After a lifetime of teaching biology, I am fixated on producing something real. I hope I have contributed something my student’s lives, but in the end it is never clear.
That is part of the reason I have gone into beekeeping. I build my own hives. I plan my own operations and business. I harvest my own honey and beeswax. I bottle it and sell it and give it as gifts.
But the bees are resting now. We put them to bed a couple of weeks ago. We reduced the entrances, insulated the tops, provided extra pollen and some sugar to help them through the coldest months, and now we wait.
Music is a little like teaching. It is an ephemeral thing. Modern man is used to thinking of music as a CD, or a tape, or of an electronic object embedded in an i-pod. But music originally was something that was enjoyed for the moment and was then gone. Repeat performances were seldom the same. Transient musicians moved along. Old Bill pulled out the fiddle for the dance.
I have spent a lot of my life making music. I’ve played guitar, mandolin, banjo, and harmonica. I suppose I have contributed something to peoples’ lives with my music, but in the end it is never clear.
This winter I am going to make the things that make the music. I started with kits for building a cardboard dulcimer. I built several with my grand children. Then I built a wooden dulcimer modeled after the cardboard ones. It certainly isn’t a traditional dulcimer. And it is small to fit a child’s hands. But the volume and tone are impressive.
I am currently building another similar to the one pictured, but with more of a triangular shape. Another Grand daughter and I have started on a wooden teardrop shaped dulcimer.
I am determined to be productive.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Sunday, November 20, 2011
PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE
“Of this I am quite sure, if we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find we have lost the future.”
Winston Churchill
Whenever humans are confronted with misbehavior we try to redirect attention away from ourselves. W often blame someone, or something else. “So-and-so hit me first”, or, “The dog ate my homework.” If this does not work we direct attention to another time. “I have anger management problems because I was abused as a child.” “I was upset because the washing machine broke this morning.”
There is always a reason why something happens. It might even be a perfectly legitimate reason. However, it still never changes the fact that the event has happened, and it does not tell us what we are to do now.
There once was a man who needed a job. He finally obtained an interview for a job for which he was ideally qualified. On the way to the interview he was struck by a car and badly injured. He didn’t awaken from his coma for three days. Desperately he called the potential employer and explained why he had missed the interview. The man was sympathetic, but explained that when the applicant hadn’t shown up for the interview they had given the job to someone else. The man had a legitimate excuse for missing the interview, but he was still unemployed.
So how did it come to this? Financial collapse, riots, intrusive government, eroding freedoms, war, ecological catastrophes, threatened food supplies, incivility, unemployment, violence, fear, failing schools, and ignorance are enveloping the world. What is obvious is that the present is not what America has been. The predictable future, if present trends continue, is not one in which free men would wish to live. We can quarrel over when it began or who started it, but in so doing we will lose the future.
What is needed now, and for the future, is a plan for what we are going to do with the situation in which we find ourselves.
Winston Churchill
Whenever humans are confronted with misbehavior we try to redirect attention away from ourselves. W often blame someone, or something else. “So-and-so hit me first”, or, “The dog ate my homework.” If this does not work we direct attention to another time. “I have anger management problems because I was abused as a child.” “I was upset because the washing machine broke this morning.”
There is always a reason why something happens. It might even be a perfectly legitimate reason. However, it still never changes the fact that the event has happened, and it does not tell us what we are to do now.
There once was a man who needed a job. He finally obtained an interview for a job for which he was ideally qualified. On the way to the interview he was struck by a car and badly injured. He didn’t awaken from his coma for three days. Desperately he called the potential employer and explained why he had missed the interview. The man was sympathetic, but explained that when the applicant hadn’t shown up for the interview they had given the job to someone else. The man had a legitimate excuse for missing the interview, but he was still unemployed.
So how did it come to this? Financial collapse, riots, intrusive government, eroding freedoms, war, ecological catastrophes, threatened food supplies, incivility, unemployment, violence, fear, failing schools, and ignorance are enveloping the world. What is obvious is that the present is not what America has been. The predictable future, if present trends continue, is not one in which free men would wish to live. We can quarrel over when it began or who started it, but in so doing we will lose the future.
What is needed now, and for the future, is a plan for what we are going to do with the situation in which we find ourselves.
Friday, November 11, 2011
STRAIGHT TIME
Sometime in the 1700’s, people began to conceive of time as linear. This is unlike earlier times when time was always considered circular. At other times, time has been perceived as random, or even irregular. Most of the time they say that time is uniform, but there are times when time seems faster or slower. The last time I wrote about time it was for New Years, 2011 when I wrote about biological time. But here it is, New Years for 2012 and time to write another column about time. I guess you could say it was about time.
Contrary to what many believe I am not old enough to recall ancient primitive conditions. Based on what little I have read about early human practices they must have often veiwed time as chaotic, events following events like a whirly-gig. The passage of time brought about unpredictable and dangerous changes, often resulting in dissolution and death. Elaborate rituals developed to appease the spirits in rocks, rivers, trees or animals.
However, for much of recorded history humans have measured time in cycles. As soon as natural cycles, such as diurnal rotation of our planet and lunar months, were recognized, time was measured and perceived as cyclical. Cyclical time allowed greater organization of society and control over the elements. Humans learned to perform certain deeds, such as planting or hunting, at the right times. Cyclical time also introduced a moral dimension. Things could be said to have been done at the wrong or right time. In addition, each generation could begin to compare its behavior to that of its ancestors.
The idea of time as a linear experience, with a distinct beginning leading on to a unique ending, is nearly universal in modern thought. Yet it has not always held strong infleunce on mankind. The concept was recognized by ancient Greeks who hoped that reason would improve mankind’s lot. The Romans had a concept of leading on to a glorious destiny. However, it was the rise of the great monotheistic religions that suggested that mankind might be about something more than fate.
For the common man linear time had little meaning for much of history. It was in the sixteenth century that the invention of science, combined with the Reformation, begin to spread through Europe, leading people to begin speculating about the origins, and the end, of the earth. Later, during the Enlightenment eighteenth century philosophers developed similar progressive ideas involving a secular ‘heavenly city on the hill”.
The idea of linear time assumes that mankind is on a trajectory of progress. Men disagree about when it began and how long it might take. The overall assumption, however, is that we are on a straight line of progress to better things. This thought so pervades modern America that it has shaped our entire culture.
Under cyclical time people valued patience, relatedness of parts, ritual, relationships, nature, and the healing power of time. Modern culture values haste, practicality, concentration, efficiency, analysis, power and control of nature.
If the future can be extrapolated as a straight line, then the past ceases to have relevance. If one does not see any possibility of deviation from the trajectory in the future, they will not consider any deviations in the past as significant. In fact, the past is assumed to have led to this moment when we are just lucky enough to be in existence and the exact apogee of human existence.
I am not sure if time is linear or not. But one thing does worry me. Straight lines do not necessarily lead upward. They can just as easily be downward slopping, something linear progressives often overlook. It ought to give pause that all measures of time that we use are based on repetitive measurements, whether that be the vibration of an atom, the rotation of the earth, the lunar cycles, or the seasons in a year. Maybe that should be enough to give us pause. It’s about time.
Contrary to what many believe I am not old enough to recall ancient primitive conditions. Based on what little I have read about early human practices they must have often veiwed time as chaotic, events following events like a whirly-gig. The passage of time brought about unpredictable and dangerous changes, often resulting in dissolution and death. Elaborate rituals developed to appease the spirits in rocks, rivers, trees or animals.
However, for much of recorded history humans have measured time in cycles. As soon as natural cycles, such as diurnal rotation of our planet and lunar months, were recognized, time was measured and perceived as cyclical. Cyclical time allowed greater organization of society and control over the elements. Humans learned to perform certain deeds, such as planting or hunting, at the right times. Cyclical time also introduced a moral dimension. Things could be said to have been done at the wrong or right time. In addition, each generation could begin to compare its behavior to that of its ancestors.
The idea of time as a linear experience, with a distinct beginning leading on to a unique ending, is nearly universal in modern thought. Yet it has not always held strong infleunce on mankind. The concept was recognized by ancient Greeks who hoped that reason would improve mankind’s lot. The Romans had a concept of leading on to a glorious destiny. However, it was the rise of the great monotheistic religions that suggested that mankind might be about something more than fate.
For the common man linear time had little meaning for much of history. It was in the sixteenth century that the invention of science, combined with the Reformation, begin to spread through Europe, leading people to begin speculating about the origins, and the end, of the earth. Later, during the Enlightenment eighteenth century philosophers developed similar progressive ideas involving a secular ‘heavenly city on the hill”.
The idea of linear time assumes that mankind is on a trajectory of progress. Men disagree about when it began and how long it might take. The overall assumption, however, is that we are on a straight line of progress to better things. This thought so pervades modern America that it has shaped our entire culture.
Under cyclical time people valued patience, relatedness of parts, ritual, relationships, nature, and the healing power of time. Modern culture values haste, practicality, concentration, efficiency, analysis, power and control of nature.
If the future can be extrapolated as a straight line, then the past ceases to have relevance. If one does not see any possibility of deviation from the trajectory in the future, they will not consider any deviations in the past as significant. In fact, the past is assumed to have led to this moment when we are just lucky enough to be in existence and the exact apogee of human existence.
I am not sure if time is linear or not. But one thing does worry me. Straight lines do not necessarily lead upward. They can just as easily be downward slopping, something linear progressives often overlook. It ought to give pause that all measures of time that we use are based on repetitive measurements, whether that be the vibration of an atom, the rotation of the earth, the lunar cycles, or the seasons in a year. Maybe that should be enough to give us pause. It’s about time.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
I CANNOT REMAIN SILENT ANY LONGER
FIRST, you are not 99%. You are a small, pitiful group of a few thousand rude, obnoxious, loud, privileged spoiled brats who have no idea what suffering or want truly are, or what tyranny and cruelty actually look like.
