by Ethan Johnson
July 14, 2006

Brad Gibson responds to one of my recent articles:

I have contemplated a wired conversation where action is more meaningful than activity.

To play "idea pong" along these lines, I am going to cover a lot of ground in a tight space. In short, I agree with Brad that many people (bloggers or otherwise) are very wrapped up in the "now" and aren't thinking long-term or "big picture". For example, when people speak of wanting "[political party here] to win", this strikes me as being more "reactive" or grounded in short-term wins-and-losses thinking as opposed to being part of a Grand Plan. Here are some points to ponder that will surely be explored in greater detail either here at ethmar.com, or by others who partake in "idea pong". Here comes the serve!

"No" is not a plan: I have written in the past about what I call negative goals. To briefly summarize, negative goals don't actually provide an expected or desired outcome to work toward, but instead define what is not desired or expected. For example:

Q: What do you want for dinner tonight?
A: Not chicken!

Many times, people rail against something but do not define what the ideal, progressive solution might be. I say "progressive" in that the solution is a step forward, such as air conditioning being more progressive than dying of heat stroke. I do not mean "progressive" as a replacement for the term "liberal", which is an article unto itself. In terms of political activism, issues are often defined in terms of "yes or no" as opposed to "here's where we'll be if we all agree to/disagree to [whatever]."

Forward or Backward? Now this indeed will be the subject of some forthcoming articles, but I found an amazing keynote speech from 2002 by David Brin. In reviewing the rest of his site, the speech seems to be an amalgamation of several items found elsewhere, but if one is to pick only one page to read the speech is highly recommended. In it, he talks about "forward" and "backward" thinking. Essentially, he urges the reader to consider everyone's point of view and ask if they are endorsing a forward (progressive) position, or backward (regressive). If the speaker is envisioning a world that has yet to come to pass, this is progressive. If the speaker wants the world to go back to how it was in 1958, that is regressive, even if this idealized world were to come about in the future. This is excellent advice and I have put it to good use. It is interesting to evaluate political rhetoric in this manner and notice how regressive many ideals are. Often these ideals are marked with regressive language, like "let's go back to the time when," or "we need to return to..." Not that regressive language and ideals are all bad. Sometimes it is best to return to the fundamentals and build up from there, especially if circumstances are spiralling out of control otherwise. I will note here that rhetoric concerning the Ten Commandments as the ideal are equally matched by longing for "what the Framers (of the US Constitution) intended." Strictly in semantic terms, both ideals are regressive.

Conservation as Regression: I found an interesting blog called The Ergosphere. The author deals with gas/oil consumption and what car companies are doing to either improve feul economy, or what innovations are being sparked to introduce new (and better) fuel sources. An open letter to US voters contains some good information and suggestions, but ends on a highly regressive note:

Realize that oil dependency damages the USA. Treat it that way. Tax the heck out of motor fuel (and anything else that doesn't just move consumption overseas). Encourage people to cut back any way they can. We don't have the vehicles to get around without oil, but nobody's going to build them unless people will buy them. Nobody will buy them unless it pays. Tax oil so that it pays to use something else!

Quit whining about how high prices "hurt the poor". You think the poor aren't hurting now? They would be hurting a lot less if most cars got 50 MPG or took half their energy from electricity. Why don't they?

The first suggestion is regressive in that it urges oil/gas conservation and increased taxation, but doesn't really spell out what the "something else" is that we might opt for instead. I am not charging the author with the responsibility of defining the "something else", but rather am highlighting this as a common battle cry that we would do well to examine beyond the knee-jerk call for conservation/essentially punitive taxation. And I do agree that conservation is critical.

The second suggestion is regressive in that it looks backward to ostensibly better times (before the poor became worse off) and discouraging present-day "whining". Again, I would personally prefer to see something more chewy regarding progressive steps that might be taken to drive innovation and encourage adoption of alternative fuels and technologies. The problem of poverty existed when gas prices were low, and exists today. This is not to discount the needs of the poor, but rather to note that progressive solutions speak to how the poor will benefit, as opposed to discouraging complaints about the poor. As an aside, vehicles that get 50 mpg aren't in wide circulation, so it is a stretch to think that the poor somehow can afford these cutting-edge vehicles. The poor either can't afford a car outright, or drive older models.

Progress wanting, progress found: I am still investigating ways to either conserve energy, or to adopt technologies that relieve our dependence on more traditional (read: expensive and environmentally unfriendly) energy sources. For example, while it may be expensive to power our entire home with solar, why not power something with solar? Or find a solution that either draws less power or none at all?

I was really excited to learn about Tesla Motors. Their new roadster is decidedly aimed at the rich-and-can-afford it set, but the point is, the seeds are being planted. Tesla is one of a few new car companies that are innovating with electric-only cars. Dilbert had a strip once where Dogbert quips about oil being "fungible", and that anyone who buys a Prius or like-minded hybrid vehicle is demonstrating one's ignorance of the definition of "fungible". The point being that it's not a matter of reducing our dependence on foreign oil, but rather any oil. Astute readers will note that walking does not ultimately reduce our dependence on oil, as oil is used in many other things. But less gas/heating oil used = less oil demand = (theoretically) lower cost for goods that require oil. I view electric-only cars as progressive, for the record. Walking is regressive, yet beneficial (and "free").

What is dreamt of in your philosophy? From time to time I advocate the practice of "knowing yourself". Easy for me to say - I am as clueless as the next person in that regard. But in seriousness, an examination of your beliefs and how they impact your reality (and by extension, our reality) is extremely beneficial and illuminating. David Brin has an interesting questionnaire aimed at one's political sensibilities, but it is clever enough that I think it serves as a good jumping-off point for deeper self-examination. And it is a good tool for determining if your ideals are largely progressive, stagnant, or regressive. Are you working toward these ideals? Or standing still hoping that the world decides to reflect your ideals without your active involvement?

Your serve. <EM>