An early scene in Roger Zelazny's "Lord of Light" has the title character giving a sermon on the nature of Evil. His audience consists of Buddhist monks with a worldview that doesn't recognize Evil or Good as independent concepts - or,at least, as concepts relevant to their spiritual goals. The sermon therefore describes the world to them in different terms, of Beauty versus Ugliness. Re-definition allows the same point to be made, avoiding their cultural blind spot.
An article in Forbes has a young (Millennial) developer at game developer OMGPop refusing to accept a job offer from mega-developer Zygna after the startup was acquired. He had specific job-related reasons to refuse, but eventually translated them into a more expansive moral reason: Zygna is Evil.
As the source article on Gamasutra points out, there is a willing rejection in business to describe businesses or the business world or the pursuit of profit as Evil. Indeed, a business and it's employees are pursuing survival, usually, and we do not want to punish that. With an insight that is just what might be expected from a Millennial, he defines Evil in terms of "destroying one's own ecosystem," endangering the survival of others and even of itself.
I call this a Millennial view of the world because of its assumption of interdependence, that everything has to work together for Good to happen. It's not a perspective that I would have come up with, certainly. I consider evil in terms of malice, of intentional effort in pursuit of personal goals where the well-being of others is disregarded or actively opposed. In his formulation, evil can be independent of active intention.
Which isn't to say that it's better nor worse than my definition. His could punish "Evil" based on unintended consequences; mine could ignore longer-term dangers because, hey, who could have known? (Was the 2008 financial crisis due to Evil? Discuss.) It is useful to consider alternatives, and the distinct shared experiences of each generation can yield new ways of examining old - ancient!- problems.
In any case, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Crisis ending with some punished under a definition of Evil much like this Millennial one - or the next High defining its inevitable Enemies of the State in similar terms.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Games!
"Ludi Ludi Ludi!" said the announcement, posted in Rome at some point in the distant past. "Games Games Games!" I've been looking for where I saw it - online? in Rome itself? In one of those tourist books? - but I remember the exuberance, the repetition, the insistence of those three words. Bread and circuses, indeed.
A phrase, of course, that is central to the "Hunger Games" series of books and upcoming movie. The country there takes its name, Panem, from the Latin, "panem et circenses."
One might take the title of the first book as a dark inversion, as well: play the Games to get more bread. Each of the 12 Districts in Panem must send 2 teenagers to the Games. The 24 children thus gathered will fight to the death, last one alive the winner, earning glory for themselves and more food for their District. Fun stuff.
My relevant thought is that it feels like a change to how the Hero generation is portrayed. Not just indulged; beyond aimless; post-dependent: Now willing to dig in for the fight - and dangerous to those who threaten their peers. Not the first time for this: Harry Potter is transformed similarly, but over the course of seven novels. (An L.A. Times review invokes the recent "Hanna" and "Kick-Ass" as well.) The ubiquity of the marketing carries an implicit belief that this concept is becoming mainstream, that there's no reason NOT to believe in a deadly huntress taking on the system to protect her sister and District.
For Strauss and Howe, it's a given that the Hero generation is indulged (Third Turnings are associated with economic booms), protected ( more than Nomads, but not as smothered as Artists) and praised. And also that they are the ones who willingly take on the enemies of society, often making ultimate sacrifices up to and beyond their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. The jump from one to the other is difficult to comprehend, especially as they are coming of age. ("These spoiled, reckless kids are going to save our world?") That ignores what may be their most significant attribute, admittedly one that doesn't easily distill to a single word. They are close knit, work together - do all sorts of things together - stand as one, watch out for one another, and expect the same in return. Like Katniss, they will go into the arena for the sake of others - especially if it will help them keep what they currently have.
I may wait to confirm which of those incentives - helping peers or staying on top - has more impact, though, so check back in about 20 years.
A phrase, of course, that is central to the "Hunger Games" series of books and upcoming movie. The country there takes its name, Panem, from the Latin, "panem et circenses."
One might take the title of the first book as a dark inversion, as well: play the Games to get more bread. Each of the 12 Districts in Panem must send 2 teenagers to the Games. The 24 children thus gathered will fight to the death, last one alive the winner, earning glory for themselves and more food for their District. Fun stuff.
My relevant thought is that it feels like a change to how the Hero generation is portrayed. Not just indulged; beyond aimless; post-dependent: Now willing to dig in for the fight - and dangerous to those who threaten their peers. Not the first time for this: Harry Potter is transformed similarly, but over the course of seven novels. (An L.A. Times review invokes the recent "Hanna" and "Kick-Ass" as well.) The ubiquity of the marketing carries an implicit belief that this concept is becoming mainstream, that there's no reason NOT to believe in a deadly huntress taking on the system to protect her sister and District.
