We had our discussion yesterday of the grasshopper versus the ant.
Should one seize the day, enjoy life to the full, treat everyday as if it is the last day one will live?
Or should we save and accumulate our resources for when it can be better used at a future date? when we may be in more need or have a better opportunity to deploy these resources?
Rafi the economist started off with the economic idea of the interest rate applied to future value of money which should be applicable to other things as well. One simply have to evaluate whether delayed gratification leads to a better enjoyment at a later date. If not, then it does not make any sense to delay.
Therefore, there is no point in saving the best for last if we get just as much enjoyment out of it now.
Mark pointed out that there is a special pleasure out of the anticipation of a delayed enjoyment. That this anticipation itself can intensify the enjoyment in the end as well as the time leading up to it.
There was also the mention that one's stage in life is important. The years left in one's life should determine whether one should be a saver or spender........ if only we know how long we are going to live.
Mano mentioned that humans have the unique ability to project ourselves into the future to imagine what we would be like then. That these images of the future provide impetus and motivation for us to think of what we should do in the near, medium, and long term.
To me, this is significant in that it points to the incompleteness of our planning process. We are motivated by what we can imagine and visualize. Often outside influences pop into our minds, making us realize possibilities we were not aware before. Our motivations are constantly changing due to this constant bombardment from outside influence of possibilities.
Motivational speakers are experts at this. They focus our attention on things we have not thought much off before, change our picture of the future, convince us that it is possible, and tell us to do it....right now!
So maybe the grasshopper is constantly under the influence of the next outside influence and do what comes to their mind that moment. Whereas the ant is going by habit, doing what they are "suppose" to.
Neither sounds particularly attractive.
Knowing that the world is much much more than our mind's eye, should we not then be constantly on the look out for the areas we are not aware off, do some of the things we feel worthy of doing today, and put some of our resources aside for those future adventures that we are not aware of at the moment?
Now the hard part, how much resources to put aside for this unlimited, unknown future versus the indulgence of the limited, and known present?
We cannot balance between two things when one of them is an unknown.
The best we can do is to keep the principle in mind and keep our mind and senses open for when parts of that unknown reveals itself to us.
What a wonderful world!
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Hope and hopelessness
I was at the Oakridge SFU philosopher's cafe last night where the discussion was around hope and hoplessness.
Some interesting points:
1. What is hope? It involves the imagination to visualize a positive outcome in the future and also the believe that it is likely, or at least more than possible. By contrast, hopelessness is feeling that the current situation will not improve.
2. While the western culture thinks of hope as good and hopelessness as something to be avoided, is there anything good about hopelessness and bad about hope? Someone offered that she had never thought she had any hope of being good at basketball so her hopelessness in playing basketball is a good thing in that it keeps her expectations realistic. By the same token, hope implies some dissatisfaction with the current situation.
3. What about contentment. Can one be hopeful and content? In other cultures where people are suppose to be content with their birth status and station in life, is hope interfering with their contentment? How do we have acceptance of our situation and still harbor hope for the better?
4. Hope can be nurtured through the visualizing of the goals, breaking this long term goal into intermediate small achievable steps towards this goal. Making progress in these small steps reinforce the viability of the long term goal and strengthen the believe that the goal is realistic and support the hope.
5. Edison was mentioned as having looked at every failure along the way to inventing the light bulb as just another way not to make the light bulb. Someone mentioned that years ago, she had laughed when her then young husband decided to get a PhD and be the head of an institute. He is there now and he was never upset with the "failures" but saw them as an indicator on how not to do something and improve. These are all "learning opportunities" towards our long term goal if we can just put aside our short term pride.
6. I mentioned the example of a dog tied to a leash off a bicycle. The dog has to follow the leash and go where the cyclist is going. It may be inspirational to say that we should have hope against all odds but for this dog, hoping to get off that leash and the roaming cyclist is impractical. Therefore, the differentiation between determination and being stubborn is the good judgment of what is feasible versus what is not practical. Edison had a long term vision that the light bulb is possible while he is dealing with the setbacks along the way. The leader of the scientific institute as a young man sees that these leaders are human, that it is achievable and he has the qualities to get there. The dog behind the bicycle should examine the integrity of the leash before deciding whether it is practical to try to break away from the leash.
