One day, last week, at my child's middle school, all periods were reduced by a few minutes each - to make time for a presentation on a magazine sale program. The students were offered powerful incentives to sell magazines for the school - cash, limo rides, special recognition at school and many others.
This is one of the many "selling" programs they have at this age - children sell sell gift-wrap for their science classes, cookie dough for their sports teams, car-washes for their club teams, girl-scout cookies for their troops, ...
There are people making money from these campaigns. The companies producing these goods and services are probably the biggest beneficiaries. The school/organization gets a small amount and the student gets a reward. Is this the right thing to be teaching students, and is it appropriate to put this pressure on the children (and parents) - "there isn't enough money, so you need to earn."
It is a pity that a learning environment is being exploited to convert students into salespeople.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Men and power vs. biological instincts
People have been asking this question since the dawn of man "Why would a man risk everything - his reputation, his family, his freedom - for a few seconds of sexual exploitation" as is expressed in this "For Better Or For Worse" comic strip at http://www.fborfw.com/strip_fix/archives/002159.php The relevant portion of which is reproduced below. (With appropriate copyright acknowledgement).
The reason is the same as why a male praying mantis engages in mating, in spite of knowing that his head is going to be chewed off by the female during the act.
Obviously, it isn't an instant gratification issue; it is ingrained in our biology. Maybe, this is explained by the theory that biologically, we want to propagate our genes. So, we look for all opportunities to increase chances -- even if it means dying himself, as in the case of praying mantis, or losing everything we have, in the case of some humans. Or, attempting to fight the alpha male - as is the case of many mammals.
If it is biological, why do more men not do it? Because the human society has created rules. So, the question that is to be asked is - why is it that some people are able to follow rules, and keep their biological instincts under check.
So, it isn't power, as the comic strip seems to imply. It is the lack of power over biological instincts that is driving this behavior.
The reason is the same as why a male praying mantis engages in mating, in spite of knowing that his head is going to be chewed off by the female during the act.
Obviously, it isn't an instant gratification issue; it is ingrained in our biology. Maybe, this is explained by the theory that biologically, we want to propagate our genes. So, we look for all opportunities to increase chances -- even if it means dying himself, as in the case of praying mantis, or losing everything we have, in the case of some humans. Or, attempting to fight the alpha male - as is the case of many mammals.
If it is biological, why do more men not do it? Because the human society has created rules. So, the question that is to be asked is - why is it that some people are able to follow rules, and keep their biological instincts under check.
So, it isn't power, as the comic strip seems to imply. It is the lack of power over biological instincts that is driving this behavior.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Is population growth on the planet no longer a problem?
In the 60's, 70's and early 80's, people all over the world worried about population growth. Countries like China and India were constantly pointed out as places where the growth was out of control. There were scenarios painted about what happens in crowded societies. Studies of rats in mazes were done, "proving" some of those assertions.
Sometimes, however, it felt like unfair criticism. After all, both India and China had lower density of population (number of people per square kilometer - or mile) than Europe. And, Europe did not seem to be moving towards the problems pointed out in these scenarios.
China started a successful program to control population. India too started a program - largely unsuccessful.
Fast forward to the early part of this century. There is no talk at all about population growth - in spite of the fact that half of India's current population was born in the 80's and after.
Why is it that the current generation and current dialog do not consider population to be a problem? Is it that:
- The planet's carrying capacity has increased (no evidence of that exists)
- The doomsday scenarios painted earlier have not come true (we have not yet reached the point of crowding that the scenarios would be evident in)
- We have all become focused on the short term, and no longer worry about the long term
- We have confidence that a solution will be found (to whatever problems we confront)
- Large populations serve a purpose - a source of effort (intellectual and physical) for improving the quality of lives for everyone; people that were considered a burden earlier, are now contributors
Some of these may be inter-related, and many are indeed true, but that is not the primary reason for lack of interest in population growth.
The dialog has now shifted - from population, to environment; which is where it should have been right from the beginning. Clearly, population was a proxy for anticipated problems on earth. Now that we are beginning to see these problems (e.g. global warming), people are tackling the real issues.
Population growth isn't the problem, but controlling it can be one part of a the answer. And, it is time the world started talking about it again - along with reducing our consumption, finding technology to reduce our carbon footprints etc.
Sometimes, however, it felt like unfair criticism. After all, both India and China had lower density of population (number of people per square kilometer - or mile) than Europe. And, Europe did not seem to be moving towards the problems pointed out in these scenarios.
China started a successful program to control population. India too started a program - largely unsuccessful.
Fast forward to the early part of this century. There is no talk at all about population growth - in spite of the fact that half of India's current population was born in the 80's and after.
Why is it that the current generation and current dialog do not consider population to be a problem? Is it that:
- The planet's carrying capacity has increased (no evidence of that exists)
- The doomsday scenarios painted earlier have not come true (we have not yet reached the point of crowding that the scenarios would be evident in)
- We have all become focused on the short term, and no longer worry about the long term
- We have confidence that a solution will be found (to whatever problems we confront)
- Large populations serve a purpose - a source of effort (intellectual and physical) for improving the quality of lives for everyone; people that were considered a burden earlier, are now contributors
Some of these may be inter-related, and many are indeed true, but that is not the primary reason for lack of interest in population growth.
The dialog has now shifted - from population, to environment; which is where it should have been right from the beginning. Clearly, population was a proxy for anticipated problems on earth. Now that we are beginning to see these problems (e.g. global warming), people are tackling the real issues.
Population growth isn't the problem, but controlling it can be one part of a the answer. And, it is time the world started talking about it again - along with reducing our consumption, finding technology to reduce our carbon footprints etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)