For Strauss and Howe, it's a given that the Hero generation is indulged (Third Turnings are associated with economic booms), protected ( more than Nomads, but not as smothered as Artists) and praised. And also that they are the ones who willingly take on the enemies of society, often making ultimate sacrifices up to and beyond their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. The jump from one to the other is difficult to comprehend, especially as they are coming of age. ("These spoiled, reckless kids are going to save our world?") That ignores what may be their most significant attribute, admittedly one that doesn't easily distill to a single word. They are close knit, work together - do all sorts of things together - stand as one, watch out for one another, and expect the same in return. Like Katniss, they will go into the arena for the sake of others - especially if it will help them keep what they currently have.
I may wait to confirm which of those incentives - helping peers or staying on top - has more impact, though, so check back in about 20 years.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Medicine
Dr Leo Spaceman on the "critically acclaimed"* comedy "30 Rock" once replied to a patient's inquiry with the observation "Medicine is not science."While meant to show that he is not the sharpest graduate of the Ho Chi Minh School of Medicine, it turns out to be more true than intended. Google "is medicine a science" and you'll get varied opinions on that subject. It's evidently a very real epistemological question for those who think about such things.
Brought into the Presidency just as the Crisis was becoming manifest, Obama's first policy focus was on reforming health care in the United States. There was plenty of reason to think that was needed, from people dying because they didn't have insurance, to massive Medicare fraud, to the crazy state of hospitals here.
That last being what sent me in this direction, after seeing the former site of the North Hollywood Medical Center. Google still shows the buildings, but it's currently a vacant lot in the process of becoming apartments. Before that, it was used for filming most of the seasons of "Scrubs." Which is to say that the next best valued uses for a decent sized medical facility were a) as a set for filming a medical comedy and b) as housing in an inflated but still lethargic market. Not as a hospital.
Which brings us to the Supreme Court spending three days on whether the healthcare reform passed - barely - two years ago is constitutional. The first day was concerned with whether they even could examine the question, under laws that require a tax to be paid before a suit can be brought. Tuesday, though, was the start of the big question: Can the federal government require people to purchase insurance? And if so, what is the constitutional justification?
Regulating interstate commerce, of course, is the go-to argument for this. And the precedent that said growing marijuana for your own medical use in a state that had legalized said use and without any crossing of state lines would seem to indicate that this is a wide-reaching power. I would hope this would be applied consistently, since otherwise it seems too much like these folks make up their mind on the outcome, then make the law fit.
The real problem, though, is that the American mindset doesn't like any of the options. The white-hatted cowboy wouldn't let the sick widow die for lack of funds, but he also knows that the free and open range is a place where not everything is able to survive. Americans like the idea that anything is possible, that nobody is stuck where they are and there's always a second chance, - that the town will always join together to help the unfortunate, and never for a lynch mob.
And even if you're a glass-half-full person, you have to acknowledge that's not true. Shifting back to the specific issue at hand, three people with equivalent- even identical - insurance options can have three radically different outcomes. One could go to a nationally-ranked facility, one to a local clinic, the other might do nothing -"it's just a cough." One doctor is an expert in this specific issue and the other dismisses it. Surgery usually cures it unless an infection happens; antibiotics administered are as good except with allergies; a radical treatment works perfectly unless you are in the unlucky 2%.
Maybe Dr. Spaceman is right: Medicine isn't science, since we can't run repeatable experiments well enough to KNOW just how to fix anyone who walks in for treatment. Perhaps no matter how we mess with the economics of the system, or the standards of the professionals, or the availability of preventative options, horror stories will happen.
* All bloggers are required to use "critically acclaimed" for this show. It's in the Terms of Service.
Brought into the Presidency just as the Crisis was becoming manifest, Obama's first policy focus was on reforming health care in the United States. There was plenty of reason to think that was needed, from people dying because they didn't have insurance, to massive Medicare fraud, to the crazy state of hospitals here.
That last being what sent me in this direction, after seeing the former site of the North Hollywood Medical Center. Google still shows the buildings, but it's currently a vacant lot in the process of becoming apartments. Before that, it was used for filming most of the seasons of "Scrubs." Which is to say that the next best valued uses for a decent sized medical facility were a) as a set for filming a medical comedy and b) as housing in an inflated but still lethargic market. Not as a hospital.
Which brings us to the Supreme Court spending three days on whether the healthcare reform passed - barely - two years ago is constitutional. The first day was concerned with whether they even could examine the question, under laws that require a tax to be paid before a suit can be brought. Tuesday, though, was the start of the big question: Can the federal government require people to purchase insurance? And if so, what is the constitutional justification?
