Month: January 2021

Reflections on the Pandemic

crimson

Progress has been made with the pandemic. Both progress by humans in attempts to defeat the virus, and by the virus in finding ways not to be defeated. Humans have generated several vaccines to combat the spread of the original virus, having been brought to the public with “unprecedented” speed. However, many mutations of the original strain have been identified as well, and those vaccines have been effective only partially in dealing with the mutations. The war rages on.

With all that has been going on, I have continued to be on lockdown. I’ve been cooped up at home for approximately 10 months now. That’s a long time to be told you need to stay at home. My wife and I have been suffering the effects of staying at home for so long, with depression and melancholy topping the list of side effects. It’s hard to know what to do in this situation. Should we continue to be the good citizens we have been, listening to the authority figures and remaining at home? Or should we revolt and return to how things were before the pandemic, going out and enjoying our lives again? This debate reminds me of the first post I made to this blog, and so I have read it again. Link here.

In that post, I presented my opinion regarding the pandemic. That what ought to be recognized was not a health crisis but a systemic crisis. That humans have been ignoring the significant problems and issues of society for a long time, and the pandemic has simply thrust those problems and issues into the spotlight. There were definitely sparks of promise out there over the past 10 months. Black Lives Matter protests. Hope for climate change issues with the clearing of waters in places like Venice, Italy. And even more recently, economic turmoil as hedge fund managers, having been manipulating the markets for years, have been highlighted by large numbers of Reddit users who have cooperated as amateur investors to beat those managers at their own game. It seems to me that it is clear as day what is going on; what has been going on for decades and even centuries. And others must have seen what I see too, as they have clearly taken action.

I hold onto hope that things will change. But there is a lot of evidence that things will not change as well. Particularly with regard to many countries’ approaches to the corona virus. Specifically, their banking on vaccines to solve the problem. It seems to me that many countries have simply spent their time focused on stop-gap or band-aid solutions for now—such as lockdowns, mask wearing, and social distancing—instead of working on long term systemic changes to attend to their populations—such as considering things like universal basic income, or even simply forcing the hyper wealthy to provide support to the world’s people in this time of great need. This last point is one I feel rather strongly about.

According to traditional capitalism, it is important to allow everyone their freedom to pursue their projects. Those who’s projects are good projects, and who are able to do a good job in pursuing those projects, will receive the benefits of their choices, amassing great wealth and power. Unfortunately, those who’s projects are not good projects, or who are unable to do a good job in pursuing good projects, will suffer. Technically, those who suffer are unfit for their world as such, and as per Darwinian Evolutionary Theory, will eventually die out, their genetics lost to time. This is the idea, at any rate. And during a pandemic, this formula still holds as true. Simply look at how much more wealth the hyper wealthy have amassed on the shoulders of the world’s people, who suffer and die as they are instructed to remain at home without the supports or resources to do so effectively.

I think upon what I learned about ancient Greek and Roman societies. Especially Roman. Where the name of the game was patron-client relations. It was fairly simple actually: those who were wealthy and powerful were the patrons, while those who were not as wealthy or powerful were the clients. The job of the clients was to do what the patrons wanted, often through labor. But the patrons also had a job too, to support their clients. No one was off the hook. It was the patrons who funded and organized the celebrations, set about the construction of buildings, and handled the politics and military. In other words, those who were wealthy spent their time not on the accumulation of more wealth (though increasing wealth did occur as a result of their actions), but instead spent their wealth on attracting followers and pleasing the people, their clients.

In ancient Greece, when it wasn’t yet called Greece, warlords and generals didn’t simply command obedient and loyal troops. They had to persuade those soldiers to follow them through the offering of benefits. As one without wealth, I might only be able to offer my service and labour, but I still could decide who to offer those things to. If a particular warlord wasn’t offering much in the way of benefits, my loyalty would likely wane as I pursued other avenues toward my own benefits.

It could be argued that these things still exist today. A large company with no loyal customers will not be a large company for long. However, as has been demonstrated time and again over the past couple decades at least, when a large company is large enough, they can receive a “bail out” when they may be in trouble. The “bail out” is assembled through the use of taxpayer money, which ultimately means that the large company has acquired the funds from the people whether the people liked it or not. In other words, the people, who’s service and labour should be up to them to decide where and how it is utilized, has been stripped of their freedom to choose. The large company has simply usurped the wealth from those who have no wealth. Sounds much like some tales of the Sheriff of Knottingham.

I have ranted on long enough for today. I hope my point is clear. Not much has changed since my first post. The pandemic is still a problem and is still revealing the cracks in the systems of our societies. We still have the opportunity to address those issues, however challenging such changes may be. It is unclear to me whether changes are actually coming or not, but I still have hope. And I’m not banking on a vaccine to bail me out.