The banks have never abused you and you have never known want. The very tents you sleep in are available because of your prosperity and the riches of this country. You women dress as you please and go where you would like, freedoms unavailable to most women of the world. You men condemn the manly and destroy civilization and safety that other men have sought so hard to build.
It is America’s wealth and freedoms that afford you the possibility to do what you are presently doing. None of you are at slightest risk of being gunned down by the forces of a mad dictator. Your relatives are not at risk, and you will not disappear. In most countries of the world you would not have been allowed to do what you are doing for even one night without terrible bloodshed and great risk.
The truth is you are not 99% no matter how many times you say it and how often the stupid media repeat it for sales. There are others who also know how to use the internet and social media sites and WE are truly legion. You should be afraid that you will accomplish what you hope, for then you will find out how few, how cowardly, how foolish, and how weak you truly are.
SECOND! Hatred of other men is wrong! It is evil! I do write this message because I hate those who disagree with me. I write this message because others, and those who I disagree with, must know that there is determined, courageous, and equally noisy opposition.
To condemn a human for being black is racist. To condemn one because of their culture is bigotry. To condemn the Jews is not only a form of both, but is the basis of nearly every evil action taken in western history. I am shocked, appalled, and furious at the language I have heard in recent days coming from loud ignorant protestors who are either dumb or evil.
To see a black women attack a group of people because they are Jews is almost unbelievable. To see political leaders and academics endorse the same accusations and hatred that has been heard time and again in history, and as recently as the last century, is simply unbelievable. But my eyes and ears cannot deceive me.
Perhaps worst of all is to listen carefully for the condemnation and courageous refutation from our countries leaders, public officials or even loan citizens and to find there is none. The few loan voices are timid or drowned out by the silence of acceptance from the masses. Well, listen closely. JEW HATERS ARE EVIL, IGNORANT BIGOTS!
THIRD! Taking money by force, even the force of government and giving it to someone else is theft. Theft is the epitome of GREED. Those who demand social justice are guilty of the crime of which they accuse others. Consider the complaints against the banks and society at large.
“I want what you have” is the cry of spoiled children. “You don’t deserve what you have” is playing God. You may not believe in God, but I do not believe human judgment is superior. (In fact your behavior proves my point.) “I deserve more than I have” is so arrogant as to be almost unbelievable. “It’s not fair” is what my children used to say.
Do you not understand that in nearly every other society in history, and even in present day, that people have NO chance to improve their lot in life? There is NO chance to change economic circumstances. Capitalism is the first and only system that makes it possible for common people to work and improve their lot in life. In fact, most of you protestors are able to protest because your parents improved their lot through capitalism.
There may be none greedier than the poor and the envious. Most of you in the streets do not know what poverty is, so I am left to assume you are simply greedy.
FOURTH AND LAST! The unions no longer represent oppressed workers. There was a time when people were often forced to work in inhuman and dangerous conditions. Pay was inadequate and workers were oppressed. That is obviously no longer true in America. American teachers are NOT oppressed. I know I am one as are others in my family. American union workers live well and have excellent working conditions.
The unions no longer have any moral ground on which to represent anyone. They now fight for control and power for the union, not the worker.
The banks have never abused you and you have never known want. The very tents you sleep in are available because of your prosperity and the riches of this country. You women dress as you please and go where you would like, freedoms unavailable to most women of the world. You men condemn the manly and destroy civilization and safety that other men have sought so hard to build.
It is America’s wealth and freedoms that afford you the possibility to do what you are presently doing. None of you are at slightest risk of being gunned down by the forces of a mad dictator. Your relatives are not at risk, and you will not disappear. In most countries of the world you would not have been allowed to do what you are doing for even one night without terrible bloodshed and great risk.
The truth is you are not 99% no matter how many times you say it and how often the stupid media repeat it for sales. There are others who also know how to use the internet and social media sites and WE are truly legion. You should be afraid that you will accomplish what you hope, for then you will find out how few, how cowardly, how foolish, and how weak you truly are.
SECOND! Hatred of other men is wrong! It is evil! I do write this message because I hate those who disagree with me. I write this message because others, and those who I disagree with, must know that there is determined, courageous, and equally noisy opposition.
To condemn a human for being black is racist. To condemn one because of their culture is bigotry. To condemn the Jews is not only a form of both, but is the basis of nearly every evil action taken in western history. I am shocked, appalled, and furious at the language I have heard in recent days coming from loud ignorant protestors who are either dumb or evil.
To see a black women attack a group of people because they are Jews is almost unbelievable. To see political leaders and academics endorse the same accusations and hatred that has been heard time and again in history, and as recently as the last century, is simply unbelievable. But my eyes and ears cannot deceive me.
Perhaps worst of all is to listen carefully for the condemnation and courageous refutation from our countries leaders, public officials or even loan citizens and to find there is none. The few loan voices are timid or drowned out by the silence of acceptance from the masses. Well, listen closely. JEW HATERS ARE EVIL, IGNORANT BIGOTS!
THIRD! Taking money by force, even the force of government and giving it to someone else is theft. Theft is the epitome of GREED. Those who demand social justice are guilty of the crime of which they accuse others. Consider the complaints against the banks and society at large.
“I want what you have” is the cry of spoiled children. “You don’t deserve what you have” is playing God. You may not believe in God, but I do not believe human judgment is superior. (In fact your behavior proves my point.) “I deserve more than I have” is so arrogant as to be almost unbelievable. “It’s not fair” is what my children used to say.
Do you not understand that in nearly every other society in history, and even in present day, that people have NO chance to improve their lot in life? There is NO chance to change economic circumstances. Capitalism is the first and only system that makes it possible for common people to work and improve their lot in life. In fact, most of you protestors are able to protest because your parents improved their lot through capitalism.
There may be none greedier than the poor and the envious. Most of you in the streets do not know what poverty is, so I am left to assume you are simply greedy.
FOURTH AND LAST! The unions no longer represent oppressed workers. There was a time when people were often forced to work in inhuman and dangerous conditions. Pay was inadequate and workers were oppressed. That is obviously no longer true in America. American teachers are NOT oppressed. I know I am one as are others in my family. American union workers live well and have excellent working conditions.
The unions no longer have any moral ground on which to represent anyone. They now fight for control and power for the union, not the worker.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
DID YOU KNOW?
Did you know that grazing wheat or alfalfa stubble with goats reduces wheat and alfalfa pests the following year? Who knew?
Did you know that grazing animals on certain forages can reduce the intestinal worm burdens sufficiently that medications may not be needed? Who knew?
Well, my Grandfather, for one.
Did you know that grazing animals on harvested fields can reduce fertilizer requirements the next year significantly? Who knew?
My other Grandfather . . . and just about every living person born prior to 1945.
I smile at some of the research being generated by S.A.R.E. (Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education). Not because it is wrong, but because they are discovering what almost every person knew when most people lived on small farms.
When the federal government subsidized corporate farms following WWII they killed the small farmer. Then as the corporate farms plowed from fence row to fence row, dumped on petroleum based fertilizers, destroyed natural habitat for productivity, and in general turned food production into agricultural factories we are discovering that this doesn’t work.
Farming is basically a nurturing process. It works best when there is a love for the land, an understanding of the natural order, and the patience to live in that world. Unfortunately this nurturing process is often pitted against millions of dollars.
Growing animals that fertilize the crops that feed the animals (including humans) is as important as growing crops that feed the animals that fertilize the crops. Growing more than one crop, rotating them, and including animals in the products enhances the health of the land, the plants, the animals, and the humans.
I applaud S.A.R.E. for their efforts. However, the efforts are doomed until public policy ends subsidies for large farms and provides incentives for the small nurturing activities. These can only succeed if we decentralize food production and processing. The big money will see to it that that never happens.
Did you know that grazing animals on certain forages can reduce the intestinal worm burdens sufficiently that medications may not be needed? Who knew?
Well, my Grandfather, for one.
Did you know that grazing animals on harvested fields can reduce fertilizer requirements the next year significantly? Who knew?
My other Grandfather . . . and just about every living person born prior to 1945.
I smile at some of the research being generated by S.A.R.E. (Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education). Not because it is wrong, but because they are discovering what almost every person knew when most people lived on small farms.
When the federal government subsidized corporate farms following WWII they killed the small farmer. Then as the corporate farms plowed from fence row to fence row, dumped on petroleum based fertilizers, destroyed natural habitat for productivity, and in general turned food production into agricultural factories we are discovering that this doesn’t work.
Farming is basically a nurturing process. It works best when there is a love for the land, an understanding of the natural order, and the patience to live in that world. Unfortunately this nurturing process is often pitted against millions of dollars.
Growing animals that fertilize the crops that feed the animals (including humans) is as important as growing crops that feed the animals that fertilize the crops. Growing more than one crop, rotating them, and including animals in the products enhances the health of the land, the plants, the animals, and the humans.
I applaud S.A.R.E. for their efforts. However, the efforts are doomed until public policy ends subsidies for large farms and provides incentives for the small nurturing activities. These can only succeed if we decentralize food production and processing. The big money will see to it that that never happens.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO?
People don’t want to own things. People want to do things.
The other day I overheard a conversation between students. One of them had a new cell phone. It suddenly struck me that the others weren’t interested in the phone, but in what it could DO.
Isn’t that why people buy boats, campers, hot tubs, swimming pools, fishing rods, duck blinds and whatever? People like to do things. They even often enjoy puttering around with cleaning the pool and maintaining the camper. After all, there is no farm to care for.
At first I thought about how people like movies, television, and entertainment. But then I realized that what those things do is make you believe you are doing something. The sounds, visuals, conflict, romance, and even news reports convince us for awhile that we are doing those very things. For a little while, we think we truly matter.
Of course, when the movie ends we discover that we haven’t done anything at all, we feel even more useless than before. That is the danger of modern entertainment.