7. According to the Greek mythology and Homer, the gods had condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the top of a mountain, whence the stone would fall back of its own weight. They had thought with some reason that there is no more dreadful punishment than futile and hopeless labor. However, that is what a lot of us do everyday in our daily routines. We accept progressing our careers and raising our children as a given and go through the daily grind of pushing the stone uphill. While we may complain about the hard work, we may suffer a sense of loss upon retirement when there is no reason to push the rock up the hill any more. So are we enjoying our daily grind? Are we liking the hopeful feeling that some day the rock will eventually get to the top of the mountain? Or is it the endless circle of life to keep changing?
8. Someone asked if anyone believe in the afterlife. It stands to reason that if there is an afterlife that there should be a previous life. If there is a previous life and we do not know what it is, is it relevant? A lot of people who believed that they had a previous life thought they were a princess or Napoleon. Is this an indication of the concept of parallel universes for there to be so many princesses and Napoleons?
9. Hopelessness is a condition that depressed people often have. Since antidepressant drugs can help in this situation through chemical changes to our neural synapses, our body chemistry is implicated in our sense of hope and hopelessness. While hope and hopelessness is a mental feeling, our brain is supported by our physical body that is influenced by the food we eat, the amount of sleep we have and whether we are under the influence of some disease. The computer analogy here is that our feelings are like computer software running on computer hardware. The well being of the hardware affects the integrity of the software. The analogy breaks down here in that computers are digital and software failures are usually catastrophic; either the computer works or it doesn't, there is no middle ground where the computer hardware works but give you the wrong answers in software. For the human brain, it can be affected by lack of sleep and other factors without us knowing that these physical factors are at play on our thoughts.
So, should we aim for being hopeful? content? striving like Sisyphus? go with the flow like the dog on a leash? Edison with learning opportunity at every turn?
Some interesting points:
1. What is hope? It involves the imagination to visualize a positive outcome in the future and also the believe that it is likely, or at least more than possible. By contrast, hopelessness is feeling that the current situation will not improve.
2. While the western culture thinks of hope as good and hopelessness as something to be avoided, is there anything good about hopelessness and bad about hope? Someone offered that she had never thought she had any hope of being good at basketball so her hopelessness in playing basketball is a good thing in that it keeps her expectations realistic. By the same token, hope implies some dissatisfaction with the current situation.
3. What about contentment. Can one be hopeful and content? In other cultures where people are suppose to be content with their birth status and station in life, is hope interfering with their contentment? How do we have acceptance of our situation and still harbor hope for the better?
4. Hope can be nurtured through the visualizing of the goals, breaking this long term goal into intermediate small achievable steps towards this goal. Making progress in these small steps reinforce the viability of the long term goal and strengthen the believe that the goal is realistic and support the hope.
5. Edison was mentioned as having looked at every failure along the way to inventing the light bulb as just another way not to make the light bulb. Someone mentioned that years ago, she had laughed when her then young husband decided to get a PhD and be the head of an institute. He is there now and he was never upset with the "failures" but saw them as an indicator on how not to do something and improve. These are all "learning opportunities" towards our long term goal if we can just put aside our short term pride.
6. I mentioned the example of a dog tied to a leash off a bicycle. The dog has to follow the leash and go where the cyclist is going. It may be inspirational to say that we should have hope against all odds but for this dog, hoping to get off that leash and the roaming cyclist is impractical. Therefore, the differentiation between determination and being stubborn is the good judgment of what is feasible versus what is not practical. Edison had a long term vision that the light bulb is possible while he is dealing with the setbacks along the way. The leader of the scientific institute as a young man sees that these leaders are human, that it is achievable and he has the qualities to get there. The dog behind the bicycle should examine the integrity of the leash before deciding whether it is practical to try to break away from the leash.