What’s in a Name

crimson

Today’s post may be obvious to many people out there, but it certainly was never obvious to me. In fact, I’m still pretty confused about the whole thing. But I think, recently, I’ve made some progress in clarifying what it might be all about.

To borrow an idea from linguistics studies, a name “picks out something in the world.” That is, a named object is directly associated with a very specific entity that exists in the world. For example, Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States, refers directly to one, and only one, individual who currently exists in the world. There has never been any other entity that can occupy this role, and likely never will in the future either. In fact, for this name to be a good name, it must not refer to any other entity. It is a direct reference to exactly one entity.

The first rebuttal to this sort of suggestion is to raise fictional entities. For example, Santa Claus is a name that refers directly to exactly one entity, but that entity does not exist (as far as I know). Thus, the name is still referring to precisely one entity, but the entity in question may or may not actually exist. The name, however, does conjure up an image or idea of who or what the named entity is in my mind upon its usage. So perhaps that is an important feature of a name; the ability of the name to conjure in my mind an idea about a very specific entity that may or may not exist.

There is plenty of study and debate about names and what exactly they are and what they are used for, but I would like to raise another issue that I recently realized about names. I was considering aristocracy and how it works. It seemed to me that aristocracy is deeply rooted in names, and in inter-generational cooperation. This is what I want to discuss today.

First I need to make clear what I understand to be aristocracy. Definitions given in various dictionaries will make reference to an upper class of people in society, and perhaps that might be true, but I don’t think this tells us the whole story. I don’t think society has classes, and aristocracy is simply what we use to refer to the group that composes the upper class. I actually think it might work in reverse; that those who become aristocrats generate an upper class in society by the nature of their aristocracy. That is, this idea of an upper class, a group of people in society that are in some way above others, is not some natural state of groups of people, but an interpretation of how the groups are subdivided. That is, all those who are aristocrats in a group will generate the upper class. This is a fine distinction, and likely still confusing, so I will continue and try to clarify as I go.

What I think makes an individual an aristocrat is their name. In particular, their family name. In the part of the world where I exist, individuals have at least two names: their given name or names, and their family name. If we again talk about Donald Trump, Donald is the individual’s given name, likely picked out and assigned by their parents at birth. Trump, on the other hand, is the family name, a name that has been passed down through several generations and is assigned to this new generation of individual. Thus, the name Donald Trump describes a number of features of this individual. In part, this individual can be identified by the name Donald, perhaps used to get his attention across a crowded room. In part, this individual is part of a cooperative group of multi-generational individuals collectively known as Trumps. The name, in this case, is providing a lot more information than may have been clear at first glance.

This is where the potential for aristocracy enters into the discussion. The given names are important in identifying the individual in day-to-day life, but it is this family name that provides some indication of class or importance. To be a Trump, for example, suggests you have money, and may command some respect (though perhaps not as much now due to recent events, but I’m getting ahead of myself). To be a Trump is to be a part of an inter-generational group of individuals who have, over time, acquired property and wealth, power and recognition. But what I think is the most important feature that accompanies this family name is reputation.

I believe that reputation is the key feature of a name, especially a family name. It is the reputation that allows for the ease of acquisition of assets, the commanding of respect, and even the possible safety of walking down the street. Furthermore, it is the recognition of that name that provides all these benefits. If everyone knows that this particular individual is a Trump, then they will treat that individual with all the benefits they believe a Trump is due.

Of course, this can also work against the individual, what we might call notoriety. While a family name might suggest the individual ought to be regarded in a positive fashion, it can just as easily suggest the opposite. A name like Hitler often evokes great negativity from people, and so it is a poor choice of a name for any child (at least in this part of the world). Here we have an example of a name that is frequently associated with evil, making the individual possessing such a name likely finding themselves very unsafe while walking the street.

I find it quite interesting how much weight a name seems to have on directing the path individuals end up on. To try and make this very clear, my name is significant not because I have any say in how I am treated, but because of everyone around me and how they decide to treat me. My fate, it seems, is in the hands of everyone around me.

My parents are individuals who have names and reputations. They decide upon giving me a name when I am born, and I also inherit their name as a part of my name. In that I inherit their name, I inherit their reputation. During the course of my life, my available options are a direct reflection of the reputation I have inherited. Some options are available to me due to my name, while other options are not available to me for the same reason.

