear streets carry a lot more weight than the ten living in the woods. And if you need to, you can buy that one or two seat electric vehicle (not the four-seater) to run errands. Your kids and the neighbor's kids can walk or take the bus.
Obviously, I have a lot of issues with the current environmental movement. I think wasted space and lack of shared resources is of paramount importance. Of course, the reason we got to this point is because--to put it bluntly--we fuck too much. Sex just feels good, and despite birth control, we have the fundamental Darwinian urge to reproduce. Study-after-study has shown that people derive much satisfaction from raising children even though those same people also say it's hard work and sometimes more stressful than their jobs. So what should we do? We need to first acknowledge that our hard-wiring is working against us; we need to be less territorial, less horny, and less desiring to propagate the species.
Much of what I've said I've taken from other sources. I think the genesis came when I read an article arguing how New York is one of the most environmental cities, and how living in the woods is not. Much of what I said above is simply paraphrasing that article. I've tried to find that article to cite, but unfortunately I could not. So sue me; this ain't no academic treatise. The actor Nathan Fillion posted on twitter info on a car company he and actor Jon Huertas had found. That car company Arcimoto Motors will make small three-wheeled two passenger electric cars. The actors flew out to the company's headquarters in Eugene, OR and became unpaid celebrity endorsers, which gave the company publicity and spurred R&D contributions from fans of Nathan Fillion (and crashed the Arcimoto website). Finding this company spurred me to write this blog post. I can cite them as a source: www.arcimoto.com.
From their website:
Stand on any busy street corner and watch the cars go by. What you typically see is a single person driving upwards of 5,000 lbs. of steel. Ask those folks where they’re going and it’s usually a 5-mile trip to the store, or their 10-mile morning commute. Tack on fuel and maintenance costs for that vehicle, and the expense in wasted resources and energy adds up quick for an individual, let alone the multiplicative effect across the whole of society.
Why haul around thousands of pounds of steel and many cubic feet of unneeded space for daily commutes, a trip to the grocery store, or visiting grandma across town? Drive something that fits. Drive the Pulse[their model they will be selling].
Of course, this is an advertisement to get you to buy their car (or to put down a $500 deposit to reserve your car when they start production). But the point of showing this is to showing that there is some noise out there that's an alternative to the "environmental" cabin in the woods. It's a start.
And it's a start for me as well. I don't live the ideal outlined above: living in a high-rise apartment complex, driving a tiny electric vehicle when I need to, and paying more for my electricity to support the cost of my power company's wind-power farm. In fact, I think it's somewhat scary. I wrote a sci-fi novel fragment once where everyone lived in a super-dense city known as an archology (essentially a city within one building--talk about shared resources). The city was so dense that for most people, the closest thing to a home was a bed they would get for eight hours. The beds were stacked one-atop-another on a huge wall. A person would climb a ladder to get to their bed at the beginning of their sleep shift, sleep for eight hours, and then wake up and leave, only to have someone else sleep for the next eight hours. Three sleep shifts a day, every day. Because the beds were never unoccupied, a saying in that society developed to indicate the hyper-sharing of resources: "Box beds never get cold." The novel was not intended to portray that society as Utopian. In fact, just the opposite. So yes, the idea of being stacked into box beds is not appealing to me. My hard-wiring doesn't like it. But I think I can overcome it. We need to. Otherwise we and the environment are screwed.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
All in Flux
Everything dies. Everything is born. One cannot exist without the other, for death implies that at one time that thing was new and fresh, recently born. We can imagine an immortal being who never dies. But is she really immortal? Would she be the same person at one thousand years old that she was at one hundred? As adults we have memories of childhood and we think we were once that being. But most of our cells would be entirely different. Sure, we can say that we must share billions or perhaps trillions of brain cells. Otherwise, we wouldn't have those childhood memories. But even then, could we really say those are the same neurons? We can look at a particular neuron we think must be the same. That neuron has been exchanging matter and energy since its own birth. The best we could say is that that neuron is a copy of the childhood neuron. In fact, it must be that. If it were the same, it would be changeless, frozen in time, permanent. And since its job is to interact with the universe, everything else would have to be permanent. There would be no such thing as time and no such thing as the impermanent activities and emotions we call our lives. In order to exist (at least in the way we can conceive it), things must die. We must die.
On Saturday, July 31 2010 my dad passed away. It was a long, slow decline to the point when he stopped breathing. But it's still hard. We all want to believe that we and our loved ones will somehow cheat death. It's somewhat selfish of us to want our loved ones to hang around and suffer for a year or two or more so we don't feel the grief of death. And it's self-deceiving to believe that after death there's a magical place full of bliss (or one full of pain). Or to believe we will somehow be reborn into another person. Those are silly childish notions. But after our physical bodies die, we will be reborn, in a manner of speaking. My father lives on through my brother and I, and through my mom. He touched us, through his words and actions he changed us. By doing that, there's a little bit of him in us. If I ever have kids, there will be a little bit of my father in them, and in their kids and in their kids' kids... Even if my brother and I never have kids, my father influenced others besides immediate family members. There's something like only six or seven degrees of separation between any two people in the world. So some Chinese rice farmer who's never met my father or was ever remotely aware of him was changed by him. My father lives on in that rice farmer and in every other human being on the planet. His cremated ashes will help fertilize a plant or feed a fish. In the vast, distant future after the sun has swallowed the Earth and has blown itself apart, my father's ashes will help fuel a star. As the astronomer Carl Sagan said, "We are all made of star-stuff." Conversely, star-stuff is made of us. Or, as my father said, "We are made of atoms. The configurations change, but it's still just atoms." Everything's cycle of birth and death is dependent upon everything else, a very large interlocking web of causality throughout the universe. Yes, my dad died last Saturday. But so too a whole universe of possibility was reborn.
On Saturday, July 31 2010 my dad passed away. It was a long, slow decline to the point when he stopped breathing. But it's still hard. We all want to believe that we and our loved ones will somehow cheat death. It's somewhat selfish of us to want our loved ones to hang around and suffer for a year or two or more so we don't feel the grief of death. And it's self-deceiving to believe that after death there's a magical place full of bliss (or one full of pain). Or to believe we will somehow be reborn into another person. Those are silly childish notions. But after our physical bodies die, we will be reborn, in a manner of speaking. My father lives on through my brother and I, and through my mom. He touched us, through his words and actions he changed us. By doing that, there's a little bit of him in us. If I ever have kids, there will be a little bit of my father in them, and in their kids and in their kids' kids... Even if my brother and I never have kids, my father influenced others besides immediate family members. There's something like only six or seven degrees of separation between any two people in the world. So some Chinese rice farmer who's never met my father or was ever remotely aware of him was changed by him. My father lives on in that rice farmer and in every other human being on the planet. His cremated ashes will help fertilize a plant or feed a fish. In the vast, distant future after the sun has swallowed the Earth and has blown itself apart, my father's ashes will help fuel a star. As the astronomer Carl Sagan said, "We are all made of star-stuff." Conversely, star-stuff is made of us. Or, as my father said, "We are made of atoms. The configurations change, but it's still just atoms." Everything's cycle of birth and death is dependent upon everything else, a very large interlocking web of causality throughout the universe. Yes, my dad died last Saturday. But so too a whole universe of possibility was reborn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