7. According to the Greek mythology and Homer, the gods had condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the top of a mountain, whence the stone would fall back of its own weight. They had thought with some reason that there is no more dreadful punishment than futile and hopeless labor. However, that is what a lot of us do everyday in our daily routines. We accept progressing our careers and raising our children as a given and go through the daily grind of pushing the stone uphill. While we may complain about the hard work, we may suffer a sense of loss upon retirement when there is no reason to push the rock up the hill any more. So are we enjoying our daily grind? Are we liking the hopeful feeling that some day the rock will eventually get to the top of the mountain? Or is it the endless circle of life to keep changing?
8. Someone asked if anyone believe in the afterlife. It stands to reason that if there is an afterlife that there should be a previous life. If there is a previous life and we do not know what it is, is it relevant? A lot of people who believed that they had a previous life thought they were a princess or Napoleon. Is this an indication of the concept of parallel universes for there to be so many princesses and Napoleons?
9. Hopelessness is a condition that depressed people often have. Since antidepressant drugs can help in this situation through chemical changes to our neural synapses, our body chemistry is implicated in our sense of hope and hopelessness. While hope and hopelessness is a mental feeling, our brain is supported by our physical body that is influenced by the food we eat, the amount of sleep we have and whether we are under the influence of some disease. The computer analogy here is that our feelings are like computer software running on computer hardware. The well being of the hardware affects the integrity of the software. The analogy breaks down here in that computers are digital and software failures are usually catastrophic; either the computer works or it doesn't, there is no middle ground where the computer hardware works but give you the wrong answers in software. For the human brain, it can be affected by lack of sleep and other factors without us knowing that these physical factors are at play on our thoughts.
So, should we aim for being hopeful? content? striving like Sisyphus? go with the flow like the dog on a leash? Edison with learning opportunity at every turn?
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Is life a game?
We had a lively discussion at Mano SFU philosophy cafe last night.
Some thoughts.
What is a game? Some would define it as an arrangement where artificial obstructions (rules) are created in order to test the skills of the player and provide the satisfaction of achievement through overcoming these artificial obstacles.
It seems we humans love the rush from achieving ever more challenging goals and games provide this.
Therefore, a golfer can easily walk up to the hole and drop the golf ball in there with his hand but have agreed to do it the difficult way by trying to hit the ball with a club at a long distance and measure his achievement by the minimum number of strokes to do it.
The tennis player agree to have a net in between them so not all balls will go over and have scoring rule to measure one's skill over another player.
Mountain climbers scale peaks; because it is there, they say. I would say they are doing it for the challenge and for the rush of achieving and overcoming that challenge. Notice that they are always looking for the next more difficult mountain to reach.
Then there are games of chance, where one tests one's patience and persevering through unlucky streaks or hoping for lucky breaks. Chance is another form of obstacle that is out of the players control in each play. The challenge of hitting the big one, getting even with earlier losses, guessing that lucky combination, all seem to fit the definition.
Our love for challenge and achievement is such that boredom soon sets in when everything is the way we wanted it. What would one do in utopia if all our needs and pleasures are available at the touch of a variety of buttons? How happy would we be in heaven and what would we do.......forever?
One theory is that we will invent games to set up artificial hurdles for us to overcome.
At the cafe, there were discussions about whether evolution is a game, whether morals and social norms are game rules, and how chance affect our lives. Perhaps the game aspect only applies to social rules made by humans.
For me, it is about perspective.
For those who think there is a predetermined purpose for their life, they are obligated to take a certain path and overcome certain obstacles, it is difficult to convince them they are playing a game. It may fit the definition of a game but it seems to trivialize their sense of meaning.
However, can we trivialize explorers, mountain climbers, Olympic athletes? Are they not in games? The fame and glory that motivate great entertainers and others, are these not just motivators for the game? Some games can be very serious.
Then there are those who thinks life does not come with a predetermined purpose but that it is up to each of us to find meaning and purpose in life. Once we take the position of choosing, it becomes a lot more like deciding which game to play, what rules to follow, or work to change the rules of the game.
Some at the cafe protest that lots of unfortunate people were born into dire circumstances in this world and do not have the luxury of choosing.
