Hansen's MagNET

[DRAFT]

Yesterday I went to a screening of David Bollier’s 46-minute film “This Land Is Our Land”. It’s a great film, being more objective than the usual propagandist activist flickers. It made me think.

Being a hyper-skeptic I found myself tumbling with problems with a commons-based society, although I fancy the idea. But before I begin my raid, let me first quote On the Commons, so you will know what a commons-based society is:

“A commons-based society refers to a shift in values and policies away from the market-based system that dominates modern society, especially over the past 30 years. The foundation of the market is narrowly focused on private wealth, while the commons is built upon what we all share—air, water, public spaces, public health, public services, the Internet, cultural endowments and much more.

One of the most compelling ideas being raised today is the possibility of evolving from a market-based society to a commons-based society. The commons has always been an element of human civilization. But its central role in sustaining all societies has recently been rediscovered, inspiring new lines of thinking in fields ranging from high technology to public health to business.

A commons-based society is one that values and protects commons assets, managing them for the benefit of everyone. Market-based solutions would be valuable tools in a commons-based society, as long as they do not undermine the workings of the commons itself.”

An appealing idea, for sure. [to be continued...]

We live in a time where individualism has been pedestaled as a concept of pure virtue, along with freedom and democracy. But is our individualistic way of being really in our own best interest? I don’t think so, at least not always. However, companies want consumers to be individualistic – so each and everyone buys their products. If people were less individualistic, in their way of thinking and acting, they could share the products. Let me give a couple of examples.

Transportation

Most often there is one person in each vehicle, although most vehicles have room for four-five people. Often you see the same caravan of vehicles going one way in the morning, and the other way in the evening, bringing people from the same little town to work in a bigger city nearby. With little effort, three, four or five people could share one vehicle. But that would be an anti-individualistic approach to life, the opposite of what the ads in TV, on billboards and in consumer magazines teach us to be. And there is virtually no drawback to sharing like this. Yes, it might take a little longer to get to and from work, but this is more than made up for, by the time we are freed now that we only have to pay for one-third, one-forth or one-fifth of the gas-hungry piece of metal that brings us there.

Entertainment

And what about our music and movie collection – do we really need it? I don’t know about you, but I can only listen to one CD at a time, or watch one DVD at a time. So why do million of people have hundreds of CD’s and DVD’s? It makes absolutely no sense. Especially when you realize that friends tend to favor the same kind of music and the same kind of movies. Imagine if a group of friends had a shared list with all the CD’s and DVD’s they had. Every time someone bought a new piece of sliced culture they would add it to the list, so no one else wasted their time and treasure buying the same thing. This would save everyone a whole lot, and it might even motivate people to watch their movies together – which is a lot more fun than sitting alone starring into the one-dimensional world called a flatscreen-TV. But no, no, no – that’s not what the companies wants. They want each and everyone of us to be good, well-tamed individual consumers. It’s in their interest that we are individualistic, not in ours.

Housework and fun

In winter people need to clear their driveways, so each and every house along the road has a shovel and a wheelbarrow, although there is no law saying they all have to do the fifteen-minute routine at the exact same time of the day. So, no reason for every household to own a shovel and wheelbarrow. In summer the same applies. Why in the world would everyone have a lawnmower? They might as well share one, right? Or is that so anti-individualistic that it borders communism – the root of all evil? And what about those skies, snowboard, mountain bikes, tents and backpacks found in almost every garage? Except for the few outdoor enthusiast, most people have this gear laying around for tens of hours for every hour the gear is in use. So – again – the question is: why not share it?

I could go on, but I’m sure you get the picture. If you can offer any good reasons for not adoption a more anti-individualistic way of living, please do so in the comment section below.

The typical approach to lightweight hiking is to look at solutions based on the equipment we are carrying. I suggest a different approach: to look at what we can do ourselves – to ourselves – to reduce the load on our backs. In short, the answer is: acclimation.

It’s obvious, really. The more sensitive you are to cold weather, the more insulation you will need. And insulation can be heavy. However, your sensitivity to harsh temperatures and winds are not carved in stone. You can, with a systematic approach to it, acclimatize yourself radically – in just two months. I know, I did it – and as a result I now carry a lot less than my hiking companions.

Let me give you an example. Yesterday, I was out hiking for five hours in the Holyoke Range State Park in Western Massachusetts. We walking – in boots and snowshoes – in more than knee-deep snow, in 13-26 Fahrenheit, with mild winds. Most of the people were covered in a shell, a fleece and a base layer, as well as ski pants with one or more layers below, insulated winter boots, gaiters, two pairs of gloves and scarfs. In comparison, I was wearing a long cotton shirt and a wool base, water repellent cotton trousers with a base below, all-year leather boots, a neck warmer, relatively thin gloves, a hat, and a wool sweater hanging over my shoulders (since it didn’t fit in my tiny bag). And half the time I even took of my gloves and hat, not to overheat. When stopping to get something to eat, I got in my wool sweater. And, believe it or not, I was not cold at all.