There was always something to do on the farm. One could do something different every day of the week and still have things to do. But in the urban setting it is much harder to find things to do that are constructive and productive.
I am not sure how to use this insight productively. People need things to do. Do you have any ideas?
The other day I overheard a conversation between students. One of them had a new cell phone. It suddenly struck me that the others weren’t interested in the phone, but in what it could DO.
Isn’t that why people buy boats, campers, hot tubs, swimming pools, fishing rods, duck blinds and whatever? People like to do things. They even often enjoy puttering around with cleaning the pool and maintaining the camper. After all, there is no farm to care for.
At first I thought about how people like movies, television, and entertainment. But then I realized that what those things do is make you believe you are doing something. The sounds, visuals, conflict, romance, and even news reports convince us for awhile that we are doing those very things. For a little while, we think we truly matter.
Of course, when the movie ends we discover that we haven’t done anything at all, we feel even more useless than before. That is the danger of modern entertainment.
There was always something to do on the farm. One could do something different every day of the week and still have things to do. But in the urban setting it is much harder to find things to do that are constructive and productive.
I am not sure how to use this insight productively. People need things to do. Do you have any ideas?
Thursday, September 15, 2011
GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT (GNP) AS DISEASE INDICATOR
Can a country survive when it is more profitable to be sick or broken than to be well or repaired? Soon the major portion of our Gross National Product will not be about production but about health care. No one can make money out of keeping people healthy, so we are worth more to our country sick and well. What if you stop receiving unemployment benefits? Will the GNP go down because you have nothing to spend. Of course, these ideas are only true if the only measure of value is the economy.
This is true of almost everything. For example, instead of talking about the life of one person, what if we examine the value of one marriage and family. If a husband and wife are united in their goals and committed to their marriage, they will work diligently to purchase a home, care for it properly, raise children, educate them, and try to be productive in the community. They will be of great worth that community as will their children as they grow into responsible adults. But they will not be very worth as much financially to the community because they will be frugal and consume less.
But they will be worth more, financially, to the economy, if they divorce. They will no longer be able to help each other out. There won’t be two people to help with the children and there will have to be two houses instead of one. Instead of producing part of their own food they will have to purchase more because there is no time to garden. They will have to purchase more processed foods because there is less time to cook. They will eat out more often. There will be legal bills, and trips back and forth to share children, and more cell phones so the children can stay in contact. More computers, TV’s, stoves, refrigerators, furniture, cars and such will be needed for two households.
The divorced family is worth so much less to the community generally, but so much more to the financial economy. Could the same thing be said for neighborhoods, communities, counties, states, and countries?
Perhaps the GNP could be used as a measure of just how bad and inefficient our nation is: the higher the GNP the worse off we are in all the things that matter most. Is the GNP a direct predictor of divorce? Could it be used as an indicator of ill health or failing communities? What happens to the GNP when people are paid to not work? I haven’t done the statistics, but it sort of seems like someone ought to look at that.
This is true of almost everything. For example, instead of talking about the life of one person, what if we examine the value of one marriage and family. If a husband and wife are united in their goals and committed to their marriage, they will work diligently to purchase a home, care for it properly, raise children, educate them, and try to be productive in the community. They will be of great worth that community as will their children as they grow into responsible adults. But they will not be very worth as much financially to the community because they will be frugal and consume less.
But they will be worth more, financially, to the economy, if they divorce. They will no longer be able to help each other out. There won’t be two people to help with the children and there will have to be two houses instead of one. Instead of producing part of their own food they will have to purchase more because there is no time to garden. They will have to purchase more processed foods because there is less time to cook. They will eat out more often. There will be legal bills, and trips back and forth to share children, and more cell phones so the children can stay in contact. More computers, TV’s, stoves, refrigerators, furniture, cars and such will be needed for two households.
The divorced family is worth so much less to the community generally, but so much more to the financial economy. Could the same thing be said for neighborhoods, communities, counties, states, and countries?
Perhaps the GNP could be used as a measure of just how bad and inefficient our nation is: the higher the GNP the worse off we are in all the things that matter most. Is the GNP a direct predictor of divorce? Could it be used as an indicator of ill health or failing communities? What happens to the GNP when people are paid to not work? I haven’t done the statistics, but it sort of seems like someone ought to look at that.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
AGRICULTURE POLICY
In the last fifty years government policy has favored large agriculture which has displaced the population off of the farm and into cities. Now we find:
• the mega-farms in trouble,
• environmental contamination and degradation due to industrial farming practices,
• agricultural subsidies a huge drain on the government money (mostly to large corporate farms)
• increasing difficulty with food safety,
• and a huge regulatory industry on production and processing.
Of course, the displaced farmers all moved to the cities. They went to work in large industrial factories. The result has been:
• crowding in cities,
• expansion of suburbs onto farm land,
• increased demand for city services,
• increased taxes to pay for city services,
• increased land cost as land competed with housing,
• urban decline.
• And, as the economy falters, joblessness.
This change could, only come at the price of cheap energy. For under the US agricultural system for the last fifty or sixty years:
• food had to be produced in mass requiring greater energy and fertilizer,
• food had to be shipped long distances to processing plants,
• often food had to be shipped again for packaging,
• and then shipped again to the consumer
While this was going on:
• the factories required increased energy of operations,
• commuters required increased energy for traveling to work,
• and cities required cheap energy to meet the demands of growth.
Now one of the nation’s greatest concerns is joblessness, and it is the small businesses of the United States that are the greatest employers. Obviously government policy has promoted, even required, these changes, resulting in our present predicament. Yet these policies have destroyed one of the most successful small businesses available to men, the small farm. We now talk about farms and business as if they were separate things. A FARM IS A BUSINESS.
There is no question about whether we will run out of oil. The only debate is about when. If the earth is a hollow ball filled with oil we will run out in several hundred years. If that is not true it will be sooner. Either way, we will not see cheaper energy again. Can the present system, based on available and cheap energy, be maintained? Of course not!
So what kind of government policy could help us move into the future? While it will take many years and enlightened leadership to resist the existing establishment, policy that moved production, processing, packaging, and consumption back into local and regional centers would provide additional small businesses, employment, food, places to live, and use less energy. Present policy makes these changes impossible.
For example, a bill was proposed in the Colorado legislature in the spring of 2011 that would have allowed certain home businesses to sell food products under reduced regulations. These were low risk products such as honey, jellies, and fresh baked goods. The bill was defeated, presumably on public safety grounds. But the major opponents were supported by large agricultural producers, processors, packagers, and retailers.
Yet this bill would have been a step towards relieving financial suffering for many families, especially on the western slope, and would have been a step towards local production, consumption, energy savings and economic stimulus.
I do not wish to return to an earlier day. I would hope that changes in agricultural policy would create a more thriving economy, but one that was decentralized, regionalized, efficient, and economical. America does not need jobs. America needs work: meaningful, productive, satisfying, and rewarding work.
• the mega-farms in trouble,
• environmental contamination and degradation due to industrial farming practices,
• agricultural subsidies a huge drain on the government money (mostly to large corporate farms)
• increasing difficulty with food safety,
• and a huge regulatory industry on production and processing.
Of course, the displaced farmers all moved to the cities. They went to work in large industrial factories. The result has been:
• crowding in cities,
• expansion of suburbs onto farm land,
• increased demand for city services,
• increased taxes to pay for city services,
• increased land cost as land competed with housing,
• urban decline.
• And, as the economy falters, joblessness.
This change could, only come at the price of cheap energy. For under the US agricultural system for the last fifty or sixty years:
• food had to be produced in mass requiring greater energy and fertilizer,
• food had to be shipped long distances to processing plants,
• often food had to be shipped again for packaging,
• and then shipped again to the consumer
While this was going on:
• the factories required increased energy of operations,
• commuters required increased energy for traveling to work,
• and cities required cheap energy to meet the demands of growth.
Now one of the nation’s greatest concerns is joblessness, and it is the small businesses of the United States that are the greatest employers. Obviously government policy has promoted, even required, these changes, resulting in our present predicament. Yet these policies have destroyed one of the most successful small businesses available to men, the small farm. We now talk about farms and business as if they were separate things. A FARM IS A BUSINESS.
There is no question about whether we will run out of oil. The only debate is about when. If the earth is a hollow ball filled with oil we will run out in several hundred years. If that is not true it will be sooner. Either way, we will not see cheaper energy again. Can the present system, based on available and cheap energy, be maintained? Of course not!
So what kind of government policy could help us move into the future? While it will take many years and enlightened leadership to resist the existing establishment, policy that moved production, processing, packaging, and consumption back into local and regional centers would provide additional small businesses, employment, food, places to live, and use less energy. Present policy makes these changes impossible.
For example, a bill was proposed in the Colorado legislature in the spring of 2011 that would have allowed certain home businesses to sell food products under reduced regulations. These were low risk products such as honey, jellies, and fresh baked goods. The bill was defeated, presumably on public safety grounds. But the major opponents were supported by large agricultural producers, processors, packagers, and retailers.
Yet this bill would have been a step towards relieving financial suffering for many families, especially on the western slope, and would have been a step towards local production, consumption, energy savings and economic stimulus.
I do not wish to return to an earlier day. I would hope that changes in agricultural policy would create a more thriving economy, but one that was decentralized, regionalized, efficient, and economical. America does not need jobs. America needs work: meaningful, productive, satisfying, and rewarding work.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
GREAT GRASS MAKES GREAT BEEF
Does American business produce what Americans want, or does American business make Americans want what they produce?
Don’t get me wrong. I am not mad at capitalism. I participate myself in my own small way. The B-B Ranch sells honey, beeswax, bees, solitary bee nests and bee hives. But I also think that a lot of what business does is convince people that they want what they make, instead of making what people want.