Card players constantly have to face being dealt poor cards. Most of them endure the play, hoping for fortunes to change rather than leave the game as is the expected norm of the game. Those who are born into dire circumstances are in similar but much tougher situation, their option of ending the game in life by leaving is even more unpalatable.
What of the people who were born with nothing? Did they not get any cards at all? No, the ones who did not get any cards were not born and did not get to join the game.
So, can we turn life into a game? Does it make life any better?
Our normal notion of a game is that its main purpose is to entertain. For billionaire to continue to try to make money would be considered a game even for the rest of us it is about subsistence, making a living, or getting luxuries that we do not have.
Next time we face a difficulty, can we see it as the tennis net or the challenging golf course? Meant to entertain us and make our life interesting? Looking forward to the satisfying rush of achievement when this difficulty is conquered?
If we failed this time, is it the learning opportunity we need to improve ourselves to get ready for the next game challenge so that we can get the rush of achievement then? After all, who ever win at tennis the first time they play or when faced with a more skillful opponent? But we keep improving and keep getting more satisfaction with the improvement as a result of the defeats in between.
Life happens, we impart meaning into events, up to us?
Some thoughts.
What is a game? Some would define it as an arrangement where artificial obstructions (rules) are created in order to test the skills of the player and provide the satisfaction of achievement through overcoming these artificial obstacles.
It seems we humans love the rush from achieving ever more challenging goals and games provide this.
Therefore, a golfer can easily walk up to the hole and drop the golf ball in there with his hand but have agreed to do it the difficult way by trying to hit the ball with a club at a long distance and measure his achievement by the minimum number of strokes to do it.
The tennis player agree to have a net in between them so not all balls will go over and have scoring rule to measure one's skill over another player.
Mountain climbers scale peaks; because it is there, they say. I would say they are doing it for the challenge and for the rush of achieving and overcoming that challenge. Notice that they are always looking for the next more difficult mountain to reach.
Then there are games of chance, where one tests one's patience and persevering through unlucky streaks or hoping for lucky breaks. Chance is another form of obstacle that is out of the players control in each play. The challenge of hitting the big one, getting even with earlier losses, guessing that lucky combination, all seem to fit the definition.
Our love for challenge and achievement is such that boredom soon sets in when everything is the way we wanted it. What would one do in utopia if all our needs and pleasures are available at the touch of a variety of buttons? How happy would we be in heaven and what would we do.......forever?
One theory is that we will invent games to set up artificial hurdles for us to overcome.
At the cafe, there were discussions about whether evolution is a game, whether morals and social norms are game rules, and how chance affect our lives. Perhaps the game aspect only applies to social rules made by humans.
For me, it is about perspective.
For those who think there is a predetermined purpose for their life, they are obligated to take a certain path and overcome certain obstacles, it is difficult to convince them they are playing a game. It may fit the definition of a game but it seems to trivialize their sense of meaning.
However, can we trivialize explorers, mountain climbers, Olympic athletes? Are they not in games? The fame and glory that motivate great entertainers and others, are these not just motivators for the game? Some games can be very serious.
Then there are those who thinks life does not come with a predetermined purpose but that it is up to each of us to find meaning and purpose in life. Once we take the position of choosing, it becomes a lot more like deciding which game to play, what rules to follow, or work to change the rules of the game.
Some at the cafe protest that lots of unfortunate people were born into dire circumstances in this world and do not have the luxury of choosing.
Card players constantly have to face being dealt poor cards. Most of them endure the play, hoping for fortunes to change rather than leave the game as is the expected norm of the game. Those who are born into dire circumstances are in similar but much tougher situation, their option of ending the game in life by leaving is even more unpalatable.
What of the people who were born with nothing? Did they not get any cards at all? No, the ones who did not get any cards were not born and did not get to join the game.
So, can we turn life into a game? Does it make life any better?
Our normal notion of a game is that its main purpose is to entertain. For billionaire to continue to try to make money would be considered a game even for the rest of us it is about subsistence, making a living, or getting luxuries that we do not have.
