Math that matters (Part I–Missing Women)

If we want kids/adults to learn math, we might as well make it relevant. Here are a few relevant calculations (that employ nothing more than algebra) which I find very relevant to our future. Imagine these calculations being taught to an 8th grade algebra class! Here is the first installment:

Missing women

Most people are not aware that females were systematically removed from the population during the 20th Century and it is a practice that continues today. How do we know? Well, as Nobel Prize winning economist, Amartya Sen, noted back in the 1990s, if we look at sex ratios of nations, we find several that have ratios that are far from 1:1. Pakistan and China have ratios of 0.94:1 and India has a ratio of 0.93:1 (in 2016) (these numbers are pretty much the same as they were in 1990, though Pakistan has improved slightly from 0.91:1). Given that women live longer than men, nations should have sex ratios above 1–most European nations are above 1.03:1. Given these “small” differences among nations, one might just dismiss the low ratios as “normal” variation. Unfortunately, this would be a huge mistake. Here is the math to determine what a ratio of 0.93:1 means, in comparison to a 1.03:1.

First, let’s define the variables needed:
F = number of females in a population
M= number of males in a population
T = total population = F + M
R = sex ratio = F/M

So the above two equations have 4 variables (F, M, T, & R)…if you know two (and you do, T and R, from Internet sources), you should be able to use simple algebra to compute the other two, F and M.

Again, the equations are: (1) T = F + M and (2) R = F/M

Here is how you solve these two equations:
Solving (2) for M yields (3) M = F/R, substituting (3) into (1) yields, F + F/R = T; this can be rewritten as: F(1+(1/R)) = T
which can be rewritten as
(4) F = T/(1 + 1/R)

So, you can determine how many females are in a population using this equation. This can be considered the Actual Females (Fact).

So, with a population of 1 billion (1,000,000,000; which is smaller than both India’s and China’s current population) and a sex ratio of R=0.94, we use equation (4) to solve for Fact as such:

Fact = 1,000,000,000/(1 + 1/0.94) = 485 million
So, Mact = 1 billion – 485 million = 515 million

Now to determine the Expected Females (Fexp) in a “healthy” society, with F/M = 1.03, we use equation (4) again with this new R value.
Fexp = 1,000,000,000/(1 + 1/1.03)) = 507 million
So, Mexp = 493 million

Now you can determine the “missing females” (Fmiss) using this simple formula:
Missing Females = Fmiss = Expected Females – Actual Females = Fexp – Fact

In our example above (the hypothetical nation of 1 billion people), we find:

Fmiss = 507 million – 485 million = 22 million

Is this a large number? Well, when one considers that between 50-60 million people died in World War II, I’d say it is! Also, this is only for one country (say China or India). If you were to add up all the nations in the world with “missing women,” it comes to close to 100 million! Now that is an abominable figure, isn’t it? Yet, how many of you have heard of this figure before? If you are wondering why women are missing, do some research. It isn’t a pretty story. (I wrote about this issue over 10 years ago and got it published in a local paper’s front page. Sadly, as I recall, it hardly drew any attention.)

Just to put these numbers in perspective it is sometimes valuable to imagine what a sex ratio looks like when you bring it down to a scale that we can see. Let’s say, if you had a party of 100 people and a sex ratio of 0.94, you would have 52 men and 48 women. This would hardly be noticeable, would it? Hence, now we see why we need to do the large-scale calculations to expose something very sinister.

We will, yes we will!

[This journal was inspired by the 68 students who just finished their first week of classes with me. Their blogs, journals and in-class comments provoked me to reexamine the prospects for humanity.]

Things don’t look too promising right now. Super hurricanes have just pummeled two regions of the U.S. and forest fires continue to burn millions of acres of land in another. These are just the most recent calamities that pervade our consciousness. Bees, birds, bats, butterflies, and bears (nearly everything beginning with a “b”) seem to be suffering greatly. Pick another letter and you will find some of the same depressing trends (how about “I”, ice sheets, icebergs, infectious diseases, islands, invasive species, etc.). However, these trends can be reversed and humanity can bring about peace within their own species and across the entire biosphere.

How in the face of all this disaster can I say something optimistic? Well, you definitely cannot claim the opposite of what I’ve said. Saying that you know that humans are incapable of reversing these trends requires a degree of self-righteousness (and clairvoyance) unimaginable. And if you can’t argue the opposite, then you are left with only two options. You can assert that you don’t know or you can, as I just did, assert that humanity can resolve these matters. Saying you don’t know if humans are able to (or will) reverse these ominous trends, while inherently true (we actually can know nothing of the future with certainty), is equivalent to being ambivalent (or “pleading ignorance”), and we frankly have no time for this; to claim ignorance is a cop out of the worst kind. Humanity must do something to reverse these trends and the time is now to do so. Logically, then, we are left asserting that humans can (and will) do this!