I bought a shotgun at Wal-Mart a year or so ago. I couldn’t leave the store until the background check was completed. That turned out to be about three hours. I am now very familiar with the products available in Wal-Mart. I probably don’t need ninety percent of it, and that only on occasion.
Do people want campers, boats, sporting goods, ten pair of shoes, jewelry, musical instruments, new dishes, and on and on? Or do people want close families, good friends, peaceful lives, fulfilling goals, meaningful work, and freedom? How many ads on television make it appear that the way to have the latter is to own the former.
In fact, people seldom own things. Things own people. You may spend a weekend with your family on the boat. But you will spend many hours before and after the outing getting the boat ready, cleaning the boat up, paying for the boat, insuring the boat, buying the boat, repairing the boat, and talking about boats. Most of that won’t be done with your family, but will, instead take you away from your family. You probably could have spent more time with them on a hike, reading together, or playing a game.
If you own a boat don’t be mad at me. The same thing can be said of guitars and mandolins, my personal weaknesses. My point is that people sometimes don’t think very carefully about what they really want to produce. Successful marriages, independent children, strong communities, beautiful farms are all forms of production also.
However, it’s difficult to sell them. Now honey! That will bring you good health and delicious toast.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not mad at capitalism. I participate myself in my own small way. The B-B Ranch sells honey, beeswax, bees, solitary bee nests and bee hives. But I also think that a lot of what business does is convince people that they want what they make, instead of making what people want.
I bought a shotgun at Wal-Mart a year or so ago. I couldn’t leave the store until the background check was completed. That turned out to be about three hours. I am now very familiar with the products available in Wal-Mart. I probably don’t need ninety percent of it, and that only on occasion.
Do people want campers, boats, sporting goods, ten pair of shoes, jewelry, musical instruments, new dishes, and on and on? Or do people want close families, good friends, peaceful lives, fulfilling goals, meaningful work, and freedom? How many ads on television make it appear that the way to have the latter is to own the former.
In fact, people seldom own things. Things own people. You may spend a weekend with your family on the boat. But you will spend many hours before and after the outing getting the boat ready, cleaning the boat up, paying for the boat, insuring the boat, buying the boat, repairing the boat, and talking about boats. Most of that won’t be done with your family, but will, instead take you away from your family. You probably could have spent more time with them on a hike, reading together, or playing a game.
If you own a boat don’t be mad at me. The same thing can be said of guitars and mandolins, my personal weaknesses. My point is that people sometimes don’t think very carefully about what they really want to produce. Successful marriages, independent children, strong communities, beautiful farms are all forms of production also.
However, it’s difficult to sell them. Now honey! That will bring you good health and delicious toast.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
DIVIDED
We are a divided people. We are no longer Americans. We are Black Americans, Spanish Americans, Italian Americans, and multicultural Americans. How is this different than a group of tribesmen?
But perhaps more importantly, we are divided from our purpose. This began when our living became separated from our work. I noticed this first when I visited rural Kentucky and went in search of a dulcimer. I had wanted to buy a dulcimer to learn to play and had planned an extended trip to shop for one. However, our trip was cut short and I found myself with just one afternoon in which to find a handmade dulcimer. My daughter and I went shopping.
We had the name of a man and an obscure rural address. After driving around for some time, even with a Google map, we had not found the home we were looking for. (Google is not really reliable once you leave paved roads.) There were a few homes along the road and we stopped at several, but no one seemed to know which house we were looking for.
There was an old, small house, back off of the road considerably, that we eventually approached. An elderly woman came out onto the small porch and we told her we were looking for a man who made dulcimers. She went out back and called her husband from a small shed. Mr. James Horn from Finchville, KY came out to visit with us. He eventually brought out some of his dulcimers to the front porch and played for us. His “pride and joy” wasn’t for sale, but I purchased a beautiful instrument from him. His business card said he was the maker of “Handcrafted Mountain Dulcimers”.
But what is important is how his home was set back off the road. I have noticed that in older rural areas, the homes are set back off the road. On modern hobby farms the homes are set close to the road. This, perhaps more than any other characteristic divides America, and it is clear now who is the minority.
You see, when the home is set close to the road it is easier to go to town, but it may take considerable effort to go to the barn or out to the field. But when the home is set back off the road it is easier to go to the barn and work the land. We are divided people.
But perhaps more importantly, we are divided from our purpose. This began when our living became separated from our work. I noticed this first when I visited rural Kentucky and went in search of a dulcimer. I had wanted to buy a dulcimer to learn to play and had planned an extended trip to shop for one. However, our trip was cut short and I found myself with just one afternoon in which to find a handmade dulcimer. My daughter and I went shopping.
We had the name of a man and an obscure rural address. After driving around for some time, even with a Google map, we had not found the home we were looking for. (Google is not really reliable once you leave paved roads.) There were a few homes along the road and we stopped at several, but no one seemed to know which house we were looking for.
There was an old, small house, back off of the road considerably, that we eventually approached. An elderly woman came out onto the small porch and we told her we were looking for a man who made dulcimers. She went out back and called her husband from a small shed. Mr. James Horn from Finchville, KY came out to visit with us. He eventually brought out some of his dulcimers to the front porch and played for us. His “pride and joy” wasn’t for sale, but I purchased a beautiful instrument from him. His business card said he was the maker of “Handcrafted Mountain Dulcimers”.
But what is important is how his home was set back off the road. I have noticed that in older rural areas, the homes are set back off the road. On modern hobby farms the homes are set close to the road. This, perhaps more than any other characteristic divides America, and it is clear now who is the minority.
You see, when the home is set close to the road it is easier to go to town, but it may take considerable effort to go to the barn or out to the field. But when the home is set back off the road it is easier to go to the barn and work the land. We are divided people.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
TIME IS AN ARROW?
Time is an arrow! Or is it? In America, for the last at least fifty years, and perhaps much more, productivity has been defined as larger, more and faster. Economics of scale have been the holy grail of all efforts, from the farm to the retail store. Sales of every quarter must exceed the previous quarter, or the CEO’s position is in danger.
This has been encouraged by government leaders who have believed that this was the way to wealth and power. Leaders who believe in this paradigm set policies that encourage “biggerring and fasterring”. We moved people off the land to live in bigger and bigger cities, so farms could get bigger and bigger. The people worked in factories of ever increasing size that were surrounded by the bigger cities.
In this scenario everything is a straight line to progress. In fact, many government leaders literally called themselves progressives and actively pursued these ideas.
There is nothing wrong with this theory of course, except that it doesn’t reflect the real physical world in which nothing is a straight line. The earth is round, the planets orbit in circular motion which gives rise to circular seasons. The day revolvers and morning differs from night. The heartbeat, probably the first sound a human hears, is marked by systole and diastole and the blood flows in repeating cycles. Youth is followed by four periods of time from birth to death and new generations arise periodically.
When man’s concepts of order are not in agreement with nature, it is always nature that wins. It may take a considerable amount of time, but straight lines never continue upward. Eventually the cycles will turn them down, so those progressive ideas will always eventually lead to decline.
This is why a people who loose site of agriculture and the natural cycles of nature, and who begin to put their time and energy into the straight line progression of industry will always reap what they sow. The lineup will become the line down. Those countries that do not grow their own food, will eventually loose site of the wisdom of nature.
This is not some weird concept of nature worship, it is physics. Chemical reactions never proceed in only one direction. They are reversible under proper conditions, or they trigger yet further chemical reactions which changes the circumstances of the first reaction. The environment selects the plant and animal that survives, but the surviving plant and animals change the environment. Physical laws proceed in one direction only so long as the initial state is maintained. Once the physical world has changed to a new physical state, the laws of physics will change directions.
The problem with modern concepts of business, management, and government is that those teaching and executing the policies have lost sight of the fact that life and the world are cycles, requiring periods of rest between periods of growth and different behaviors during different seasons, all in preparation for the next cycle. If we wish to live at peace and with some kind of understanding, we must accept the concept of death. We must embrace the winters as much as the summers. We must alter our behaviors according to the cycles of our world, the times of our lives, and the periods of the universe.
This has been encouraged by government leaders who have believed that this was the way to wealth and power. Leaders who believe in this paradigm set policies that encourage “biggerring and fasterring”. We moved people off the land to live in bigger and bigger cities, so farms could get bigger and bigger. The people worked in factories of ever increasing size that were surrounded by the bigger cities.
In this scenario everything is a straight line to progress. In fact, many government leaders literally called themselves progressives and actively pursued these ideas.
There is nothing wrong with this theory of course, except that it doesn’t reflect the real physical world in which nothing is a straight line. The earth is round, the planets orbit in circular motion which gives rise to circular seasons. The day revolvers and morning differs from night. The heartbeat, probably the first sound a human hears, is marked by systole and diastole and the blood flows in repeating cycles. Youth is followed by four periods of time from birth to death and new generations arise periodically.
When man’s concepts of order are not in agreement with nature, it is always nature that wins. It may take a considerable amount of time, but straight lines never continue upward. Eventually the cycles will turn them down, so those progressive ideas will always eventually lead to decline.
This is why a people who loose site of agriculture and the natural cycles of nature, and who begin to put their time and energy into the straight line progression of industry will always reap what they sow. The lineup will become the line down. Those countries that do not grow their own food, will eventually loose site of the wisdom of nature.
This is not some weird concept of nature worship, it is physics. Chemical reactions never proceed in only one direction. They are reversible under proper conditions, or they trigger yet further chemical reactions which changes the circumstances of the first reaction. The environment selects the plant and animal that survives, but the surviving plant and animals change the environment. Physical laws proceed in one direction only so long as the initial state is maintained. Once the physical world has changed to a new physical state, the laws of physics will change directions.