So, next time you are contemplation how to reduce the load you are carrying, I suggest you put that catalog – with all the expensive lightweight equipment – away, and instead focus on what you yourself can do. It will cost you nothing, it will be fun, and after a couple of months you will be less of a sissy, and as a consequence you will be travelling lighter. It’s better for your back, your hips and your knees, and it makes the whole experience much more enjoyable.

In an upcoming post I will explain how you can acclimatize yourself. All you need is an indoor/outdoor thermometer and a notebook.

According to a scientific paper from 2008, by Ralph L. Keeney, titled “Personal Decisions Are the Leading Cause of Death”, 45 % of all deaths in the United States are “premature and can be attributed to personal decisions with readily available alternatives”. This is worse than ever. In 1950 this percentage was 20-25 %, and in 1900 it was roughly 5 %. It seems we are getting more and more careless, in the literal meaning of the word. So, a question arises: why the f… do people kill themselves? And further: why am I paying for it?

Dying – by choice

The two personal decisions that kill most people are smoking and being fat (thanks to a lack of exercise and an idiotic diet). Each of these decisions account for around 40 % of all premature deaths attributable to personal decisions. The remaining 20 % are caused by alcoholic diseases (overdrinking), accidents (driving while drinking, speeding, not using seat belts etc.), suicide, unprotected sex, homicide (criminality, joining gangs, carrying weapons), and the use of illicit drugs.

Staying alive – by choice

It’s simple, really. Don’t smoke, don’t eat like a pig – but run around and play in the mud like one – and you have reduced your own impact on a premature (and most likely horrible) death by a little more than 80 %. Also, you will cost me less, since I will not have to pay your medical bills (if you live in a country with healthcare paid for by our taxes). So, I beg you: get a freaking grip on yourself. Please!

On August 31, 2010, a scientific paper with the pocket-sized title “Long-running German panel survey shows that personal and economic choices, not just genes, matter for happiness” was published in PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America). The paper sums up a 25-year long empirical study about happiness, and is – according to the authors of the paper – a direct test of set-point theory. Set-point theory holds that long-term adult happiness is stable, and depends mainly on genetic factors and personality traits molded in early life. Set-point theory has been widely accepted, but the verdict of the German study is clear: set-point theory is flawed. Luckily, one might add.

If set-point theory was sound, our level of happiness through life – or lack thereof – would be a consequence of our parents (their genes and their parenting), rather than our own choices. And that would be no fun, would it? So despite claims like “trying to be happier may be as futile as trying to be taller” (Lykken and Tellegen, 1996), it now seems as if we stand a chance of escaping our genes – and our parents, if needed.

To some extend this is nothing new, previously the branch of psychology called positive psychology has shown a correlation between character strength, religion, volunteering and acts of kindness with happiness. However, all previous studies have dealt with the short-term impact. The German study is looking at the long-term effects of personal (as well as economic) choices. Great! So, now the question is: what can we do?

Neuroticism – no, thank you

First, stop being neurotic. Neuroticism affects, not surprisingly, your life satisfaction in a downward direction. Quite a bit (-21 percent) actually. But neuroticism isn’t a choice, is it? Well, according to the German study adult personality is stable, but I think our personality is plastic, although barely so. It seems like we can overcome – or reduce – our neurotic traits, if we make a decision about it, and work on it. Anyway, even if we can’t, we can surely make a choice about which partner we choose. And choosing a neurotic partner will also affect our life satisfaction, by no less than 9 percent. So make sure your to-be partner takes a personality test (like the NEO-AC) before you find yourself in times of trouble, oh, Mother Mary.

Do not focus on your career and your material success

The paper also looked at how people prioritize in life, and how this relates to their life satisfaction. And it turns out that people who prioritize non-zero sum altruistic goals or family goals are better of than those who prioritize their careers and material success the most. Persistently prioritizing altruistic goals adds 36 percent to the life satisfaction, family priorities adds 26 percent. But prioritizing success and material goals subtracts – yes, subtracts – 21 percent. And still a lot of people are extremely focused on career and material wealth. When it comes to family, women are highly affected by how much their partners focus on this. Women gains 24 percent in life satisfaction if their partners highly prioritize family.

It’s also worth noting that the religious people in the study tend to give a higher priority to altruistic and family goals, and lower priority to success goals, than the nonbelievers. And religious people also seems be spend more time on volunteer activities. So, from a life satisfaction perspective, religious people might have an edge. However, their advantage might have little to do with their religious faith, and more to do with the altruistic and family values often associated with religious groups. In other words: the same life satisfaction might be attained by nonbelievers – if they adopt the value system, without the dogma.

