OnStar Subscription

I'm not one to order extras in my car or phone or tv services.  So when I watch the commercials about OnStar on TV where they describe an accident and OnStar being there for you, I can't help but wonder what would happen if I didn't subscribe to the service.  It seems to me that OnStar would still know that my car was in a crash, and that I could be hurt.  But since I haven't paid anything, the operators ignore the "crash alert".  Is this ethical?  Have there been any cases where people have died while OnStar sat by and did nothing?

The Future of Transportation

A blog I've been following written by Tan Kin Lian just alerted me to the fact that a Personal Rapid Transit system is being built at Heathrow airport.   This is really great and I hope it takes off and works correctly.  I kind of see this as a first step towards better transportation for the world as well as the next big economic and productive revolution.  If done well, this system should be able to cut down traffic deaths (30,000 in the US annually), reduce commuting times drastically, and reduce the costs of transportation for everyone.

The only problem I see with the proposed system is that it's on wheels instead of rails.  I really think that a track system, similar to those used on roller coasters, or a maglev system would be magnitudes better than a wheel on road system.  There's less friction on a track, higher speeds possible, improved safety, ability to power vehicles through the track, and I believe less expense.

While I'm very excited about the system, I hope a track system is considered soon after.  I've sent a letter to the company asking about tracks, not really expecting much in terms of response, but I think it'll be interesting to hear what they say.  I will post again when they respond.

Gays and Lesbians in a Church setting

I am currently a member of a Lutheran Church in Colorado.  I am not heavily involved, but I have been watching developments in the way churches treat Gay and Lesbian members.  Our particular church has always been fairly conservative, so it is no surprise that when the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America), decided to open up to Homosexuals that our church did not go along.  Turns out quite a large number of churches are not in favor of this move and many are leaving the ELCA to form a new governing Lutheran body.  I feel like I am the middle of a church separation.  I can't imagine this happens very often, but it seems like down the road we may have two separate denominations of Lutheran churches and I was there when it happened.

Do I think the church is doing the right thing?  Well, all churches are accepting of sinners into their congregation.  They do preach against the practice and I imagine they request that those members repent and change their ways.  However, very few, if any, homosexuals attend our church (as far as I know).  The place where the churches seem to draw the line is in the appointment of homosexuals as clergy.  I guess the reasoning would be that nobody who is actively and willingly committing what the church considers sin, should be allowed in the clergy.  It's a fair point.  However, I don't think it's right for the church or any of it's members to judge another.  In addition, the church itself would likely admit that we are all sinners.  So how can anyone be allowed into the clergy?  I guess the distinction here would be those who are willing.  So then let's look at a different example.  What about people who get divorced?  I know of many in the church who are and they don't seem to get preached against.  Are they not willingly sinning in breaking their vows to their partner and to God?  I think this is one case where churches should examine their bias against homosexuality and ask if they are being consistent, or simply bigots.

WWJD?  Would Jesus tell a homosexual human being that they would have to cast down their lifestyle if they wanted to follow him?  Or would he tell the person to follow and spread the word?  What if a person was getting a divorce?  Could that person spread the word of God along side Jesus?  What's the difference?  Is there a difference?

Describing people by their skin tone.

Here in the United States, it is very common for people to describe their ethnicity, or really, who they are by their appearance.  For example, if you take a person from England, or France, and move them to the United States, any children born in the US will be indistinguishable from any other American.  These people when asked, which they usually aren't, will likely respond that they are white, or American, not French or English.  Take instead someone from China or Mexico.  After several generations, their appearance may be very similar to that of someone still living in China or Mexico.  These people will likely associate with the group of people that looks most like them, Chinese, or Mexican, or possibly Asian or Hispanic.  While I don't have a problem with this and believe that people can associate however they feel is most accurate, I believe that classifying a person by their appearance, even yourself, is racist and doesn't do anyone any good.

When someone associates with a specific group, saying "I am ", this appears to claim a lot when too many people use it in a shallow manner.  I think that claim should come with requirements:  
1.  Speak the language.
2.  Participate in cultural traditions.
3.  Live with 1st generation immigrants from that area, or keep close contact and visit with relatives or friends from the origin country or area.
4.  Visit the country.

I recently had a co-worker that I challenged on this.  He claimed he was "Chinese".  He didn't speak Chinese, had never been to China, and did not celebrate any Chinese traditions.  In fact, his parents and grandparents did not do any of these things either.  My claim was that he was no more Chinese than I was.  He disagreed strongly.  I believe he cheapens the term Chinese and uses it solely because of how he looks.

My children are very white with red hair and freckles.  They are 1/4 Mexican.  They will probably never describe themselves as Mexican even though they do speak Spanish, have visited Mexico several times and have close relatives that still live in Mexico that they visit.  It really does come down to appearance.