Next time we face a difficulty, can we see it as the tennis net or the challenging golf course? Meant to entertain us and make our life interesting? Looking forward to the satisfying rush of achievement when this difficulty is conquered?
If we failed this time, is it the learning opportunity we need to improve ourselves to get ready for the next game challenge so that we can get the rush of achievement then? After all, who ever win at tennis the first time they play or when faced with a more skillful opponent? But we keep improving and keep getting more satisfaction with the improvement as a result of the defeats in between.
Life happens, we impart meaning into events, up to us?
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Tattoos and piercings
We had a discussion of tattoos and piercings at one of the cafes tonight.
Is it beauty, conforming to a social group, or is it self mutilation?
I must confess I know very little about this topic and that makes it very interesting for me.
To start off with, we can agree that tattoos have the characteristic of being somewhat painful to acquire and rather permanent.
While some may just like the graphic beauty of tattoos, for others, the pain and permanence mean tattoos are used to mark a significant event, experience, or relationship. Perhaps to mark the solidarity of a group in the passing of one of them, or the bonding of the group.
But what about tattoos in the more private parts of the body that are not meant to be seen. Some said that this is a delicious secret like wearing silk or designer underwear that only the owner will know and revel in that secret knowledge. Strange?
Piercings tends to be more for the beauty of it.
Some said that they would only have tattoos that are original and significant rather than just popular. That tattoos can be part of a person's identity and that it also invites others to see part of this identity and therefore relate and talk about it.
When asked why people have a tattoo or piercing done, very often they answer because they like it.
Is this to conform to their social group or is their sense of beauty influenced by their social group? Maybe it is the people who do not have tattoos and piercings that are out of it and don't appreciate the finer points of the art?
Graham mentioned that variations in art such as improvising in jazz or playing a classical music piece with feeling is all about making variations within set rules to give some fresh variety. Is piecing elsewhere on the body other than the earlobes just this kind of variation? Is tattooing just another variation of clothing or fashion, or like cosmetic surgery such as removing a mole?
Would tattooing and piercing be less popular if the opposite portion of society show less distaste for it? This is the rebellious theory that no doubt applies in some cases.
As usual, there are always more questions than answers. However, the significant thought for me is the concept of beauty and "neatness". Can we actually define beauty and attractiveness without being influenced by the social group or role models that we look up to?
When we see someone or some arrangement as good looking and attractive, we naturally want to be more like that. Are we conforming or are we independently judging what is beautiful? Particularly if we think a certain person has good taste, then we think it is sensible to give more weight to what they wear, tattoo, or pierce, are we conforming?
If we think we look beautiful but others don't think so (especially those whose tastes we respect), can we still continue to think we are beautiful?
Is beauty in the eyes of the beholder rather than the mind of the model?
The life of a hermit seems so much simpler.......but perhaps not as much fun.
Is it beauty, conforming to a social group, or is it self mutilation?
I must confess I know very little about this topic and that makes it very interesting for me.
To start off with, we can agree that tattoos have the characteristic of being somewhat painful to acquire and rather permanent.
While some may just like the graphic beauty of tattoos, for others, the pain and permanence mean tattoos are used to mark a significant event, experience, or relationship. Perhaps to mark the solidarity of a group in the passing of one of them, or the bonding of the group.
But what about tattoos in the more private parts of the body that are not meant to be seen. Some said that this is a delicious secret like wearing silk or designer underwear that only the owner will know and revel in that secret knowledge. Strange?
Piercings tends to be more for the beauty of it.
Some said that they would only have tattoos that are original and significant rather than just popular. That tattoos can be part of a person's identity and that it also invites others to see part of this identity and therefore relate and talk about it.
When asked why people have a tattoo or piercing done, very often they answer because they like it.
Is this to conform to their social group or is their sense of beauty influenced by their social group? Maybe it is the people who do not have tattoos and piercings that are out of it and don't appreciate the finer points of the art?