The problem with modern concepts of business, management, and government is that those teaching and executing the policies have lost sight of the fact that life and the world are cycles, requiring periods of rest between periods of growth and different behaviors during different seasons, all in preparation for the next cycle. If we wish to live at peace and with some kind of understanding, we must accept the concept of death. We must embrace the winters as much as the summers. We must alter our behaviors according to the cycles of our world, the times of our lives, and the periods of the universe.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
UNITED
Bees produce. On the average a hive of honey bees can produce sixty pounds of surplus honey a year. But there are numerous kinds of bees, and while they all produce the same things, they don’t all produce the same amount.
All bees produce more bees, and provide pollen and nectar for their offspring. But only honey bees produce pollen and honey beyond the immediate needs of their offspring, because only the honey bee colony lives from year to year. Honey bees must put up stores for the winter. If the stores are inadequate, the colony dies.
Stay with me here. This is about more than bees.
A single bee, like most native bees, lays an egg and provides it with sufficient stores to survive the winter. After provisioning somewhere between ten and thirty eggs, which takes around six weeks, the adult dies and leaves the offspring to their own fate.
A single honey bee lives only about six weeks as well. But it spends its days serving the needs of the hive in various ways and provisioning the hive so that some descendents of the hive can survive the winter. At the peak of summer a beehive may contain 150,000 bees. Even over the winter, the colony will usually contain several thousand bees.
OK, so now we get to the point.
If a solitary bee can only provide for maybe thirty bees, how can a collection of bees in a hive produce and provide for several thousand bees?
They are UNITED! Each bee is programmed to do what it is supposed to do at each time in his or her life. But they all treat the hive as if it were there sole reason for existence, which, in fact, it is. A honeybee without a hive dies. But working together towards the same ends enhances survival of each bee as well as the whole.
An individual person can only accomplish so much. By working together we can produce more. The difference is that humans are not programmed to do only certain tasks. Humans can choose. This makes unity far more rare and difficult to achieve. However, those who accomplish and produce the most find ways of convincing others to unite with them in common, mutually-supportive goals and activities.
In most cases in history, and still in the world today, unity of a country has been achieved by force or accident. But one country has united by voluntary consent of the people. These people embraced a set of common constraints, responsibilities, and commitments called a constitution. They did so for the purpose of uniting because they were convinced that unity would better preserve the peace, protect the citizen, foster economic opportunity and allow individual self-determination.
Each individual gets to choose how carefully he or she adheres to the commitments and responsibilities of the constitution, but we are the first people in history to attempt to live like the bees, united in purpose and support for the good of all.
Bees do not reinterpret their purpose with each generation. They do not renegotiate their responsibilities or opportunities from season to season. It is the stable unity that has allowed them to flourish for thousands of years.
Mankind is not pre-programmed to a life like the bees. But we are programmed to live in groups. The lone survivor is a fascinating subject, but in reality a myth. Humans accomplish more when they are united and cooperative in social groups. The successful business man is able to encourage others in common goals and activities.
The value of the US Constitution is in its planned method of uniting the group for safety, efficiency, and economic benefit while protecting the individual to choose their own goals. It will only be advantageous to the country as a whole when it is treated with respect and as a rigid, only pragmatically flexible, foundation for the good of all mankind.
All bees produce more bees, and provide pollen and nectar for their offspring. But only honey bees produce pollen and honey beyond the immediate needs of their offspring, because only the honey bee colony lives from year to year. Honey bees must put up stores for the winter. If the stores are inadequate, the colony dies.
Stay with me here. This is about more than bees.
A single bee, like most native bees, lays an egg and provides it with sufficient stores to survive the winter. After provisioning somewhere between ten and thirty eggs, which takes around six weeks, the adult dies and leaves the offspring to their own fate.
A single honey bee lives only about six weeks as well. But it spends its days serving the needs of the hive in various ways and provisioning the hive so that some descendents of the hive can survive the winter. At the peak of summer a beehive may contain 150,000 bees. Even over the winter, the colony will usually contain several thousand bees.
OK, so now we get to the point.
If a solitary bee can only provide for maybe thirty bees, how can a collection of bees in a hive produce and provide for several thousand bees?
They are UNITED! Each bee is programmed to do what it is supposed to do at each time in his or her life. But they all treat the hive as if it were there sole reason for existence, which, in fact, it is. A honeybee without a hive dies. But working together towards the same ends enhances survival of each bee as well as the whole.
An individual person can only accomplish so much. By working together we can produce more. The difference is that humans are not programmed to do only certain tasks. Humans can choose. This makes unity far more rare and difficult to achieve. However, those who accomplish and produce the most find ways of convincing others to unite with them in common, mutually-supportive goals and activities.
In most cases in history, and still in the world today, unity of a country has been achieved by force or accident. But one country has united by voluntary consent of the people. These people embraced a set of common constraints, responsibilities, and commitments called a constitution. They did so for the purpose of uniting because they were convinced that unity would better preserve the peace, protect the citizen, foster economic opportunity and allow individual self-determination.
Each individual gets to choose how carefully he or she adheres to the commitments and responsibilities of the constitution, but we are the first people in history to attempt to live like the bees, united in purpose and support for the good of all.
Bees do not reinterpret their purpose with each generation. They do not renegotiate their responsibilities or opportunities from season to season. It is the stable unity that has allowed them to flourish for thousands of years.
Mankind is not pre-programmed to a life like the bees. But we are programmed to live in groups. The lone survivor is a fascinating subject, but in reality a myth. Humans accomplish more when they are united and cooperative in social groups. The successful business man is able to encourage others in common goals and activities.
The value of the US Constitution is in its planned method of uniting the group for safety, efficiency, and economic benefit while protecting the individual to choose their own goals. It will only be advantageous to the country as a whole when it is treated with respect and as a rigid, only pragmatically flexible, foundation for the good of all mankind.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
THE SECRET OF PRODUCTION
Seemingly complicated things aren’t usually very complicated. After all, an entire sky scraper is made of the same short list of materials used over and over again in different ways. In fact the entire universe appears to be made from just a little over 100 elements. Shakespeare only involves twenty six letters of the English alphabet. The information on the computer used to write this blog is done with just two characters: 0 and 1, on and off, however you describe it.
The secret seems to be in how these simple things are connected together in different ways. Knowing how to assemble the elements into a sky scraper is crucial or it will fall down. The variation of 100 chemical elements is phenomenon and accounts for all of the physical world and its manifestations. My words do not seem to be as well connected as William Shakespeare’s. Still, they have some meaning to them, even if not entirely clear.
So it isn’t the elements of production that make a product. It is how they are connected. This seems to be true at many more levels than objects, elements, or language. It is the strength of the connection, the number of connections, and even the types of connectors that makes a new product.
There are some connectors that are stronger than others. For example, a weld is probably stronger than bubble gum for holding things together. A staple is superior to a folded edge on two pieces of paper. The type of connection doesn’t always make the difference. Two staples are only slightly better than one because the paper will tear with the same stress. However, two welds may be better than one if the surfaces to be held together are large. And while a weld can’t be any stronger than a weld, more than one weld does add strength.
Holding things together to make connections can be difficult. In many cases it simply can’t be done with just two hands. That is when we enlist tables, vices and tools to help us temporally. Often the best help is another pair of hands. Hands have a way of holding things together that seems more organic than natural than tool benches. Even when one could get by, two extra hands often seem to be the best way to produce more.
So many people who are producers find that what they really must achieve is the cooperation of many more hands. This is a little in the face of the myth of the independent, strong American. We’ll do it all on our own, and we’ll do it our way. The only problem with that is that it isn’t probably possible and probably never was true. I am pretty sure of this, now, after a long lifetime of being somewhat of a loner. People who produce create communities.
These may be families, clubs, or business organizations. But humanity has not developed from loners surviving, but from banding together in communities with all the frustrations that entails. If the world were to fall apart tomorrow, families would not survive because they are “self-sufficient”. The families and people who would survive are those who have connections and value to other people. Those who have skills, friendships, and products to share will survive. Those who are trusted, needed, and generous will thrive.
The secret seems to be in how these simple things are connected together in different ways. Knowing how to assemble the elements into a sky scraper is crucial or it will fall down. The variation of 100 chemical elements is phenomenon and accounts for all of the physical world and its manifestations. My words do not seem to be as well connected as William Shakespeare’s. Still, they have some meaning to them, even if not entirely clear.
So it isn’t the elements of production that make a product. It is how they are connected. This seems to be true at many more levels than objects, elements, or language. It is the strength of the connection, the number of connections, and even the types of connectors that makes a new product.
There are some connectors that are stronger than others. For example, a weld is probably stronger than bubble gum for holding things together. A staple is superior to a folded edge on two pieces of paper. The type of connection doesn’t always make the difference. Two staples are only slightly better than one because the paper will tear with the same stress. However, two welds may be better than one if the surfaces to be held together are large. And while a weld can’t be any stronger than a weld, more than one weld does add strength.
Holding things together to make connections can be difficult. In many cases it simply can’t be done with just two hands. That is when we enlist tables, vices and tools to help us temporally. Often the best help is another pair of hands. Hands have a way of holding things together that seems more organic than natural than tool benches. Even when one could get by, two extra hands often seem to be the best way to produce more.
So many people who are producers find that what they really must achieve is the cooperation of many more hands. This is a little in the face of the myth of the independent, strong American. We’ll do it all on our own, and we’ll do it our way. The only problem with that is that it isn’t probably possible and probably never was true. I am pretty sure of this, now, after a long lifetime of being somewhat of a loner. People who produce create communities.
These may be families, clubs, or business organizations. But humanity has not developed from loners surviving, but from banding together in communities with all the frustrations that entails. If the world were to fall apart tomorrow, families would not survive because they are “self-sufficient”. The families and people who would survive are those who have connections and value to other people. Those who have skills, friendships, and products to share will survive. Those who are trusted, needed, and generous will thrive.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
WHAT DO WE NEED?
I hear a lot of talk about jobs. Everyone says the country needs more jobs. Yet I know many, many people with jobs who are not very happy. I suppose they are happier than if they could not pay their bills, but perhaps the problem is that they have too many bills to pay. I don’t know.