But there is more than mere logic that forces us to accept that we can. Consider two additional insights. First, the world we live in is so different from the worlds that humanity has lived in the past. In no time in the past has a human being in Venezuela been able to visually see and talk to a human being living in Indonesia (the exact opposite side of the planet; if you want to see what is directly on the other side from you, check out this website, link). In no time in the past have foods/materials been able to move from one place on the planet to any other place on the planet in less than 24 hours. Never in past worlds have all humans had the capacity to find out almost any known information at the click of the mouse. These three incredible “technologies” permit possibilities that are just as unlimited as they are unimaginable.

Second, consider how much we have learned about the world in the past 100 years, e.g., penicillin was discovered in 1928 and DNA’s helical structure became known in 1953. If we consider how few humans have been involved in this type of discovery, particularly with the existing underclass that pervades almost every modern nation, we should anticipate that unlimited insights from new knowledge await us. Furthermore, despite all that we currently know about how to reverse the “trends” (through research in the fields of environmental studies, ecology, biomimicry, engineering, medicine, horticulture, communication, renewable energy, sociology, computer science, atmospheric science, etc.), consider how few of us are actually engaging directly with this knowledge in practice, whether it be researching phenomena, disseminating/teaching findings, or implementing solutions. There is so much that could be shared and accomplished.

So, for all the above reasons, I look at the future with a confidence that humans will reverse these trends. I didn’t say it will be easy. However, I can promise you this. It will be incredibly satisfying and uplifting for those who were involved in doing so! And if you are wondering where to start, you are exactly where you need to be! Check out your local scene. There are probably many people already at work on reversing trends–whether they are doing urban farming, enhancing biodiversity, teaching/mentoring, engaging in grassroots politics, building social capital, et cetera. They would love more support and camaraderie and if more of us work together we can succeed in reversing the trends and building a sustainable society.

proudly voted for Stein

[Note: I contribute this piece with the following caveat. The “media” has given 99% of the political coverage to the goings-on of only two presidential candidates. This is absurd in so many ways. The state in which I live is in very serious financial trouble and our media outlets should be spending at least as much time focusing on the many statewide races as they do on the national election. Also, all candidates and political parties should be given equal coverage in the media and in any debates that are held. To not do so greatly jeopardizes any sense of democracy that we supposedly have.]

Given the extremely limited media coverage given to third parties, it is important for those that think “outside the box” to express why they feel justified going against the grain and voting for a third party in this election (and in other elections). Yesterday, I proudly cast my vote for Jill Stein (& Ajamu Baraka) for president (& vice president). As there are many independent thinkers out there who may still be contemplating whom to vote for in this year’s presidential election, let me express my rationale.

In order of relevance:

(1) Jill Stein is the best candidate, hands-down. She is the best educated. She is the most rational. She has dedicated years to understanding the complexities of issues and her positions and argumentation demonstrate that she truthfully listens to the people! She came through my town nearly five years ago and she met with and dialogued with ~15 everyday people in a coffee shop for 2 hours.

(2) Jill Stein has real solutions to the many challenges we face as a nation. Let’s face it, our ways are destroying the planet, causing enormous pain and suffering on people here and abroad, and the super rich continue to steal from everyone else. This has to change. Really, it has to change and soon. To do otherwise is to continue the plunder and suffering. Hillary’s positions on energy, sustainable agriculture, and the environment are much too tempered (by the elite mindset that she existentially represents). Please read Jill Stein’s plan, here, before dismissing it as unrealistic.

(3) Jill Stein is not beholden to multi-millionaires or multi-billionaires or corporations that largely own and operate most media outlets, TV networks and magazines. This is a HUGE deal. All other viable candidates (and virtually every currently elected senator and congressperson in the U.S.) have been on the doles of these very powerful interests since they first set foot into the “democratic” political process. We have to begin voting for real people, not stooges for special interests.

(4) Jill Stein understands race and poverty so much better than the other candidates. Watching the two mainstream presidential debates (primarily for their comedic value), one located just miles from Ferguson (MO), probably the most revealing thing was the absolute ignorance with which Hillary spoke about our current racial divide. Under her husband’s command, we put more people of color into prison than ever before. We led a “drug war” that did nothing but fill jails and further impoverish communities and displace children from their parents/guardians. This pattern continues. (Please read Michelle Alexander’s amazing book entitled, The New Jim Crow (link to website), to find out how pernicious our system is in this regard.) The lack of leadership at the top of our government on these matters should give anyone pause that Hillary will do anything different than what is being done today. We need a leader that is willing to get arrested to defend the rights of oppressed peoples, as Stein and Baraka were willing to do in the Dakotas (in protest of a “profit over people” pipeline).