Graham mentioned that variations in art such as improvising in jazz or playing a classical music piece with feeling is all about making variations within set rules to give some fresh variety. Is piecing elsewhere on the body other than the earlobes just this kind of variation? Is tattooing just another variation of clothing or fashion, or like cosmetic surgery such as removing a mole?
Would tattooing and piercing be less popular if the opposite portion of society show less distaste for it? This is the rebellious theory that no doubt applies in some cases.
As usual, there are always more questions than answers. However, the significant thought for me is the concept of beauty and "neatness". Can we actually define beauty and attractiveness without being influenced by the social group or role models that we look up to?
When we see someone or some arrangement as good looking and attractive, we naturally want to be more like that. Are we conforming or are we independently judging what is beautiful? Particularly if we think a certain person has good taste, then we think it is sensible to give more weight to what they wear, tattoo, or pierce, are we conforming?
If we think we look beautiful but others don't think so (especially those whose tastes we respect), can we still continue to think we are beautiful?
Is beauty in the eyes of the beholder rather than the mind of the model?
The life of a hermit seems so much simpler.......but perhaps not as much fun.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Globalization
I went to a discussion yesterday on globalization that gave me a better understanding about the issue.
To summarize,
1. The main complaint about globalization is that developed countries can run over the culture of the developing countries with the lure of economic benefits. The counter argument is that culture is not a static thing and it evolves. Some languages may be threatened by the universal use of English being the economic push.
2. The major issue with globalization is its disruptive nature. Even though a lot of people in India and China improved their lot and it can be argued that as a whole, their improvement is worth the lost of jobs in the developed countries, it is little comfort to those who lost their jobs.
3. Even within the developed countries, it can be argued that more new but different jobs have been created, it is still little consolation to those who lost their jobs.
4. Trade often operates under rules that we take for granted. When trading is within a tight community, the social connections within the community prevents cheating and concentrating on short term at the expense of long term interests. As this trading extends to further and further places and countries as in globalization, the different customs and lack of concern for distant strangers requires new rules to stop short term predatory behaviour. The realization of the need for these new rules always lag behind bad experience illustrating the need for these rules. Therefore, globalization is a learning experience that require development of trade rules to preserve the long term interests of the parties concerned.
5. Globalization leads to specialization and division of labour. It encourages the efficiency of scale and drives communities and countries to concentrate on a few product and services they are good at and import the rest. Madagascar's main export is vanilla and Coca-Cola was a major customer with the old formulation. When new Coke was introduced without the need for vanilla, it was very disruptive for Madagascar. Luckily when Coke changed back to Classic Coke, the crises was averted. However, it shows how much a country's fortune can be disrupted by events it has no control of. It makes everyone more interdependent on each other and therefore the overall system is more fragile to disruption by problems far away.
6. Globalization leads to a bigger disparity between the rich and poor. The very rich are benefiting from profits resulting from improved efficiencies through economies of scale. The poor ended up competing against lower wages from developing countries. While the average income may stay the same, there is a spreading out with the high end going much higher while the masses at the low end stagnates. This is destabilizing for societies.
7. The middleman very often gets more profits at the expense of the poor in developing countries. While the poor may increase their wages from $10 to $12, the middle man may get $200 for this change. This is perhaps something that we have to live with. There are still places in this world where the daily income is below $2 per day. These are really desperate situations and if their income can be improved from $2 to $4 a day while someone out of a hundred of these get $200, so be it. It is still a great improvement.
8. Globalization is not just economic but mainly disruptive ideas and technology. When the British went to India, they were welcomed by the lower castes as the British brought with them the colonial system of government as well as the concept of people being treated equally. This gave hope to the lower castes to break out of their lot.
9. Someone told the story of a Canadian company that was making metal products like manhole covers, fire hydrants etc and moved the manufacturing to China many years ago because it was cheaper. When someone visited the factory in China, they found that the factory is a day's journey away from Shanghai in a distant village and the plant is in rough shape with workers working without the Canadian standard of safety and at very low wages. Thoughts of exploitation comes to mind. However, that evening, the Canadian was entertained by the mayor and during the dinner, the mayor thanked the Canadian for having the plant there as the year that the plant opened was the first year that the town went through winter without anyone dying of starvation.