There is one other piece of this puzzle I must now discuss. I begin with my parents’ reputation, but as I live my life, I acquire my own reputation as well. Perhaps through my deeds and actions, I might improve (or diminish) my reputation among those around me. With great deeds and actions, I may gain trust and respect of my community. Perhaps due to hard work, I acquire wealth and allies to make my life more luxurious. If I am successful in doing these things, improving my reputation, then perhaps by the time I am ready to produce my own offspring, I can impart to them a better reputation than what was given to me. This, I believe, is where aristocracy comes from.

Through inter-generational cooperation, whereby each individual of each generation (frequently referred to as a bloodline) conduct themselves in such a manner that they can continue to increase their collective wealth and power, commanding increasing amounts of respect, eventually an individual will be born with the accumulated efforts of their ancestors to become a very powerful individual, even before they learn to walk. This is an aristocrat.

Unfortunately, this all works in reverse as well. If the inter-generational cooperation is lacking, or worse yet, each generation continues to make choices and follow a path of notoriety, the obstacles presented to the resultant individual will most definitely challenge them to accomplish anything in the world. In fact, such an individual is likely to be scorned and mistreated, again before they even learn to walk.

I think this paints a pretty important picture about our world and how power exists. It suggests that no individual rises or falls entirely alone. Even if you isolate yourself from all of society, trying desperately to escape all this reputation stuff, you will still have had parents, who themselves had parents, and so on. You will always be influenced by your own ancestors, on some level. It may not be through some mystical energy or ritualistic psionic power necessarily, but the choices of your ancestors reflects upon you and creates your opportunities in the world.

The hardest part of all this for me is the recognition that I cannot become an aristocrat. I have to be born into aristocracy. As I was not born into aristocracy, I can never become an aristocrat. No matter how hard I work, no matter how many good deeds I do, I will never be. The best I could possibly hope to do is increase my own reputation as much as I can, with the sincere hope to impart aristocracy to my own children.

Home Economics

crimson

I had a very productive conversation with a friend last night, and thought I would post today on a part of what we were talking about. Specifically, on how to get by in our world financially. While I recognize that the sorts of advice and tools I am about to share are not necessarily going to work for everyone, these are the strategies I have used in my life that allow me to maintain financial stability and even some degree of financial freedom. This is what has worked for me, so maybe you might find it helpful for yourself too.

When I was much younger, and still in high school, I believed that in order to do as I wanted at any time that I wanted, I would need to make over $500,000 per year for every year in my life. I came to this number by suggesting that for $1000 per day, I could freely do anything I wished. For example, perhaps I might like to fly to Paris, France to have lunch on a particular day. With the income I described, I could have lunch in Paris every day without worrying that I would run out of money.

That is a lot of money to be making by any individual, even in today’s standards. I would suggest it might even be an unreasonable goal, considering what one might have to do in their lives to earn such an amount of money. It was in part due to this belief that I attended university the first time trying to become a Mechanical Engineer. Such a profession would have put me on a path that could, at least potentially, lead to the achieving of such a goal. As I believe I have mentioned in other posts, this didn’t work out for me. Attending university with my aim being to gain employment that produced such large sums of money was ultimately a disaster for me.

What I’ve learned since then is that in order to actually do the things I want in this world, when I want to do them, actually only requires me to make about $30,000 per year, which amounts to making approximately $15 per hour at a full time job. And as many of you likely already know, $15 per hour is just above minimum wage in the area of the world I currently live. This is far more reasonable and attainable than the original goal of $500,000 per year.

Admittedly, such a discovery has a number of conditions attached. Firstly, this is how much I would need to make if I lived alone, with no dependents nor a companion. Also, it would assume I have no other debts (for example, my mortgages would all need to be paid off completely). While my current situation does not meet these requirements, the additional funding I require to fulfill my goals in my current circumstances is not drastically more than this. I have not actually worked out the numbers for my present circumstances, but if I suggested I needed about $60,000 per year now, I’m sure that would be enough. It may be double my previous estimate, but it is certainly far less than my original estimate of $500,000.

With this groundwork laid out, I will now reveal some of my strategies that allow for the achieving of this goal. While discussing these strategies, it is important to keep in mind these findings I have established. The goals above are intimately tied to the strategies below, and if you adjust your life to the strategies below, you will likely find that the goals above need to be adjusted as a result. This will become clearer as I proceed, so please bear with me.

The first, and possibly most important, observation that I learned to make is with regard to how I spend my time. Literally. How much does it cost for me to take part in various activities over time. This was not my discovery, but actually was advice offered to me by my father at a rather young age. To understand this idea better, I will present a few examples:

If I decide to go to the theater to watch a movie, how much does that cost me (these numbers are from about 2010 or so)? The movie tickets, in addition to the popcorn and drink that I often purchase, typically end up costing me about $20. The time I spend watching this movie will often take up about 2 hours of my life. As a result, doing the math, watching a movie in the theater costs me about $10 per hour to do.