It just seems to me that historically jobs have not been society’s problem. Everyone had more than enough work to do taking care of their own work. Don’t misunderstand. I know that for much of history things were very hard for the common man. But usually poverty stemmed NOT from not having enough work to do. Historically poverty has usually stemmed from the fact that individual toil benefitted others than oneself: often royalty or government, but occasionally thieves and armies.
Today we need jobs because men have been removed from their work. Laying concrete all day pays a wage, but it is not very personally satisfying. Waiting on customers all day is less strenuous, but nearly drives people crazy. There seems to be more to life than a job and salary. Or at least many people think so.
There has also been a tremendous interest develop in entrepreneurship. I wonder why that is. It looks to me like owning one’s own business is a lot more risk and hard work than a job. Yet many want to own what they do. They even seem to work harder at their own enterprise than they do their jobs.
There is a common psychological list of people’s needs. It varies from time to time and from psychologist to psychologist. But generally it looks something like air, water, food, shelter (including clothes and housing), and energy for warmth and cooking. I find it interesting that psychologists never list work as essential to man’s well being. Yet humans are seldom idle. They may socialize and spend time in various forms of meditation. But they often spend their time beautifying, improving, and building. Art, music, poetry, tools, and better equipment seems to have occupied much of mankind’s time.
Maybe people need fewer bills and more demands. Maybe people would rather work for their own risks and rewards. Maybe people don’t need jobs, but businesses. Maybe we don’t need to create jobs, but farms and small factories. Maybe people need to work. Maybe people need to work for themselves as much as they need to work. Maybe it isn’t jobs we need at all.
It just seems to me that historically jobs have not been society’s problem. Everyone had more than enough work to do taking care of their own work. Don’t misunderstand. I know that for much of history things were very hard for the common man. But usually poverty stemmed NOT from not having enough work to do. Historically poverty has usually stemmed from the fact that individual toil benefitted others than oneself: often royalty or government, but occasionally thieves and armies.
Today we need jobs because men have been removed from their work. Laying concrete all day pays a wage, but it is not very personally satisfying. Waiting on customers all day is less strenuous, but nearly drives people crazy. There seems to be more to life than a job and salary. Or at least many people think so.
There has also been a tremendous interest develop in entrepreneurship. I wonder why that is. It looks to me like owning one’s own business is a lot more risk and hard work than a job. Yet many want to own what they do. They even seem to work harder at their own enterprise than they do their jobs.
There is a common psychological list of people’s needs. It varies from time to time and from psychologist to psychologist. But generally it looks something like air, water, food, shelter (including clothes and housing), and energy for warmth and cooking. I find it interesting that psychologists never list work as essential to man’s well being. Yet humans are seldom idle. They may socialize and spend time in various forms of meditation. But they often spend their time beautifying, improving, and building. Art, music, poetry, tools, and better equipment seems to have occupied much of mankind’s time.
Maybe people need fewer bills and more demands. Maybe people would rather work for their own risks and rewards. Maybe people don’t need jobs, but businesses. Maybe we don’t need to create jobs, but farms and small factories. Maybe people need to work. Maybe people need to work for themselves as much as they need to work. Maybe it isn’t jobs we need at all.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
WHICH IS MORE IMPORTANT, CITIES OR LAND?
(Oh, this is the same post as it was last week. But no one seemed to care much about the flooding of Louisiana. I wondered if they would be more interested in the concept of whether cities or food are more important? Or maybe they think that cities are more important than land. Do people think the world advances because of brilliant individuals, or by the caring labor of thousands, if not millions, of minds? Are any of these things related?)
They made the decision today to release water upstream from New Orleans. I understand the thinking behind that difficult decision. They had to weigh the needs of a few thousand people against the needs of many thousands more. I don’t know what is right.
But I do know the decision is very much a modern decision, and may prove short-sighted. They have basically decided that a city is more important than a farm. When inflation increases the price of food and there is no food to buy, the decision may look less compassionate.
One of the reasons this decision was made is that in the past sixty years we have moved people off the land in massive droves, and into the cities. So now very few people live on the land and many live in the city. Compassion would lead one to spare the city. But the people were moved off the land, supposedly in the name of efficiency. Large corporate farms being considered more efficient than the family farm.
But it is a false efficiency. No one ever has time to do sloppy work, and the modern corporate farm is sloppy farming. Eventually the exhausted soils, the erosion, the mono-cropping, the failure of pollinators, the energy expenses of plowing and shipping will overwhelm the system and it will collapse. When bad work is done the future will pay the price, and it will be very expensive in suffering.
As I look at cities with high buildings, slums, industrial blight, sameness and masses of people, I sense the loneliness and the lack of dignity. Each individual vies to be considered an individual, to be noticed. We glorify the individual in the celebrity culture. If one fails at gaining individual attention they fade into the anonymity of the city and abandons personal responsibility.
The real genius in the world is not individual genius. It is in the minds and hands of 10,000 individuals going about their business sharing ideas, helping one another and collectively finding what works in society. The genius of human culture is long, deep and slow. Sloppy work looks efficient. The city is always in a hurry.
They made the decision today to release water upstream from New Orleans. I understand the thinking behind that difficult decision. They had to weigh the needs of a few thousand people against the needs of many thousands more. I don’t know what is right.
But I do know the decision is very much a modern decision, and may prove short-sighted. They have basically decided that a city is more important than a farm. When inflation increases the price of food and there is no food to buy, the decision may look less compassionate.
One of the reasons this decision was made is that in the past sixty years we have moved people off the land in massive droves, and into the cities. So now very few people live on the land and many live in the city. Compassion would lead one to spare the city. But the people were moved off the land, supposedly in the name of efficiency. Large corporate farms being considered more efficient than the family farm.
But it is a false efficiency. No one ever has time to do sloppy work, and the modern corporate farm is sloppy farming. Eventually the exhausted soils, the erosion, the mono-cropping, the failure of pollinators, the energy expenses of plowing and shipping will overwhelm the system and it will collapse. When bad work is done the future will pay the price, and it will be very expensive in suffering.
As I look at cities with high buildings, slums, industrial blight, sameness and masses of people, I sense the loneliness and the lack of dignity. Each individual vies to be considered an individual, to be noticed. We glorify the individual in the celebrity culture. If one fails at gaining individual attention they fade into the anonymity of the city and abandons personal responsibility.
The real genius in the world is not individual genius. It is in the minds and hands of 10,000 individuals going about their business sharing ideas, helping one another and collectively finding what works in society. The genius of human culture is long, deep and slow. Sloppy work looks efficient. The city is always in a hurry.
Monday, April 18, 2011
MAKING, DISTRIBUTING, CONSUMING
Most economists talk about production and consumption. In between the two, the produce must be delivered to the consumer, and that portion of the economy has exploded in the last fifty years. This has been driven by two changes in the economic world.
First, industrialization increased efficiency of production. But this required centralized production into specific local areas, often far from the consumer. Whether this consists of an expensive factory, or huge corporate farm, production became more and more centralized.
But produce must be delivered to the consumer. So following industrialization the means of delivery and distribution needed to be expanded. This began with railroads and expanded to automobiles and airplanes. Overnight shipping companies and delivery services expanded. But all of this required cheap fuel so that the cost of delivery was reasonable enough to keep the price down.
So the cost of delivery is due to the cost of fuel. The question is, if the cost of delivery (fuel) goes up; will the cost of goods become too expensive for the centralized manufacturing model to work? And if the centralized manufacturing model fails, what will take its place?
It seems to me that there are only really two solutions. Either the cost of fuel must decline, or manufacturing needs to be decentralized so goods are closer to the consumer. Either of these solutions can be fostered by technological changes, but the technology developed will look very different.
A great deal of energy is being spent on the fuel question. Oil has driven the cheap distribution paradigm, and so much attention is paid to finding oil, obtaining oil, extending oil and replacing oil. However, the amount of oil available is finite, even though we don’t agree on how much is there. We will eventually run out of it. Biofuels, in the quantity needed to run the present system, is thermodynamically impossible. Efficient use of present fuels may be increased, but that also has a probably finite set point. The development of hydrogen as a fuel would seem to be a valuable development, but is some time away, if possible at all.
The other solution is to decentralize production. Some would say that this can’t be done. But it has been done before. In fact, throughout of most of human history, production and consumption have been local. Using modern technology which has reduced the amount of labor necessary to run factories and automated much production, could a post-industrial system develop in which factories were small and decentralized, manufacturing close to the consumer to minimize shipping.
Perhaps where there used to be family farms, there could instead be family factories. These could produce goods for, at most, regional consumption. The attention of most technology researchers is directed at continuing the present system and working on extending cheap fuels. Should someone be looking at miniaturizing manufacturing and minimizing distribution costs? If you know of people who are doing this let me know.
First, industrialization increased efficiency of production. But this required centralized production into specific local areas, often far from the consumer. Whether this consists of an expensive factory, or huge corporate farm, production became more and more centralized.
But produce must be delivered to the consumer. So following industrialization the means of delivery and distribution needed to be expanded. This began with railroads and expanded to automobiles and airplanes. Overnight shipping companies and delivery services expanded. But all of this required cheap fuel so that the cost of delivery was reasonable enough to keep the price down.
So the cost of delivery is due to the cost of fuel. The question is, if the cost of delivery (fuel) goes up; will the cost of goods become too expensive for the centralized manufacturing model to work? And if the centralized manufacturing model fails, what will take its place?
It seems to me that there are only really two solutions. Either the cost of fuel must decline, or manufacturing needs to be decentralized so goods are closer to the consumer. Either of these solutions can be fostered by technological changes, but the technology developed will look very different.