10 The Indian perspective is quite different from the western. Call center jobs in India are considered high end careers and people train hard to get these jobs considering the attainment of upper middle class values with those jobs. The Indian perspective to North Americans complaining of jobs being exported to India is that North Americans have unfair advantage with their big influences and can call the shots whichever way they want.
So much for now. There is more to add.
To summarize,
1. The main complaint about globalization is that developed countries can run over the culture of the developing countries with the lure of economic benefits. The counter argument is that culture is not a static thing and it evolves. Some languages may be threatened by the universal use of English being the economic push.
2. The major issue with globalization is its disruptive nature. Even though a lot of people in India and China improved their lot and it can be argued that as a whole, their improvement is worth the lost of jobs in the developed countries, it is little comfort to those who lost their jobs.
3. Even within the developed countries, it can be argued that more new but different jobs have been created, it is still little consolation to those who lost their jobs.
4. Trade often operates under rules that we take for granted. When trading is within a tight community, the social connections within the community prevents cheating and concentrating on short term at the expense of long term interests. As this trading extends to further and further places and countries as in globalization, the different customs and lack of concern for distant strangers requires new rules to stop short term predatory behaviour. The realization of the need for these new rules always lag behind bad experience illustrating the need for these rules. Therefore, globalization is a learning experience that require development of trade rules to preserve the long term interests of the parties concerned.
5. Globalization leads to specialization and division of labour. It encourages the efficiency of scale and drives communities and countries to concentrate on a few product and services they are good at and import the rest. Madagascar's main export is vanilla and Coca-Cola was a major customer with the old formulation. When new Coke was introduced without the need for vanilla, it was very disruptive for Madagascar. Luckily when Coke changed back to Classic Coke, the crises was averted. However, it shows how much a country's fortune can be disrupted by events it has no control of. It makes everyone more interdependent on each other and therefore the overall system is more fragile to disruption by problems far away.
6. Globalization leads to a bigger disparity between the rich and poor. The very rich are benefiting from profits resulting from improved efficiencies through economies of scale. The poor ended up competing against lower wages from developing countries. While the average income may stay the same, there is a spreading out with the high end going much higher while the masses at the low end stagnates. This is destabilizing for societies.
7. The middleman very often gets more profits at the expense of the poor in developing countries. While the poor may increase their wages from $10 to $12, the middle man may get $200 for this change. This is perhaps something that we have to live with. There are still places in this world where the daily income is below $2 per day. These are really desperate situations and if their income can be improved from $2 to $4 a day while someone out of a hundred of these get $200, so be it. It is still a great improvement.
8. Globalization is not just economic but mainly disruptive ideas and technology. When the British went to India, they were welcomed by the lower castes as the British brought with them the colonial system of government as well as the concept of people being treated equally. This gave hope to the lower castes to break out of their lot.
9. Someone told the story of a Canadian company that was making metal products like manhole covers, fire hydrants etc and moved the manufacturing to China many years ago because it was cheaper. When someone visited the factory in China, they found that the factory is a day's journey away from Shanghai in a distant village and the plant is in rough shape with workers working without the Canadian standard of safety and at very low wages. Thoughts of exploitation comes to mind. However, that evening, the Canadian was entertained by the mayor and during the dinner, the mayor thanked the Canadian for having the plant there as the year that the plant opened was the first year that the town went through winter without anyone dying of starvation.
10 The Indian perspective is quite different from the western. Call center jobs in India are considered high end careers and people train hard to get these jobs considering the attainment of upper middle class values with those jobs. The Indian perspective to North Americans complaining of jobs being exported to India is that North Americans have unfair advantage with their big influences and can call the shots whichever way they want.
So much for now. There is more to add.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Meeting on manners and etiquette, social lubricant or acceptable dishonesty
Guess what, the meeting did not go as I thought it would. There are so many instance of this that I no longer know what to expect.
There was the usual discussion about manners and etiquette being the practice that stratify social circles, how richer people have the time to worry about manners and it becomes the differentiating mark.