If I decide to play Pokemon on my Gameboy, how much does that cost me (these numbers are from about 2000 or so)? The Gameboy cost me about $100 to purchase, and the Pokemon game cost me about $50. The playing of the game itself does not cost me any money, just time. So the question is how much time do I (or did I) spend playing that game? In this particular case, the Pokemon cartridge happened to track the time I played it, so I could see precisely how much time I had been playing the game by the time I decided to work out this math. It turned out I had played well over 100 hours in the game, and I was still continuing to play the game (I was far from completing the game). If I suggest that I spend 150 hours playing that game (a conservative estimate), then I find that it costs me about $1 per hour to play Pokemon on my Gameboy. Of further interest in this particular situation, the more I play the game, the less it costs. For example, if I continue playing this game and eventually accumulate 300 hours of play, the math will reveal that at that point it cost me $0.50 per hour to play. In other words, the more I play, the less money I seem to be spending per hour.

If I decide to write programs in Python on my computer, an activity I actually rather enjoy, how much does that cost me (these numbers are from this current time, as this is one of my present hobbies). The computer I use to program on was salvage, and so literally cost me no money. Furthermore, the computer I use is utilized for many, many other purposes than simply programming, so any number I suggest is already technically much more than it ought to be for this example. Having said all of this, I will pretend for a moment I purchased the computer ($1500), and that I spend approximately one sixth (about 17%) of my time writing Python programs on it. The operating system (linux) and the Python interpreter did not cost me any money as they are freely available online. Thus, very approximately, I might suggest that I have spent about $250 in order to program in Python. The act of programming itself does not cost me any money, just time. I have likely spent over 100 hours programming so far, and I continue to do so, as it is a current hobby of mine. Thus, programming in Python costs me (presently) about $2.50 per hour, but like the video game, continues to become cheaper and cheaper as I keep doing it. Knowing that I actually did not spend money on the computer, and the actual number is $0 per hour. This is (so far) the least expensive activity for me to engage in.

This is already quite telling. Between the above activities, I ought to preference Python programming, as I spend the least amount of money doing it. I don’t think it is an accident that this activity can also be quite productive, as the programs I write can be used for other purposes, such as increasing automation in other chores and activities I engage in. This raises a couple more examples I think it is worth presenting:

If I decide to work a job, how much does that cost me? The answer to this one should already be obvious. It costs me nothing to work a job. In fact, I actually make money when I work a job. If I used the example at the beginning of this post, I might earn $15 per hour while working a job. This activity is now even more desirable than Python programming, assuming I actually enjoy working. Thus, it is certainly of great benefit to me to work a job I enjoy, as it won’t feel like work, and I will be earning money from the activity.

If I decide to do absolutely nothing, how much does that cost me? Believe it or not, this ends up costing me something financially. For example, I am sitting in a rental property, sitting on a couch. The rental property costs me about $1500 per month to live in, and the couch cost me about $1000 to purchase. So even if I sit here doing nothing, there is some cost involved. Furthermore, I typically do many activities in this home and on this couch, which will affect the math. However, for the sake of argument, I will suggest I am purposely doing nothing just to see what kind of numbers I end up with. There are 720 hours in a month of 30 days. Thus, the rental costs me about $2 per hour, even when I do absolutely nothing else.

If I decide to stay in a hotel for a night, how much does that cost me? This gets a lot more complicated again, as I would be staying in the hotel often toward some other purpose. But again, just to see some numbers, I will again assume I do absolutely nothing except sit in the hotel, perhaps watching television. If the hotel room costs me $200 per night, and there are 24 hours in a day, then staying in the hotel costs me about $8 per hour to stay there. Clearly my rental is less expensive than the hotel.

This all may sound very pedantic, but it all has a point. If I am able to break down the cost of all my activities into a common time slice (in my case by the hour), then I can start to see how those activities compare to each other. In some cases I spend money, and in a few cases I make money. And in some cases, an activity becomes less expensive the more I engage in that activity. When I started to see all these things, I started to consciously decide to pursue more activities that cost me less money. Furthermore, I preferenced activities where the cost of the activity dropped as I engaged with the activity more. For those who know me, I do/did play a lot of video games, especially Pokemon. In all honesty, playing Pokemon might be the least expensive activity I perform at this point, putting aside using salvaged computers to program on.

By behaving as I have, despite having generated less income than most of my friends, I have also tended to save far more money than those same friends. Furthermore, I have been able to “splurge” more than those friends at times I may want to spend a bit more money as well, because of my having my savings. During this pandemic, when we are all expected to lockdown and remain at home, I have endured better than many of the people around me as a result of my life choices.