Regulating interstate commerce, of course, is the go-to argument for this. And the precedent that said growing marijuana for your own medical use in a state that had legalized said use and without any crossing of state lines would seem to indicate that this is a wide-reaching power. I would hope this would be applied consistently, since otherwise it seems too much like these folks make up their mind on the outcome, then make the law fit.
The real problem, though, is that the American mindset doesn't like any of the options. The white-hatted cowboy wouldn't let the sick widow die for lack of funds, but he also knows that the free and open range is a place where not everything is able to survive. Americans like the idea that anything is possible, that nobody is stuck where they are and there's always a second chance, - that the town will always join together to help the unfortunate, and never for a lynch mob.
And even if you're a glass-half-full person, you have to acknowledge that's not true. Shifting back to the specific issue at hand, three people with equivalent- even identical - insurance options can have three radically different outcomes. One could go to a nationally-ranked facility, one to a local clinic, the other might do nothing -"it's just a cough." One doctor is an expert in this specific issue and the other dismisses it. Surgery usually cures it unless an infection happens; antibiotics administered are as good except with allergies; a radical treatment works perfectly unless you are in the unlucky 2%.
Maybe Dr. Spaceman is right: Medicine isn't science, since we can't run repeatable experiments well enough to KNOW just how to fix anyone who walks in for treatment. Perhaps no matter how we mess with the economics of the system, or the standards of the professionals, or the availability of preventative options, horror stories will happen.
* All bloggers are required to use "critically acclaimed" for this show. It's in the Terms of Service.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Calm
The stock market is up - largely due to Apple - gold is down, oil is flat, and so (more or less) are Treasuries. The Greece deal seems to have soothed the overall financial markets, and iPad 3 demand at least suggests consumer confidence.
Then again, there don't seem to be any great options for Afghanistan or Iran. For the former, there's no desire to stay - just not to appear chased off by some unfortunate events. For the latter, even assuaging Israel and avoiding intervention just feels like kicking the can down the road. The exceptional protection for Iran's nuclear facilities bring to mind Peenemunde more than General Electric. They give every indication of having weapons production (rather than fuel) as their goal. And the difference in reaction to, say, Iraq versus North Korea indicates that it's in Iran's best interest to become a nuclear power sooner rather than later.
Sometimes, though, kicking the can down the road is just what's needed. If there isn't support based on what's currently known (and on attitudes towards intervention / pre-emption / all-out war), then it's not action that can (or should be) forced. Waiting for fullness, as Valentine Smith would say, will allow whatever is necessary to be complete. Or, if it shouldn't happen, it will make the wisdom of avoiding it that much clearer.
Which brings us to a period - a day,a month, perhaps longer - where the Crisis isn't that bad. A hint of stress in the air, maybe. There was a point right after the credit crunch where it seemed too late to prepare, and the only option was to hang on for the ride. It's like that in reverse, right now: At the end of the loop-de-loop, we know the cars are being pulled up to the top of the next hill. Any good ride Designer will keep you guessing about what the next surprise is. Unless he's showing it to you intentionally, of course. Either way, it's the right time to take a deep breath.
Then again, there don't seem to be any great options for Afghanistan or Iran. For the former, there's no desire to stay - just not to appear chased off by some unfortunate events. For the latter, even assuaging Israel and avoiding intervention just feels like kicking the can down the road. The exceptional protection for Iran's nuclear facilities bring to mind Peenemunde more than General Electric. They give every indication of having weapons production (rather than fuel) as their goal. And the difference in reaction to, say, Iraq versus North Korea indicates that it's in Iran's best interest to become a nuclear power sooner rather than later.
Sometimes, though, kicking the can down the road is just what's needed. If there isn't support based on what's currently known (and on attitudes towards intervention / pre-emption / all-out war), then it's not action that can (or should be) forced. Waiting for fullness, as Valentine Smith would say, will allow whatever is necessary to be complete. Or, if it shouldn't happen, it will make the wisdom of avoiding it that much clearer.
Which brings us to a period - a day,a month, perhaps longer - where the Crisis isn't that bad. A hint of stress in the air, maybe. There was a point right after the credit crunch where it seemed too late to prepare, and the only option was to hang on for the ride. It's like that in reverse, right now: At the end of the loop-de-loop, we know the cars are being pulled up to the top of the next hill. Any good ride Designer will keep you guessing about what the next surprise is. Unless he's showing it to you intentionally, of course. Either way, it's the right time to take a deep breath.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)