A great deal of energy is being spent on the fuel question. Oil has driven the cheap distribution paradigm, and so much attention is paid to finding oil, obtaining oil, extending oil and replacing oil. However, the amount of oil available is finite, even though we don’t agree on how much is there. We will eventually run out of it. Biofuels, in the quantity needed to run the present system, is thermodynamically impossible. Efficient use of present fuels may be increased, but that also has a probably finite set point. The development of hydrogen as a fuel would seem to be a valuable development, but is some time away, if possible at all.
The other solution is to decentralize production. Some would say that this can’t be done. But it has been done before. In fact, throughout of most of human history, production and consumption have been local. Using modern technology which has reduced the amount of labor necessary to run factories and automated much production, could a post-industrial system develop in which factories were small and decentralized, manufacturing close to the consumer to minimize shipping.
Perhaps where there used to be family farms, there could instead be family factories. These could produce goods for, at most, regional consumption. The attention of most technology researchers is directed at continuing the present system and working on extending cheap fuels. Should someone be looking at miniaturizing manufacturing and minimizing distribution costs? If you know of people who are doing this let me know.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
HUMAN NATURE
Humans are all confused about human nature. On the one hand we understand that in some ways we are like animals and have similar needs for food, shelter, and reproduction. But then we want to claim that we are not like animals because we are “civilized”. But the concept of being civilized means that we aren’t like animals at all and therefore have very different needs and expectations.
This leads us to do all sorts of crazy things and adopt some very conflicting attitudes. For example, as civilized animals we need food to survive, but routinely do things that endanger our food supply in the name of ease, efficiency, or profit. We grow more food than we need to make money which cannot be eaten. We create shelters, not just for our lives, but for our separate work, play, recreation and storage of things. Animals would mostly be appalled. And then we have turned reproduction into entertainment, and made it a matter of civilized correctness that everyone must get to participate regardless of fitness or wasted effort between identical genders. And lastly, as civilized animals we think that we should live infinitely, even in a finite world, and that people should not necessarily be held accountable for their actions. The animal world is singularly unforgiving.
Human success as an animal relies, not on strength, speed, tooth or claw. Instead it lies in intelligence, family groups and culture. Yet we are busy destroying the family group and our brains in our excesses.
You may wonder what this has to do with making America productive. But before anyone can produce anything, they have to decide what it is they should produce. And their concepts of why they are alive, what is their purpose in being alive and what they hope to accomplish will dictate to a great extent what they choose to produce. If we do not think clearly about the issue of human nature, we will not think clearly about what we produce.
The point is many people do not think clearly about who they are or why they exist. When that happens they may willingly embark on production activities that make no sense or that may actually hurt them in the process. Are you an animal? Or are you something different, something special, whether we call that civilized or divine (“a little lower than the angels”)? That will make huge difference about what you choose to produce.
This leads us to do all sorts of crazy things and adopt some very conflicting attitudes. For example, as civilized animals we need food to survive, but routinely do things that endanger our food supply in the name of ease, efficiency, or profit. We grow more food than we need to make money which cannot be eaten. We create shelters, not just for our lives, but for our separate work, play, recreation and storage of things. Animals would mostly be appalled. And then we have turned reproduction into entertainment, and made it a matter of civilized correctness that everyone must get to participate regardless of fitness or wasted effort between identical genders. And lastly, as civilized animals we think that we should live infinitely, even in a finite world, and that people should not necessarily be held accountable for their actions. The animal world is singularly unforgiving.
Human success as an animal relies, not on strength, speed, tooth or claw. Instead it lies in intelligence, family groups and culture. Yet we are busy destroying the family group and our brains in our excesses.
You may wonder what this has to do with making America productive. But before anyone can produce anything, they have to decide what it is they should produce. And their concepts of why they are alive, what is their purpose in being alive and what they hope to accomplish will dictate to a great extent what they choose to produce. If we do not think clearly about the issue of human nature, we will not think clearly about what we produce.
The point is many people do not think clearly about who they are or why they exist. When that happens they may willingly embark on production activities that make no sense or that may actually hurt them in the process. Are you an animal? Or are you something different, something special, whether we call that civilized or divine (“a little lower than the angels”)? That will make huge difference about what you choose to produce.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
MAKING DO
Is the human race is running out of water? Is the human race making too much carbon dioxide? Is the human race running out of energy? Is the human race is running out of air?
Nonsense! There is the same amount of water that there has always been. It may well be in different places. It may contain new materials that didn’t use to be there. But we haven’t “run out” of any water. Similarly, we don’t have too much carbon dioxide. The amount of carbon in the world hasn’t increased. It has obviously changed forms and moved from place to place, but the amount is the same.
Yes, it matters how we use language. For example, running out of water is a condition that sounds like it requires using less water. In fact, what it requires is to find new ways of cleaning up what we have, recycling, and distributing it more evenly. We may not be able to take cheap water out of ground water anymore, but the same amount is somewhere. It will just take some effort to get it.
Why are the only suggestions about greenhouse gasses about limiting their production? Carbon dioxide is naturally produced and has always been. What normally happens is that the carbon dioxide is recycled into living plants. So why doesn’t anyone suggest promoting plant production instead? Kind of makes me wonder.
We are not out of energy. We are running out of cheap stored energy known as petroleum. But the amount of energy available is more or less stable and comes from the sun. That doesn’t even mean that solar energy is the only energy available. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe and when it burns it forms water vapor. Hmmm. Aren’t we running out of water?
Will life be more complicated in the future? Yea, probably. And maybe more expensive. But should we make more laws, or make better questions. Should we make more regulations or more solutions? I know what I’m going to make!
Nonsense! There is the same amount of water that there has always been. It may well be in different places. It may contain new materials that didn’t use to be there. But we haven’t “run out” of any water. Similarly, we don’t have too much carbon dioxide. The amount of carbon in the world hasn’t increased. It has obviously changed forms and moved from place to place, but the amount is the same.
Yes, it matters how we use language. For example, running out of water is a condition that sounds like it requires using less water. In fact, what it requires is to find new ways of cleaning up what we have, recycling, and distributing it more evenly. We may not be able to take cheap water out of ground water anymore, but the same amount is somewhere. It will just take some effort to get it.
Why are the only suggestions about greenhouse gasses about limiting their production? Carbon dioxide is naturally produced and has always been. What normally happens is that the carbon dioxide is recycled into living plants. So why doesn’t anyone suggest promoting plant production instead? Kind of makes me wonder.
We are not out of energy. We are running out of cheap stored energy known as petroleum. But the amount of energy available is more or less stable and comes from the sun. That doesn’t even mean that solar energy is the only energy available. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe and when it burns it forms water vapor. Hmmm. Aren’t we running out of water?
Will life be more complicated in the future? Yea, probably. And maybe more expensive. But should we make more laws, or make better questions. Should we make more regulations or more solutions? I know what I’m going to make!
Saturday, February 26, 2011
A POST-INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION
With the advent of the industrial revolution a pattern of production was established that was successful under the circumstances of that time. I wonder if it is still valid.
For the last 100 or so years we have extracted raw products, shipped them long distances to a centralized place where the raw product was formed into a manufactured product. Then the manufactured goods were reshipped back out to many different destinations for sale. The shipping of raw products in bulk was efficient enough to make the advantages of centralized manufacturing profitable.
Reshipping was less efficient because of the many destinations involved, and because there was additional weight for packaging, record keeping for multiple items, and sales expenses. But while energy was cheap the system worked.
But what happens when shipping is no longer inexpensive? Shipping raw product to central locations, only to be manufactured, repackaged and reshipped may not be the most cost efficient way to do business because of the transportation costs.
Is there another way? What if manufacturing were decentralized and greater care was taken in shipping the raw product? What if careful efficient routes were developed for raw products that would drop off product as it was transported for regional distribution? This would reduce the amount of product in volume and weight as deliveries were made, and thereby reduce the expense of shipping raw product overall.
Then, what if, instead of having huge central-manufacturing plants, numerous mini-plants were built across the country in various regions. Then only the finished product needed in the region would need to be manufactured, and shipping finished product could be restricted to local regions. This would greatly reduce shipping costs for finished products.
While this may seem to have little to do with bees and agriculture, I think it does. You see, that is the model of our capitalistic country for the first hundred and fifty years of its existence. Small farms created the products that served a region. The raw products were sent too many small manufacturing enterprises that served a region, sometimes single families. Shipping of product on all ends of production, manufacturing, and consumption was kept to a minimum. That worked because transportation costs were expensive and inefficient. Without petroleum power, electricity, refrigeration and highways, shipping was just inefficient.
I believe that the industrial revolution was possible because of inexpensive energy. In the future, perhaps near future, the price of transportation is going to increase substantially due to increases in the cost of energy. Petroleum may yet last for many years. Sources such as coal, natural gas, wind power, hydroelectric power, solar and others will certainly be developed. However, the tremendous capital expenses required for these sources of energy is going to make the cost of transpiration continue to increase.
If the industrial paradigm is based upon inexpensive transportation, and if transportation continues to increase in cost, then the only alternative would seem to be a new industrial revolution structured in a far more decentralized manner. Perhaps the family farm will become economically feasible again, along with family manufacturing plants scattered across the nation. The computer is a general purpose machine, so perhaps it could lead us to regional general purpose manufacturing facilities.
For the last 100 or so years we have extracted raw products, shipped them long distances to a centralized place where the raw product was formed into a manufactured product. Then the manufactured goods were reshipped back out to many different destinations for sale. The shipping of raw products in bulk was efficient enough to make the advantages of centralized manufacturing profitable.
Reshipping was less efficient because of the many destinations involved, and because there was additional weight for packaging, record keeping for multiple items, and sales expenses. But while energy was cheap the system worked.
But what happens when shipping is no longer inexpensive? Shipping raw product to central locations, only to be manufactured, repackaged and reshipped may not be the most cost efficient way to do business because of the transportation costs.