Honesty is sacrificed under the desire to do good to the other and doing good is more important.
Paolo mentioned the word "phatic statements as words use to push a certain point but don't mean what it says". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phatic We no longer answer to "how do you do" or even "how are you" as these are now understood as statement acknowledging your presence rather than a genuine inquiry about your condition.
Mano said that adults are more complicated and nuanced than children who tend to say what they see and think. Having these nuances reinforces someone as a member of a social group and their understanding of the expected behaviour within the group.
The big thing is the example of the term "let's do lunch".
Frankly, I was surprised that most of the people at the meeting think that it is a brush off if there is no date mentioned. In other words, if someone says to you "let's do lunch sometime", they are saying goodbye and they are not interested in seeing you again.
??
I am perhaps naive to think that at worst, "let's do lunch sometime" is a busy person's impractical promise to meet again when it is likely that they will not have the time. That some people actually mean that they want to meet again with that phrase.
I googled the term and there is this http://www.greenenergyinvestors.com/index.php?s=df4a5ebd16f1fb69b4971628c8a9ef17&showtopic=14377&pid=207352&st=0&#entry207352
Is this how cynicism gets into our lives?
Would we not rather be childlike and say what we see and mean what we say?
Is this why the early North American native Indian say "white man speak with fork tongue?"
Shula had a good analogy of these social idioms with word usage. Every year, the dictionary include new words or spelling of old words to stay current with the evolution of language. The same thing happens with manners and etiquette. It evolves and someone points out it is prevalent and it becomes acceptable usage.
However, we cannot actually have a reference book of social manners and idioms such as "let's do lunch sometime" if it means a brush off.
Some ambiguity is needed for the term to have any value. When everyone knows that it is a brushoff, the social leaders will have to change to another dishonest term to serve the same purpose of making people feel good.
Are we complicated or what. Nuanced is good?
Will someone educate me more on similar phatic statements so that I don't live in a dream world of potential overflowing lunch invitations?
There was the usual discussion about manners and etiquette being the practice that stratify social circles, how richer people have the time to worry about manners and it becomes the differentiating mark.
Honesty is sacrificed under the desire to do good to the other and doing good is more important.
Paolo mentioned the word "phatic statements as words use to push a certain point but don't mean what it says". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phatic We no longer answer to "how do you do" or even "how are you" as these are now understood as statement acknowledging your presence rather than a genuine inquiry about your condition.
Mano said that adults are more complicated and nuanced than children who tend to say what they see and think. Having these nuances reinforces someone as a member of a social group and their understanding of the expected behaviour within the group.
The big thing is the example of the term "let's do lunch".
Frankly, I was surprised that most of the people at the meeting think that it is a brush off if there is no date mentioned. In other words, if someone says to you "let's do lunch sometime", they are saying goodbye and they are not interested in seeing you again.
??
I am perhaps naive to think that at worst, "let's do lunch sometime" is a busy person's impractical promise to meet again when it is likely that they will not have the time. That some people actually mean that they want to meet again with that phrase.
I googled the term and there is this http://www.greenenergyinvestors.com/index.php?s=df4a5ebd16f1fb69b4971628c8a9ef17&showtopic=14377&pid=207352&st=0&#entry207352
Is this how cynicism gets into our lives?
Would we not rather be childlike and say what we see and mean what we say?
Is this why the early North American native Indian say "white man speak with fork tongue?"
Shula had a good analogy of these social idioms with word usage. Every year, the dictionary include new words or spelling of old words to stay current with the evolution of language. The same thing happens with manners and etiquette. It evolves and someone points out it is prevalent and it becomes acceptable usage.
However, we cannot actually have a reference book of social manners and idioms such as "let's do lunch sometime" if it means a brush off.
Some ambiguity is needed for the term to have any value. When everyone knows that it is a brushoff, the social leaders will have to change to another dishonest term to serve the same purpose of making people feel good.
Are we complicated or what. Nuanced is good?
Will someone educate me more on similar phatic statements so that I don't live in a dream world of potential overflowing lunch invitations?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)