There is, of course, a drawback to much of what I’ve described, as my friend pointed out last night. If I really want to engage in the more costly activities, I will require a much higher income than I presently have. Activities like scuba diving, sky diving, or even playing golf or tennis generally cost a very substantial amount of money. I have heard from those people who do engage in those activities that they consider the rewards they receive from those activities to be quite spectacular. If it makes them happy, then who am I to criticize? However, in order to engage in those activities, those individuals will obviously need to sacrifice more in order to generate the larger incomes they require, possibly taking jobs they do not actually enjoy.

It can be hard to find enjoyment in certain mundane activities. Our society, constructed on structures of consumerism, can even seek to shame individuals who do take enjoyment in such activities. My friend last night told me he enjoys sweeping floors and cleaning, but seemed incredibly ashamed to admit such a thing. Personally, I am a bit envious that he has found such a productive and important activity enjoyable. I wish I found doing those activities more enjoyable myself. However, he indicated to me that among his circle of friends, doing such mundane activities is considered “beneath” them as well, suggesting that people around him are even discouraged from performing those activities, despite any enjoyment they may receive.

There is much more I could say about all of this, but I think I have rambled on long enough for the moment. And I believe my reader should by now see my point. I believe that living a life of financial stability, and possibly freedom, is not as far-fetched as we are often led to believe. I believe that structures such as consumerism seem to motivate people to desire the more expensive activities, leading people away from potential happiness. My friend likes to sweep floors, an activity that potentially earns him money while at the same time fulfilling a happiness for him, much as my hobby of writing Python programs does for me. By embracing these sorts of choices and activities, and by recognizing the significance of finding a job we enjoy rather than a job that pays well, I believe we have a much greater potential for happiness in our lives. And it won’t require making ridiculous sums of money in the process.

The (American) Center of the Universe, part 2

crimson

On October 5, 2020, I wrote a post talking about how, for me, the United States of America (USA) has a great deal of influence over my day-to-day life, despite my desire for this not to be the case. In that post, I suggested that my feelings about Donald Trump are mostly irrelevant to the state of affairs of the world, and especially the USA, as I am not an American citizen. As I said in that post “the American people will do what they think is best,” especially with regard to whom they select to represent them in the international arena. This past week has been particularly interesting and so I have decided to follow up my previous post.

For those of you who may not be aware (I am envious if you are such a person), on Wednesday, January 6, 2021 there was a riot at the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. This riot resulted in the breaching of the building by rioters, which has resulted in several deaths and what some regard as an attack on American democracy. As the current president of the USA (Donald Trump) essentially goaded the rioters on to perform this act, it has been suggested this is an attempted coup. Essentially, the incident could be a failed attempt by Trump to overthrow the existing government and install his own, of which he would be the supreme power in this new government. This is my interpretation of the incident. There are certainly others who would suggest different interpretations.

However this incident is viewed and interpreted, what I wish to focus on is something a little different. Yesterday, I happened upon an interesting comment on Reddit, suggesting that there should be a filter created to filter out all the USA focused news items from Reddit. Ironically, a quick search in Google suggests this isn’t the first time people have asked this sort of question. I’d like to briefly consider this simple request.

For me, especially in that I happen to live in the country which shares the longest border with the USA, it seems unlikely that I will ever be able to live my life without having to keep myself informed regarding the goings-on of the USA. Whether I like it or not, I kind of need to know what the president of the USA is doing, what sorts of decisions he is making, and what sort of leader he is. If nothing more, those around me will talk about “those crazy Americans” and educate me. I am also well aware that many Americans frequently seek asylum in the country I am in, particularly as affairs in the USA become more and more unpredictable. All things considered, to consciously attempt to ignore the sleeping giant next door would likely be taking a huge risk on my part. I need to keep on top of American affairs.

However, the country I am in represents less than one percent of the total world population. That is, collectively, all the people in this country who are in the same sort of situation as I find myself in, make up less than one percent of the total population of the world. Furthermore, the population of the USA itself makes up approximately four percent of the total population of the world. Combined, these two countries together make up less than five percent of all currently living humans on this planet. That is, less than one in every twenty human beings currently alive, lives in either the USA or Canada. This is a simple statistic, but what is its significance? Perhaps it would help if we had something to compare it to.

The population of China is currently about eighteen and a half percent of the total population, and is the largest country in the world in this regard. India’s population comes in second with just shy of eighteen percent of the total humans currently living. That is, just these two countries (who are also neighbors ironically) make up more than a third of the total world’s population. That is, more than a third (about thirty-six percent) of all currently living human beings are on pretty well the opposite side of the globe from the USA. What I find astonishing is how little I know about the affairs of China and India, when compared to the affairs of the USA, or even Canada.

