**This will be the last post on this blog. I am moving it all to another wordpress blog: Craig A Maciolek**
How far back do I go? I used to keep a little notebook in my pocket to write down the ideas that would float into my head. Actually, sometimes they would float and other times I would ruminate for hours and end up writing down the pearl of all that mental work. Then, with piles of those little notebooks stacked up, I got the notion of consolidating those ideas into larger concepts. I built a webpage for myself and wrote essays and things. I didn’t have enough money to keep the webpage going, and I am not any good at marketing myself, so that is when I started blogging.
My first blog was fun. I enjoyed the interaction and all the comments going back and forth with my new blog friends, however, I noticed that I was being distracted and pulled away from pursuing the things I was most interested in; from the ideas that were popping into my head. i was being pulled away from the ideas popping into my head in order to focus on the comments other people made. Sometimes that is a good thing… when it is dealing with real people, face to face, in your real life. But, when it is only typed comments made by people you never met before, and it only involves crazy ideas that interest you, it gets a little tedious. On top of that, I began to notice a distinct pattern in my writing which made me want to reorganize further. Just like taking all those little notebooks and using the ideas to build bigger concepts, I wanted to take my almost one thousand blog posts and start putting them together into even larger formats. I tried several cheap, easy and sloppy attempts at it without reorganizing, but realized in the end that I would have to go all out if I was going to do anything at all.
The next step was to shut down the first blog and start four others… well, three others really. I began to filter through all my blog posts and separate them according to my new ideas of structure with the notion that it would be just like cleaning out a junk drawer. You know, we all have them. And every now and again we pull the drawer out and empty it onto the dining room table, sift through everything, throw away the junk, and reorganize the rest. So, the three blogs were stacks I was organizing the blog posts into, while the fourth was going to be the drawer that I put it all back into in the new and fancy organization.
This was all going well and good in my usual kind of slow manner when I was rear-ended in a car accident. I wasn’t hurt too badly or anything, but it did knock me out of whack for a year. I am only now getting back into whack and have regained the thread on this idea of a new structure and process for playing with the ideas that I find in my head. This will be the last post on the three stack blogs (The Management Party, Craigianity, and this one: Designed Evolution) and the first post on the new reorganized drawer (Craig A Maciolek). I will leave all the old blogs up while I slowly take the concepts of the old posts and work them into the pages of the new blog. It should be a constant work in progress as, when I finally finish with the old three blogs, every new post will carry and idea that will find its place on one or more of the constantly evolving pages.
Yesterday I read that Google founder Sergey Brin is trying to sell their glasses thingy by saying that smartphones are emasculating. My first reaction is to shake my head and try to tell Mr. Brin that consumerism is based on exploiting people’s insecurities, not reflecting them. i understand that things might be a little confusing right now because our society is in a shift. For the past twenty years people have generally been flush with money, so their insecurities were superficial. The first half the people who bought SUV’s and iPad’s did so because they were trying to be the first and impress everyone, the other half bought them because they wanted to keep up with current trends. (I have yet to meet someone who has bought an iPad because there was a specific purpose they had in mind for it.) But now, things are falling apart and people’s insecurities are not superficial anymore; their insecurities are about practical things. So, now, Google is stuck with a product that, I think, few will buy… the answer is not to be abusive about it. Instead of trying to sell it everyone, look for a specific niche – a specific use for it and hope that it spreads from there. Here are four reasons I think they will fail miserably:
- A person will spend thousands of dollars to get rid of their glasses. They are not going to spend money to put them back on.
- Glasses are the number one thing that people lose and break on a regular basis. I have no idea how many sunglasses I have had over the years, and I even have a hard time keeping my reading glasses in one piece… and those barely ever leave my house.
- And, if using these glasses means that people will have to talk out loud more, forget it… people talk to their gadgets way too much in public as it is.
- Abusiveness does not sell. Abusiveness only works in politics because most people are simply looking for justification; it only works in alignment with what people already believe. Selling a new product works the other way around (especially now), people’s natural inclination is to not buy it and abusiveness does not override such a preconceived notion.