(5) The Greens will get significant financial support if they get 5% of the vote (read the law here). Yes, there is a very practical reason to vote Green for President this year! Just think what the Greens could do with these resources to educate the public (using social media and alternative media) about the real options that exist. Think of what message would be sent to all voters if the Greens were to have a presence in the national discussions. To think that Mr. Johnson (Libertarian) will get these federal funds and not the Greens is very, very sad; apparently, libertarians have a stronger commitment to the positions which they hold than do progressive thinkers.

(6) Jill Stein is a woman. Yes, this is important. I’d love to have a woman running the White House, but I want a woman that will truly stand up for women’s rights and won’t be converted into a testosterone-laden man in order to prove how tough she can be. A “hawk” (regardless of sex) is definitely not what we need right now in this world. As Secretary of State, Hillary has failed to represent peaceful interests in places like Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, and Palestine. She certainly won’t do so as President of the US.

(7) Jill Stein chose a real crusader for human rights as her running mate. Ajamu Baraka has a long history of work in the arena of justice and peace; read about it here. Don’t we want a vice president that is a true advocate for such important causes, not some homophobe (i.e., Pence) or some centrist (to make the “pro-lifers” happy) (i.e., Kaine)? Dr. Stein shows her amazing insight and courage by selecting such a heroic and honorable person as her running mate!

(8) I live in a state that Hillary can’t lose. I don’t rank this as very high as I would vote for Jill in any state of the US but I can see how some people might feel uncomfortable if they live in Florida or Ohio or North Carolina. If you don’t live in one of these states, you have no excuse not to vote for Stein; if you live in one of these very few states, you must make a choice but given the collapse that Trump has begun, Hillary is probably very safe in your state as well.

(9) Lastly, I voted. I believe one should vote. It isn’t all one should do. In fact it is probably only 1/20 of what one should do, but it should be done. If there were no options but for Hillary or Trump (and no write-ins or “None of the Above”), then I think people should vote for Hillary but, again, this only represents 1/20 of the political and social work that each one of us should be doing in our communities.

Comments/reactions? As always, such input from others is very welcome!

stand, sit, kneel, or lock? (modern protest)

Just over a week ago a professional football player (Colin Kaepernick, but let’s call him Kaep for short) decided that he wasn’t going to stand during the National Anthem because he believes that people of color are being mistreated by police. This simple act of protest became the most prominent sports story for the next week and counting. People from all corners of society weighed in on Kaep’s action and a fair bit of exchange ensued. Most discussion sadly focused on whether Kaep should or shouldn’t protest in this way rather than on the issue that Kaep was trying to raise awareness of. A few days later it was revealed that Kaep has also been wearing socks during practice which depict “pigs” wearing police uniforms. Immediately, a huge outcry was heard denouncing Kaep for this disrespectful showing, even from many that felt the initial “sitting” protest was admirable. Within a day of this “revelation,” Kaep kneeled during the anthem (an act expressing his respect to those that serve in the military), performed well in the preseason game that followed, and announced afterwards that he would be donating $1 million (of his $11 million annual salary) to the causes that he was bringing attention to. Many saw this “gift” as a gesture of Kaep’s commitment to the issues and many praised him for this significant offering. And now there are reports out that Kaep’s jersey sales are way up, and some evidence of a new found admiration of his recent actions. We are only a few days into this Kaep activity and the regular NFL season starts in a matter of days (although it isn’t clear how prominent a role Kaep will play on his team, his stock slipping mightily since he took the 49ers to the 2013 Super Bowl). Yet, very few athletes have gotten so much mileage out of what otherwise would seem like a very mundane action. How so? And what does it tell us about our modern society?

Were Kaep’s actions so courageous and, hence, worthy of such attention? Let’s look at what Kaep did in basic terms. He refused to stand for the National Anthem. He wore mocking socks to football practice a few times. He then changed his anthem stance from a sit to a kneel. These are very minor acts at some level. They require very little effort. And, they weren’t dangerous. Now, let’s compare Kaep’s actions to Dale American Horse Jr. who locked himself to a backhoe in North Dakota in protest of the pipeline that is being built to transport oil from the North Central Plains to states further south. (Here is more on this story that probably got 1/1,000th of the coverage that Kaep has received, link). Dale American Horse Jr. performed this action knowing that it was a violation of U.S. law and that a host of police would extricate him from the machine and charge him with a criminal offense, with unknown penalties, financial or jail time. On the face of it, it would appear that Dale American Horse Jr. faced much greater danger in more unpredictable circumstances–many other protesters were pepper sprayed and some, including children, were bitten by dogs “managed” by security agents. However, while Dale American Horse Jr.’s actions are definitely risky and courageous, Kaep, a well-known professional athlete, risked the loss of corporate endorsements and even his professional career (and its lucrative salary) by falling out of favor with the corporate executives that own NFL teams. He also risked eliciting the wrath and boos of millions of American’s who find his actions (and words) offensive. But, even still, an unspecified jail sentence seems like a lot more ominous than a loss of millions of dollars (but that is probably because I don’t have millions to lose).