The first reasonable argument that springs to mind as to why I would be more familiar with the affairs of the USA and Canada are their proximity to me. I live within Canada, and the USA is Canada’s closest neighbor. For this reason alone, it makes sense I should be much more familiar with the affairs of these two countries. It isn’t a question of size or percentage of the world’s population; it is simply a question of the human beings who are closest to me. It makes sense for me to need to know what is going on in these two countries, as opposed to China and India. However, this cannot be said for everyone.

The Internet (and all the various communications mediums that exist on it, including all the various social media channels) spans the whole world. Media channels, such as Reddit or Twitter, exist in Canada and the USA and China and India. So, one might expect that the percentage of material and data and news found on the Internet which is concerned with each of these countries might be proportional to the number of people who exist in each of these countries. One might anticipate that approximately five percent of all news items might be concerned with Canada and the USA, while approximately thirty-six percent would be concerned with China and India. But this clearly is not the case. Why not?

One reason I can think of is that my access to the Internet is not “unmediated.” That is, when I select my source for news, I tend to receive news that is more “relevant” to me. Putting this another way, the news I receive is focused on what is going on closer to where I am. As I am in Canada, I tend to get information and news about the goings-on in Canada. As the USA is Canada’s closest neighbor, I should expect that a significant amount of my information will be about the USA as well. And unfortunately, as China and India are pretty well on the opposite side of the globe from me, practically as far away as possible, their day-to-day goings-on will be less likely to make headlines for me. Thus, proximity seems a significant part of my experience.

But what about for others? What about people who do not live in Canada or the USA, or perhaps not even on the North American continent? Does an Internet user in China receive mostly Chinese news? And Indian mostly Indian news? Honestly, I do not know; I do not reside in those areas. I would like to think so, but seeing posts on Reddit where people are asking for filters to filter out USA news would seem to suggest this is not the case. That perhaps there is a disproportionately larger focus on the USA on media channels on the Internet.

Another possibility, especially with news media, is that more significant events tend to usurp more attention than less significant events. For example, this latest possible coup attempt by Donald Trump likely hit headlines the world over, simply because there was a potential overthrowing of a government in one of the larger countries in the world. One might expect there to be much more attention given in such a spectacular incident like the storming of one of the significant governmental buildings in such a country. Not so much because it is the USA, but simply because a country seems to be in turmoil. However, as the quick Google search suggested, people have been requesting a filter to filter out USA content for some time.

I suggest there is another possibility. Perhaps the issue isn’t with regard to the proportion of human beings in various areas of the world. Perhaps the issue is where the headquarters of the various media channels reside has more to do with the situation. For example, Reddit is “an American social news aggregation, web content rating, and discussion website,” with a headquarters in San Francisco, California, USA. Similarly, Twitter is “an American microblogging and social networking service” with headquarters in San Francisco as well. In fact, Google is “an American multinational technology company that specializes in Internet-related services and products” with headquarters in Mountain View, California. Even Wikipedia (which I clearly seem to favor) is “hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, an American non-profit organization” which lists it’s location as being in San Francisco, California once again. All of these media channels are clearly focused not only in the USA, but in a very particular area of the USA, which might suggest something of a bias regarding how those products are delivered.

Another possibility to consider is the sorts of people who have access to the Internet and who are able to present information on the Internet. What I mean by this is what I was suggesting earlier, when I suggest the Chinese might be receiving predominantly Chinese news and the Indians might be receiving predominantly Indian news. Just because there are more humans in China does not automatically suggest that all of those Chinese people have Internet access and are adding material to the Internet. In fact, something that I often have to remind people in my own community is that not everyone in Canada has Internet access either. There are a lot of people in this country who cannot afford Internet access, or who live in locations where Internet access is challenging to offer.

What I am suggesting in this last point is something like a self-selection bias. Those who contribute to the content available on the Internet clearly must have access to the Internet in the first place. Thus, the knowledge and information that is shared on the Internet is already biased toward those who have Internet access. The opinions and ideas of people who do not have Internet access is going to be underrepresented on the Internet.

It reminds me of an old discussion I had with people many years ago regarding which Operating System (OS) on a computer was most user-friendly. That is, which OS was easiest for people to use, and which was more challenging. We were arguing between Microsoft Windows, Apple MacOS, and various distributions of linux. It was generally believed that Windows was the most user-friendly, with MacOS being still pretty friendly but not as friendly as Windows, and linux being entirely unfriendly. What was often dismissed was that all the people we were considering were people who both used computers somewhat regularly, and who had generally been brought up on Microsoft Windows based computers. The significant point is this: if an individual has spent most of their lives using Microsoft Windows, but very little time using either MacOS or linux, we would expect they would be quite familiar with how to use Microsoft Windows products, as they will generally operate in similar ways. A person who used Windows 95 is likely to find Windows 98 to be fairly easy to use, similtarly with Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Windows 10. Yes, there have certainly be significant changes throughout the years, but one can generally still expect there to be a little graphic in the lower-left corner of the screen that they can click to present themselves with a menu to select applications to launch.