Anyway, that is my two, or three, cents that I had to get off my chest.
I saw on the news a little while ago a story about how the weeds have adapted to the weed killer, and now the genetically modified crops, genetically modified to survive the weed killer are suffering because the weeds are more vigorous than ever. According to the news story (consider that this was American news so it had a flavor of infomercial to it) the farmer had no other option but so much effort to relearn how to plant cover crops like they used to in the old days because the mean old FDA wouldn’t let the farmers use DEET(N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide). The tone of the story was very simple, if the corporations (e.g. Monsanto) don’t get what they want the farmer is going to have to do things the old way and that “might” hurt everyone. And I said to myself, “Oh, brother they do like to lay it on thick.” As it goes, I have been thinking about this ever since.
I have long-held the belief that many of the problems we face in our society today are the result of the fact that science has not become a full-fledged religion yet. The academics and the scientists keep pretending like they can keep themselves purely detached and aloof. Well, last I heard, over sixty percent of Americans still believe that Global Warming is still questionable… and the only reason this is true is because the academics and the scientists are still pretending that they can remain purely detached and aloof. The survival of the human species depends on the strength of our communities as a whole, not on the emotional detachment of our eggheads. And what the community needs most is a safety net… a technological safety net.
What if something crazy did happen and knocked out much of our infrastructure? As it stands we would lose much of our technical capabilities, even the stuff that we developed before the computer was invented because no one remembers how to do it anymore. The computer does it all for us. What if there was a technologically advanced society that lived on this planet before us? They had computers and robots and all sorts of fancy things, and they never worried about the worst happening. Then, one day, in a flash, a meteor that no one knew about crashes into the Earth and kills half of the population. It is not impossible. Two or three generations later the population would go from being well-educated to being illiterate simply because their society had computers for so long that everyone forgot how to do the things that the computers did for them. With the gadgets we have today it should not be too hard to imagine a society where no one writes anymore, they just speak into their hand-held devices and get auditory replies. Take away their hand-held devices and everyone becomes illiterate. Think I am joking? How many people over forty remember how to do basic Algebra these days? Not many I guarantee, even though they all learned in highschool.
Not that I am completely and totally against technology. I simply think that a responsible society would have a network of dedicated people all around the world, whose sole purpose was to remember how to do things the old way(actually knowing how to do it and not just recording it on YouTube clips… that would be silly), and to pass down the information just in case something crazy happened. Then, the whole would wouldn’t be set back for too long. It would have to be a network of people living around the world, because we could never be sure were the craziness would happen. It wouldn’t be very wise to have one building that housed a cloister of people dedicated to knowing how to do things without electricity and then have that building get hit by a tidal wave. We have an education system in place, but I think the reality is that our education system is consumed with teaching the most modern techniques, and does not have the time, resources, or will to teach the most “community stable” techniques. (For an example of a community stable technique… the slide rule is more community stable way of doing complex math than a calculator because the slide rule is mechanically simpler and more reliable.)
I guess all I am saying is that we have allot dangling by a thread right now because everything we have learned in the past fifty to one-hundred years is in such a fragile state of existence. I one blink of an eye, every that I have written here, along with all of the science and discovery that it took for you to read this could be gone forever. Forcing people to start all over again… and just think about how much of it came from military technology. How many wars would have to be refought in order to get back to where we are today?
!!Important Disclaimer!! There is a large amount of speculation and nonsense involved in this post. (Wait,.. that really should be the title of this whole blog.) Please read with caution.
The thought that has crossed my mind recently was, what if the conspiracy theorists were right? What if people never landed on the moon? What if the whole thing were faked and the “astronauts” “brought back” a bunch of rocks from Antarctica and told us all that they were moon rocks? What would that do to our scientific community? All their work and theories that depend on that data being true. How many dollars, how much time, would have been wasted coming up with very clever data and theories based on wrong information?
