֎ Several weeks ago mariner read an article about why old people don’t wash. ‘don’t wash’ isn’t an absolute term; the article was suggesting that cleanliness became more arbitrary and a matter of necessity rather than maintaining cultural norms for cleanliness. The larger point was that it is the cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries that set social norms. When at work, we may feel obligated to shave or smell a certain way or perhaps not wear jeans or certain styles of clothing. When retired from the daily obligations of society, old folks don’t feel the need to maintain a supply of different odors, sixteen different teeth whiteners and unnecessary chemicals to alter wrinkles and eye shadow. A bar of soap, a tube of toothpaste, maybe a deodorant if the oldster is wearing diapers; maybe a sponge bath at the sink instead of showers.
The article reinforced the notion that, if any influence can reach the subconscious, our behavior will be modified. It is job one for the subconscious to adapt to the external world – that is a critical survival skill. It’s just that the external world is jammed with artificial information to take money from you or get you to vote a certain way, or maybe marry someone you saw on the smartphone. Those $1,000 sneakers would sure make me look good! It’s all about surviving in the real world – however humans choose to define it.
֎ Culling through several polls over recent weeks, he saw that a noticeable percentage of Gen Z (today aged 12-27) were favoring Donald. On those occasions when the respondents were interviewed, their feelings were that everything was a mess and, more importantly, no one seems to be fixing anything – perhaps Donald appears more rambunctious and may at least try. Gen Z choices reflected other perspectives as well, a new generation whose roots are not buried in the soil of Reagan’s indifference toward labor, feel more liberal about social mores (homosexuals, abortion, importance of college, and don’t carry the scars of the past century, etc.). Mariner assumes that Gen Z is more accustomed to 21st century electronics thereby not being as distracted as older generations may be. It’s all about surviving in the real world – however humans choose to define it.
֎ The economic, scientific and environmental objectives affected by global warming are producing a Shakespearean drama. Each emphasis is taking independent paths in response to the claims (and current validations) of a warming planet. Each claims that it’s approach is the only moral path to managing the climate. Economics is trying very hard to pretend it is helping by inventing new processes for offsetting the impact of fossil fuels by storing gases in the ocean, for example.
The scientific approach is exploring new ideas like blocking the Sun’s heat in the atmosphere, growing food in miles-large greenhouses with recycled water and vertical gardens and incorporating useless deserts and swamps to support endless solar panels.
The environmentalists are planting trees, promoting home gardening on the front lawn, advocating changes in people’s habits relating to water usage and reducing food dependence on herd animals – or better yet, become a vegan. Environmentalists also pursue re-balancing nature, e.g., reintroduce wolves in Wyoming, saving the polar bear and curtailing dependence on seafood.
Each approach is pursued with an ethical assumption about how to make the world cooler. Yet the approaches are distinctly different in how they would change human behavior. For example, economists would say “continue to drive cars”, scientists would say “Don’t worry, we’ll invent something new” and environmentalists would say “Turn back the behavior of humans”.
Stay tuned, all three will make entertaining news.
Ancient Mariner