A similar argument applies if the individual had been brought up using an Apple Macintosh computer. For them, they’d expect to click on the top-left of their screen, instead of the bottom-left. Those who had been brought up in linux tended to be much more versatile in this regard, as linux does tend to be quite flexible and versatile in this regard, with their menu potentially being wherever they want to put it. The point here is not to focus too hard on some sort of absolute trait of “user-friendliness” without first recognizing that an individual’s past history with computers will play a significant role in what they find to be “easy” and what they find to be “challenging.” Or, to formalize this a little, it is all about what Simone de Beauvoir referred to as “situation.”

Bringing this back to the discussion of what sort of content to expect to find on the Internet, if most of the people on the Internet have been brought up with certain tools and data, they are likely to continue to preference those same tools and data as time progresses. Furthermore, if people are constantly bombarded with certain cultural choices constantly, then they are likely to slowly fall into those same choices as time progresses. As the most simple example of this that I myself am guilty of right now, this blog is written in English. (I honestly do apologize to all those out there who speak other languages for forcing you to read this blog in this dreadful language. The fact that it is the only language I happen to speak fluently is not a good excuse either.)

So where does this leave us? Many (perhaps most) of the media channels being used by many people on the Internet are “living” in the USA. These mediums are USA based, were likely predominantly used by Americans in their infancy, and are to this day predominantly controlled by USA interests. As a non-American, I have sometimes found reading the end-user agreements somewhat amusing when they have made reference to American laws, rules, and other regulations which do not apply in the country I reside. There is no “First Amendment” to protect my “Freedom of Speech” in this country, though we do happen to have a “Freedom of Expression” to fall back on. Certainly similar, but not quite the same. And also worth note is that not all countries have such rules.

This all brings us back to the original point. The USA is not the center of the universe. It never has been, nor will it ever be. It is incredibly frustrating for many people (arguably most people in the world) when it is even hinted that such things are true. For me personally, I have to acknowledge a fair bit of prejudice and privilege to the USA as a result of my particular situation, but my situation is not everybody’s situation. I recognize that for someone in China or India, for example, the affairs of the USA may be the furthest thing from significance for them.

One last thing I feel it important to mention in all of this, that I hear being screamed in the back of my head by a familiar audience member: but the USA has “the nukes.” This argument suggests that the reason the Americans hold so much sway and influence over so much of our world is directly related to the fact they happen to have weapons of mass destruction, and arguably more than any other country on this planet. This is an argument of oppression; the USA is somehow justified in oppressing the rest of the world because the rest of the world could be harmed if they do not let the USA do as it pleases. While this may be true (that the USA could deliver great harm upon a great many people if it decided to utilize its weapons of mass destruction), this amounts to bullying. And as even the Americans know very, very well, one of the first strategies of dealing with bullies is to stand up to them.

“My” Wife

crimson

There are always so many things to talk about. Some topics I consider to be critically important and significant, and yet somehow I forget to talk about them. This will be one of those topics.

In our heteronormative world, when I talk to people about my partner in life, I refer to her as “my wife.” Those two words come preloaded with a plethora of meanings and ideas, most of which I do not intend. Today, I will talk about the first word, and why it is so problematic, especially for me.

The word “my” is an English word that is frequently used to elicit an understanding of ownership, possession, and even dominance. For something (or someone) to be “mine,” I am expected to have some sort of control over it. Unfortunately for me, this is the furthest thing from my intent. This fact is an issue with me that I struggle with, as I instinctively drop the word “my” frequently for many purposes. I will share with you why I have so much trouble with this word.

Let us first consider possession. To possess something means that I have some sort of control over that something. For example, at this moment, I possess this keyboard, in that I control it’s position in space and time. I grasp the keyboard and can move it around. And at this moment, I have placed it upon my lap in order to press on the keys, which is how I am typing this post. I possess this keyboard. It is my keyboard in this sense.

Possession, it seems to me, is a state, like being happy or angry. The keyboard is in the state of being possessed by me. This suggests that it can very easily cease to be possessed as well. If I place it on the table in front of me, and I walk away, I no longer possess the keyboard. The keyboard is no longer in my control. I can return, grasp the keyboard, and again I will possess it. But while I leave it unattended on the table, I do no possess it. It could certainly be argued that I still possess the keyboard, as it would be very difficult for others to come to possess it while it remains inside “my” home. Thus, in some sense, I still have some control over the keyboard, and so perhaps I still possess it even when it is unattended.