Don’t work too much, don’t work too little

People who work more hours than they would like are affected a tiny bit (-2 percent) in the negative direction. Working less than the preferred working hours is worse (-8 percent). The author of the paper suggest that this is because lost consumption rankles worse than lost leisure. But being unemployed is what really hurts. For men there is a dump in life satisfaction by no less than 51 percent, for women the negative impact of being unemployed is 30 percent. So will high unemployment rates give rise to a national depression? It might, unless people come to terms with their situation. My guess is that the negative impact of unemployment is related to a sense of worthlessness and failure. However, being unemployed – in the current state of affairs – seems to have less to do with the worth of the individual, and more to do with a failed system. If people would realize this, they might be able to disassociate unemployment with personal worthlessness and failure.

To be continued…

I don’t know where to begin, I really don’t. I have an idea of what I want to do, but it’s kind of vague. And it freaks me out. The thing is, I’m in a multi-dimension dilemma. It feels like hundreds of people are pulling me, all in different directions. If that sounds like confusion, it’s because it is. However, what makes me dizzy is that, while all these fata morgana people pulls me in different directions, they do it for the same reason. They all want the same, they just don’t know how to get there – and they all try to bring me along.

But what is it they want? It’s simple really. Happiness. That’s it, and that’s that. But they disagree on how to reach this state. And meanwhile, I’m trying to tell them I’m already perfectly happy as it is. But I don’t think they believe me, or maybe they think my current state of happiness will not last forever – and that’s what they are all pursuing: happiness, always and forever and now.

Luckily, they agree on one thing: happiness isn’t something one can’t buy. In fact, they seems to all agree that the less I want to happier I will be. And I guess they are right, although unchaining myself from the common belief that happiness is more or less proportional to how much gold I spend. But I’m getting there, I’m getting there.

Except for Salma Hayak’s tantalizing trajectory there is one other thing from Rodriguez’ 2003 flicker “Once Upon a Time in Mexico” that keeps making certain chunks of my corpus sprinkle. It’s this line, uttered by the drunken bandit Fideo: “A man who wants nothing is invincible, cabron.” The quote comes from a rather dumb movie, but the quote itself – torn from it’s sexy splatter context – might not be dumb at all. In fact, it might be the wisest thing any man (drunken or not) ever said. I specifically say “any man ever said”, since it’s highly unlikely that at least seventy-something bucketful of women haven’t said something way more clever and cunning, educated and enlightened, perceptive and prudent, sane and sophic, tactful – as well as witty. However, being just a humble walking stick, born and breed for the sole purpose of entertaining the daughters, mothers and grandmothers around me, I know my limits (somewhat) – and have learned to find joy, sputter and sprawl in the insignificant things my male intellect (or lack thereof) permits me.

This line – “A man who wants nothing is invincible, cabron” – again and again makes my grey morass sprinke and sparkle. And not only does it help me see life in a blazingly brilliant light, it also makes me – involuntarily – smile the biggest smile my face can accommodate without my jaw snapping. Why? you might wonder, and so do I. I wonder so much that I’ve begun praying that it’s a worthwhile question to ponder. If it’s not, my life would quickly fall in the category: a wasted life.

But, on a more serious note, can it really be true – that a man who wants nothing is invincible? I don’t mean literally (I’m not that dumb) – of course a man who wants nothing can get hurt if he stands at the unfortunate end of Dirty Harry’s gun on a grim day, or if an angry samurai or superhero cuts him in half. But what if no Dirty Harry, samurai or superhero takes the mans life? Can anyone then take anything from him? Well, yes – everything he owns can be taken from him, but will it matter? Will it make him suffer? I guess not. And that’s why I’ve become obsessed with this question. I don’t want to suffer, and the man who wants nothing might hold the key to keeping suffering at bay. But can we teach ourselves to want nothing, and – if so – can we do so without becoming as indifferent as robots to the joys of life?

To be continued…

When I was living in Bremen, a beautiful city in the north of Germany, I noticed something strange one day biking along the river. The raindrops were the size of M&M’s, and they came down as hard and fast as gravity and air pressure would permit. Within a short minute I was soaked, but I kept pedaling away. Unlike the Germans – on bikes and on foot – who all rushed to the nearest tree along the river, where they stayed so still I thought I was looking at a photo from a long, not forgotten time. And that’s when a strange idea was conceived in my silly head: was this hiding beneath the trees a habit the poor German bastards acquired during World War II when bombs were dropped on them like poop from a battalion of geese suffering from diarrhea? I mean, why else would all these German people rush under trees when something as pleasant as raindrops suddenly came down from the sky? Danes, who haven’t been “pavloved” (conditioned like dogs) to the same extend does not hide beneath trees when it rains. So, there might be a correlation between a national trauma and this mysterious habit of the German people. If so – I wondered – do all Americans rush out of skyscrapers when they see a plane in the sky?

Just a thought.