The solution:  Let's do away with these kinds of labels.  If you claim "I am ", think hard about what that means.  Is that really the single overriding characteristic you should use to describe yourself?  When you describe others, are you assuming someone is from a specific area or are you labeling them based on appearance alone?  My children have rarely heard us use labels the way many of our friends do.  Because of this, we never hear them describe people by their appearance.  I know this won't last long as it is a societal norm, but the more people we have thinking about this and trying to behave differently, the better we will be as a community.  Learn about people.  Describe them in words that really tell who they really are.  And if you mean to describe their skin color, then by all means, say that instead of labeling them.  "The tall sensitive man with the light skin..." or "An inquisitive older man sat next to me..."  

Follow the White Moose

Humans as a group are funny.  We like to try and help the environment.  We try and help animals that "need" helping.  Often, we don't understand the implications or the possible outcomes, but we do what we think is right anyway.

One example: http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/albinomoose.asp.  So, what is the right thing to do if we see a strange mutation in a species?  The human reaction is to "protect" it.  Lets preserve the white moose.  What is really happening?  Why is it important to preserve this rarity?  I think that people have been conditioned to consider rarity as valuable.  So, if we find something rare, we should treat it differently.  Really I don't know what kind of effect we might have on the animal population as a whole, but if we're hunting brown moose and protecting white moose, doesn't that have an effect on the gene pool?  Is that good for the species?  Is it good for the ecosystem in general?  What will the world be like 30 generations from now when 20% of moose are white instead of the small minority we have now?

Crowds and the News

I'm currently reading What Would Google Do, by Jeff Jarvis (I hope to write a full report later), but one of the things he talks about is giving consumers control over what a producer makes.  One example he uses is the news.  I think this is a bad example of the wisdom of crowds.  (This topic fascinates me.  At some point I might just have to change the title of the blog.)  Ideally, news would consist of what is most important or historically relevant.  Instead, the news gives us 2 weeks of a hoax about an over-sized helium balloon. The media caters to what the crowd wants and we get garbage.  I want a system that denies people the garbage and reports on good "quality" news.  I don't have a good idea for that yet or I'd write about it.  I'm open to suggestions.

Suicide Problem in Japan

This article is amazing:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33622388/ns/health-mental_health/ 

There are several things here that jump out at me.
1.  30,000 deaths attributed to suicide?
2.  Installing blue lights with no research, no studies, just a "hope this helps".
3.  There is an underlying problem here that Japan should be worried about.

Here's my first attempt at getting a "crazy" rating on a post:  I really think there should be a suicide process to help people either commit suicide or not.  Some people would probably be better off.  Let's setup suicide centers where people go in and tell their story.  Counselors are on hand to tell them whether or not they really have it bad.  If they do, assisted suicide is available.  If they don't, then counselors could point out a different strategy, help them get on with a relatively good life.  I think worst case the suicide levels stay the same, but then we have a little more filtering on the people who do commit suicide and there's much less stress, cleanup, and delay.

Is there some other solution that would help more.  The goals:  fewer suicides, humane suicide, discrete suicide, counseling for people who are thinking about suicide.

A follow up on the wisdom of the collective.

I get really frustrated when politicians run their office with the purpose of being re-elected.  Deciding what policies to go with depending on the polling numbers just sounds wrong to me.  I know that some of that is due to democracy, but in some cases, a leader just needs to forget about what your voters will say and fix the problem.  If people weren't so worried about being re-elected, I bet we'd have a solution to health care and social security by now.  The reason we don't is that there is no solution that will please everyone.

I want to see politicians declare at what stage of their political lives they will decide to actually accomplish something and not worry about re-election or worry about how their party will do in the next election.  Can you imagine if Obama decided now that he would not seek re-election in 2012?  

Wisdom of the collective

I know I said I would read the book and then post about it, but I have to write down my thoughts as this idea just doesn't seem like it should work.  The problem I have is that the collective works selfishly.  I guess this is why betting on ideas or predictions helps because it shifts the focus of gain from getting what you want to getting the decision right.

However, in the case of deciding on the right policy, or the right rules, or laws, I don't think selfishness can be overcome.  One specific example I think of is the price of gas.  When gas was at an all time high, near $4 a gallon, people were making a noticeable difference in their driving habits.  I would argue that the best thing for people, and the world, as a whole is to drive up the price of gas so we are forced to use less.  Can anyone argue that using less gas is bad?  I think this is something that would be hard to decide as a collective because of selfishness.  In our democracy, this would also be very hard to implement as any politician that proposes a $2 hike in gas tax would surely be replaced at the first opportunity.

Another example would be benefits given to employees.  Could employees as a whole somehow come up with a benefit system that was good for the employees and yet would not drive the company into the ground?

How could we implement the "wisdom of crowds" and still get the "right" decisions?

Gambling put to good use.

Check out this article on making decisions through gambling http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2006/09/01/8384339/index.htm

Pretty interesting. I wonder if this could be put to good use on a small team? I would also wonder why the actual stock exchange isn't a better predictor of a company's success. I suppose the stock market has other factors involved such as automated trading and more emotions. I think this topic needs more research. I wonder if there is a point where it becomes less accurate, like when your livelihood or retirement is at stake.