However, when the keyboard is unattended on the table, the idea (I think) most have regarding the keyboard’s state is not possession, but something else that is related: ownership. I own the keyboard, even when it is unattended. In this way, they keyboard is “mine” once again. Ownership, unlike possession, is much more difficult to clarify. With possession, an object (or person) can easily be taken away from me, such that I will no longer possess it. Someone could come into the room presently and take the keyboard off my lap and hold it outside my reach. In that case, I no longer possess that keyboard. But I may still own the keyboard.

Ownership, it seems to me, is more of an agreement than a state of affairs. An agreement between myself and others. To say that I own the keyboard, it is not necessarily I who makes the claim, but others. If those around me agree that the keyboard belongs to me, then I own the keyboard. However, if those around me decide that the keyboard does not belong to me, they will not agree with me that I own the keyboard. In fact, if others decide that the keyboard does not belong to me, they are likely to decide to take the keyboard away from me entirely. I would no longer possess nor own the keyboard in that situation.

Then there is dominance. Dominance, as I see it, is the idea of enforcement. To dominate an object is to force upon that object my possession, and possibly my ownership, over it. If I grasp the keyboard tightly and try to prevent others from taking it away from me, I am expressing a dominance over the keyboard. Whether I am successful with my dominance or not will be revealed with time, whether I continue to possess the keyboard or not. Dominance can lead to or strengthen ownership and possession. I can take actions that ensure that the object in question will remain under my control, despite the attempts of others to remove the object from my possession. This is, in some sense, where the idea that “ownership is nine tenths of the law” comes from. If I practice dominance over an object, and others are unable (or unwilling) to contradict my dominance over the object, then its remaining in my possession is a sort of acknowledgement of ownership. That is, others are forced to agree (on some level) that the object belongs to me, as they are unable to remove it from my possession.

All this talk sounds pretty elementary when applied to objects, but the ideas become much more pronounced when applied to conscious entities, especially people. I have a pet rabbit. I am considered the owner of the rabbit, in that I have some sort of control over it. If the rabbit does something inappropriate, I am the one held responsible for his actions. It would make no sense to hold me responsible for the actions of the rabbit, unless I had some sort of control over the rabbit. However, in order for me to convince the rabbit to submit to my desires, I would need to express a dominance over the rabbit. My dominance may take on any number of forms, so long as the end result is that the rabbit does as I desire it to do.

This way of seeing the relationship applies just as well with people. I can own a person, so long as those around me agree that I am the owner of the person. Furthermore, I am going to have to express some sort of dominance over the person in order to convince them to submit to my desires. I have to have some control over them, in order to be considered the owner of them. This, if it is not obvious, is a description of slavery. While I would like to think that we have, in our modern times, abolished slavery, I know through observation that this is most certainly not the case.

I have a partner in this world. Another person whom I hold dear. Another person whose projects I value and attempt to assist in finding successful completion of. This other person is one of the people in this world that I consider to be a full conscious entity, full of freedom just as I also possess. While at times I know that I could dominate her and try to control her, I spend the better part of my time trying very hard not to control her in any way. I admit I have varying degrees of success with this, but I do try. Part of the challenges I encounter in my attempts come from those around me in society. You see, as part of our relationship, we decided to marry.

I would argue that even were we not to marry, those around us would still consider our relationship in the same way as I am about to describe. However, in that we are married, I suggest that it reinforces the perceived nature of our relationship. In a heteronormative relationship, where a man is with a woman, it is considered to be the case that the man (in some way) owns the woman. As ownership is decided upon not by the owner or the thing owned, but by those around the owner, it is decided by society that I own my wife, in some way. Try as I might, it is not entirely up to me whether I have control over her. I can choose not to express a dominance, I can choose not to force her to submit to my desires; however, as I support her freedom and her projects, I sometimes end up supporting her submission to me regardless. It is a very complicated scenario, having been developed and reinforced for centuries through various traditions that came about long before I was ever conceived. The term often given to this complicated system of traditions and rules is patriarchy.

This all brings us back to the term “my.” To call her “my” wife is to, in some way, acknowledge that I have some level of dominance over her. In fact, my use of “my” is probably an expression of dominance itself. As much as I would prefer to believe that I only call her “my” wife to distinguish her from the other women out there who are committed to other heteronormative relationships with men, the truth is that those words are still conveying an idea, whether I like it or not. In truth, my only recourse to correct the situation is to not ever refer to her as “my” anything, and simply call her by her name at all times.