Then, my brain jumps to Climate Change. What if the conspiracy theorists were right and there were nefarious organizations that were manipulating the weather for political and economic reasons? (Look out for the Election Day Snow Storm blue states.) How many climate models are being influenced in a wrong direction because they do not account for man made meddling? So, here we have a bunch of scientists trying very hard to figure out what is going on with Global Warming and all that in order to help people and governments make better decisions, and all of their research is being corrupted by the invisible hand of man. And this is the reason why the climate scientists keep finding out that their models were wrong, everything is much worse than they first thought. It could be because they didn’t account for the direct actions of people trying to manipulate the weather.
I wonder how many other things, smaller things, less public things, are being corrupted and confused because scientists are not aware of hidden acts of people that affect their research.
Do not think about it too long for it will give you a head-ache.
So, I keep seeing articles and reviews about the book “The End of Men” by Hannah Rosin and cannot help but to consider it nothing more than sophistry. As a result, I find it necessary to share a view of mine. My Gender Formula. It has seven points. They work like this…
1) There are Good Men and there are Bad Men.
2) With all things being equal, the Bad Men dominate. They are simply more willing to do things that Good Men will not do, which makes them more effective at winning and dominating.
3) The only way Good Men can defeat Bad Men on their own is if they first convert into Bad Men.
4) Women are the variable.
5) If women pursue dominance over men, they will only gain dominance over the Good Men; the Bad Men will not tolerate it and end up gaining more power over the world as the women dominating over the Good Men will tip the balance in their favor.
6) If women pursue equality and balance with men through mutual respect (as defined by the individuals in their specific relationships) they will only gain equality and balance with Good Men; the Bad Men will not tolerate that either. (They are funny like that.) However,…
7) Good Men and Women working together with respect to find equality and balance is the only way to overpower the Bad Men in a positive, progressive manner.
I cannot tell you why this has come into my head now, but it is there/here and I shall write it down nonetheless. Honestly, the things that just pop into my head sometimes…
It is my opinion that a healthy man in a relationship will be attentive to his spouses needs, but indifferent or apathetic to her wants. That does not mean that he shouldn’t care or support her in her pursuit of what she wants, it is simply recognizing the difference between needs and wants.
A man should be attentive to his spouses needs by following his intuition and doing the things he simply knows will fulfill her needs… whether she asks or not…. whether she is aware of the need or not. With the things she wants, however, it is completely different. She (just like he) needs to work for the things she wants, even if that work is simply asking for help, making sacrifices and compromises, and accepting that sometimes she will not get that help and she must do it all herself.
I have experienced too many women who think that idea of a man “being attentive to her needs” includes the things that she wants, and too many man who obediently go along with it. To that I say… Bull Crap!!
Alright. It is out of my head now. Enjoy the rest of your day.
I though of a great analogy to express what I have been saying about computers. Or, maybe it’s a metaphor… or an analogy to a metaphor… metaphor of an analogy? I don’t know. I will just tell you and you can categorize it any way you want to.
We have all heard that if we put a frog into a pot of hot water it will jump out, but if we put a frog into a pot of cold water and slowly heated the water the frog would stay in the pot and die. Recently this little piece of frog science has been used too much as an analogy in reference to climate change, where people are the frogs and our increasingly polluted environment is the water being slowly heated. Well, I am going to take this little piece of frog science and use it to express my view of computers.
In my analogy the frog is a person, computers are the pot of water, and our connectivity to those computers is the temperature of the water. So, if we took a person that had very little access to computers and loaded them down with all these portable gadgets (somehow miraculously teaching them how to use them in the moment that we gave it all to them) so that they had constant connectivity to computers and the internet, the person would go nuts. They not be able to focus, be frustrated by the fact that they could have a meaningful interaction with anyone, annoyed by never being left alone, and so on… they would go nuts and destroy all those gadgets in no time at all. However, if we take a person and slowly increase their computer connectivity, giving them only one gadget at a time, over a larger period of time – like two decades – they would have no idea that they were going nuts. they would dimply sit in their pot of boiling water wondering why they were so unhappy and uncomfortable.