Is there another way? What if manufacturing were decentralized and greater care was taken in shipping the raw product? What if careful efficient routes were developed for raw products that would drop off product as it was transported for regional distribution? This would reduce the amount of product in volume and weight as deliveries were made, and thereby reduce the expense of shipping raw product overall.
Then, what if, instead of having huge central-manufacturing plants, numerous mini-plants were built across the country in various regions. Then only the finished product needed in the region would need to be manufactured, and shipping finished product could be restricted to local regions. This would greatly reduce shipping costs for finished products.
While this may seem to have little to do with bees and agriculture, I think it does. You see, that is the model of our capitalistic country for the first hundred and fifty years of its existence. Small farms created the products that served a region. The raw products were sent too many small manufacturing enterprises that served a region, sometimes single families. Shipping of product on all ends of production, manufacturing, and consumption was kept to a minimum. That worked because transportation costs were expensive and inefficient. Without petroleum power, electricity, refrigeration and highways, shipping was just inefficient.
I believe that the industrial revolution was possible because of inexpensive energy. In the future, perhaps near future, the price of transportation is going to increase substantially due to increases in the cost of energy. Petroleum may yet last for many years. Sources such as coal, natural gas, wind power, hydroelectric power, solar and others will certainly be developed. However, the tremendous capital expenses required for these sources of energy is going to make the cost of transpiration continue to increase.
If the industrial paradigm is based upon inexpensive transportation, and if transportation continues to increase in cost, then the only alternative would seem to be a new industrial revolution structured in a far more decentralized manner. Perhaps the family farm will become economically feasible again, along with family manufacturing plants scattered across the nation. The computer is a general purpose machine, so perhaps it could lead us to regional general purpose manufacturing facilities.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
WHAT SHOULD WE MAKE?
Let’s begin with vandalism. If one person, or a group, wrecks a private home it is a crime. However, if one person, or a group, destroys a community it is often called progress. There is much oil shale in my part of the world. Many people think we can make it into oil and thereby save our way of life. Of course, the industry needed to make it into oil would destroy the present way of life for all who live here. But I suppose it will happen eventually, just as it has in West Virginia, Kentucky, and other places, because there is so much money to be made.
If I build a home with a wife and children, and put us up in a little house with a garden out back, it is not considered a very big accomplishment by the world. Everyone does that. But if I build a large plant that employees many people to extract oil from shale, and which destroys the way of life that the family enjoyed, it is considered a great accomplishment indeed.
It’s always interesting to me that so often people who want to change things, are seldom the people affected by the changes. The men who own the oil shale plant won’t live there. The politician who passes laws governing land seldom lives on the land that he passes the laws about.
It was decided years ago that the efficient way to get things done was to make the same thing, in the same way, at the same time, in the same place. It was called the industrial revolution. It has a made a lot of money. But making money isn’t making something. It is making an idea. We don’t have words to differentiate between making objects that exist in the real world, and making mental or abstract things.
Making war is not making at all. Making laws are not things but ideas. Making love at least has the potential to make life. Making music is a physical sound wave. Making noise is more about making, than making trouble.
What about making people? It’s a long process that requires more than making the body. It requires making a brain, a mind, a spirit, a person. So look how we do it. Every must learn the same things (standards), in the same way (school), at the same time (math at 10:00 AM), and in the same place. We even have to learn the things we learn within the same time frame. It is not the same thing to learn chemistry as it is to learn chemistry in sixteen weeks. But that is what the government routinely requires. It’s the industrial way.
Okay. So what should we make? What do you think you should make?
If I build a home with a wife and children, and put us up in a little house with a garden out back, it is not considered a very big accomplishment by the world. Everyone does that. But if I build a large plant that employees many people to extract oil from shale, and which destroys the way of life that the family enjoyed, it is considered a great accomplishment indeed.
It’s always interesting to me that so often people who want to change things, are seldom the people affected by the changes. The men who own the oil shale plant won’t live there. The politician who passes laws governing land seldom lives on the land that he passes the laws about.
It was decided years ago that the efficient way to get things done was to make the same thing, in the same way, at the same time, in the same place. It was called the industrial revolution. It has a made a lot of money. But making money isn’t making something. It is making an idea. We don’t have words to differentiate between making objects that exist in the real world, and making mental or abstract things.
Making war is not making at all. Making laws are not things but ideas. Making love at least has the potential to make life. Making music is a physical sound wave. Making noise is more about making, than making trouble.
What about making people? It’s a long process that requires more than making the body. It requires making a brain, a mind, a spirit, a person. So look how we do it. Every must learn the same things (standards), in the same way (school), at the same time (math at 10:00 AM), and in the same place. We even have to learn the things we learn within the same time frame. It is not the same thing to learn chemistry as it is to learn chemistry in sixteen weeks. But that is what the government routinely requires. It’s the industrial way.
Okay. So what should we make? What do you think you should make?
Monday, January 31, 2011
WHO MAKES THINGS
Who makes things?
A person makes something, and thereby produces.
The individual may act alone, or as part of a group of people with a common product, but after everything else is said, it is a single person who produces.
Ask anyone what they do and they will tell you their title. But ask them what they make, or produce, and you will get a very confusing answer. Often they won’t know.
They may know what their organization makes, but they themselves may not think of what they do as making anything.
Besides not recognizing the fact that we don’t make anything but only remake raw products, we also do not think of most of our jobs as making anything.
What if each of us begins to ask ourselves, even if our bosses won’t, “What do I make?” Can we answer that question? If not, we are not producing.
How do you make something?
Ask any artisan how to make something and they will be glad to tell you. They are proud of their skill.
If you ask them how to acquire the skill they will tell you to make something using that skill. Duh!
Make something. Work at it every day. At the same time. All day if you can. Work at it for 20 minutes if not. Just show up and make something.
Sounds way too easy, huh?
So once you know what you make, could you make sure that you make it at least once every day.
Why we like to believe that producing is hard?
Is producing hard? Sure. Is it simple? Yes!
We like to think that raising production is difficult so that we have a reason to not produce. It also gives us a reason to feel good about what we do get done.
We like to think that what we do is hard and hard things have value. But the more we convince ourselves that it is hard the more we may dread doing it. We don’t like to do hard things.
If producing takes sweat, time, concentration, effort, or patience we have a lot of reasons to not do it. It isn’t easy. Easy is the opposite of hard.
But it is simple. Once you know what you produce and how to do it, it just means “do it”. Every day. All day. As much as you can. Put off the title to your job as much as possible and produce what you produce.
Man, I hate that.
A person makes something, and thereby produces.
The individual may act alone, or as part of a group of people with a common product, but after everything else is said, it is a single person who produces.
Ask anyone what they do and they will tell you their title. But ask them what they make, or produce, and you will get a very confusing answer. Often they won’t know.
They may know what their organization makes, but they themselves may not think of what they do as making anything.
Besides not recognizing the fact that we don’t make anything but only remake raw products, we also do not think of most of our jobs as making anything.
What if each of us begins to ask ourselves, even if our bosses won’t, “What do I make?” Can we answer that question? If not, we are not producing.
How do you make something?
Ask any artisan how to make something and they will be glad to tell you. They are proud of their skill.
If you ask them how to acquire the skill they will tell you to make something using that skill. Duh!
Make something. Work at it every day. At the same time. All day if you can. Work at it for 20 minutes if not. Just show up and make something.
Sounds way too easy, huh?
So once you know what you make, could you make sure that you make it at least once every day.
Why we like to believe that producing is hard?
Is producing hard? Sure. Is it simple? Yes!
We like to think that raising production is difficult so that we have a reason to not produce. It also gives us a reason to feel good about what we do get done.
We like to think that what we do is hard and hard things have value. But the more we convince ourselves that it is hard the more we may dread doing it. We don’t like to do hard things.
If producing takes sweat, time, concentration, effort, or patience we have a lot of reasons to not do it. It isn’t easy. Easy is the opposite of hard.
But it is simple. Once you know what you produce and how to do it, it just means “do it”. Every day. All day. As much as you can. Put off the title to your job as much as possible and produce what you produce.
Man, I hate that.
Monday, January 24, 2011
HOW TO MAKE AMERICA PRODUCTIVE AGAIN
Who makes things? It is part of human hubris to ask that question because it assumes that only the things humans make are worth being called “made”. In fact, humans make almost nothing. Instead we remake what exists into new forms and uses. But as far as I can tell no human makes a raw product, we simply remake. I wish there was a more honest word for what we do.
I checked the thesaurus for synonyms of “make” but none of the words particularly describe our activities in changing raw products into some other thing. What we actually do is remake materials into new forms and uses. But none of the words in the thesaurus for “remake” actually describe what humans do either.
And what does it mean to make, or remake, something. Is it only the person who puts his hand to the raw product and changes it, or is the person who thought of the process a “maker” also? What about the person who designed the product; are they “makers”? Is the person who saw the design and the process and believed that it could work and so financed the operation, are they “makers”? And is the person who simply grows the products a “maker”, or a kind of miner?
Making is not always the same as production, yet we use the same word for extracting coal, growing crops, assembling cars, or manufacturing widgets. Making, mining and growing are not the same things, but they all seem productive. Even writers and musicians produce, but do they make? As I set out to make suggestions for how to make America productive, am I making anything at all? I am first beset by confusion over what it even means to make and produce.
This is the year 2011. It has been a busy holiday and I am just getting back to business, if one can call it that. My first post of the New Year was about time. Nothing to creative about that I suppose. But back in November of 2010 I wrote a blog about how America has moved from a production society to a consumption society. In that post I said I would follow up with one about how Americans might reverse that trend.
Was that ever presumptuous?! I have been thinking about that promise for over two months now and decided that there is so much to be said that suggestions for making America productive should become my theme for 2011. I don’t intend to neglect the bees. It turns out that bees are one way we can be productive, and at the same time save the world. It isn’t too much to ask is it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