If not so courageous, what explains the attention? I contend that it occurred because Kaep’s act is contentious. The modern media loves a good debate (as long as the parameters stay within a relatively narrow box; for example, we are not going to debate the sources of abject poverty in our country, the “richest” in the world, because that would implicate the same large corporations that run our media outlets). Kaepernick was a well-enough known celebrity to draw consumer gazes in a specific direction. Nearly all media now are full of advertisements and news outlets are competing harder and harder for this gaze; this explains the sensationalism that permeates media today. But why would not standing during the anthem cause such a storm? It is because many people in our society have developed a visceral attachment to the U.S. flag; recall the post 9-11 flag frenzy. To do anything to disrespect the U.S. is considered blasphemous to some. To others, the flag, the most recognizable symbol of the United States, deserved disrespect because of the outrageous things that have been done it its name (mass incarceration, Fallujah, Abu Ghraib, My Lai, etc.). To these people, how better to show your disapproval of the actions of a nation than to desecrate its “sacred” image. Either way, mess with the flag and you’ll get attention, tie yourself to oil machinery and just let the local authorities handle this one (certainly no need for national exposure); facetiousness intended.

The surprising attention to Kaep also stems from the immense amount of attention that we give to sports these days. Athletes are household names. Most people probably know the starting quarterback on their cities team more so than they know who their U.S. Senators are. Certainly, most care more about what the QB does than what the Senator does (as long as it isn’t something scandalous, such as sexting). And given this heightened position, it makes sense that Kaepernick, and other athletes, might use it for some social good. For example, I am just some lowly professor (who makes less than 1% of what Kaep will make this year). I am likely not going to get any attention if I do something like not standing for the National Anthem or wear some offensive socks. I might get the scorn of people around me but no one who lives in a neighboring town will ever know that I am “protesting.” However, if I were a world-renown scholar, then I would likely consider protesting for my beliefs. (There certainly are a lot of things worth protesting for.) The point is this: athletes are so prominent in our lives (even more so than most of our political leaders), is it any wonder why we coast along in this economic malaise without much of a hiccup?

In the end, I am thankful that some well-to-do people, be them athletes or not, are willing to sacrifice their millions for a higher calling. Our culture has such a short attention span. A mass shooting occurs and that keeps its grip on it for a week or two, then we are back to normal. Structural racism has been hard at work in this country for nearly 400 years (when the first African slaves arrived on this land). Kaep’s effort to keep it in our consciousness is worthy of praise not scorn. Whether it will result in a positive outcome remains to be seen. And as much as we should focus on his efforts/words, we cannot forget the others that struggle mightily for justice elsewhere but simply due to their “less favorable’ (and visible) status have their battle cries go unheard.

are we moral?

In a world where people eat scrumptious meals in fancy restaurants while homeless people peddle for coins just on the other side of the glass, where others drive their $100,000 autos solo daily past hordes of bus goers (in sub-freezing temperatures) without considering offering a ride, and where increasing numbers communicate via “god-like” cellular devices while others, thousands of miles away, work feverishly in horrific conditions to collect enough “coltan” (a versatile metal alloy used in WiFi-transmitting electronics) to feed their families, one has to ask, “What’s moral these days?” And, relatedly, in a world so extreme in its inequality and maldistribution of resources, “Is it even possible for a person of economic privilege to live morally?”

Imagining an extra-terrestrial who happened upon our planet, I suspect he/she would unequivocally state that nearly all “first-worlders” live immorally. This judgment would come simply from his/her observation that we consume resources that are obtained, distributed, manufactured, and sold in ways that usually cause great psychological and physical harm to other humans and other forms of life. From the pesticide-laden plants (or hormone- and antibiotic-dosed meat) food that dominates food systems, our fossil fuels which often come from war-torn regions of the world where (despite the amazing amount of $$ that these resources must be worth) most people have remained severely impoverished for decades, or our everyday clothing and house “products” that are almost always made by workers overseas who live in inhumane work environments, this verdict is undeniable. If there were a functioning international court, we would be found “guilty” of immoral lifestyles.

Concluding that we are living immorally shouldn’t be news to anyone, though it rarely gets coverage in such blatant terms. It also doesn’t have much meaning if it isn’t just an inevitable result of living in the 21st century (or at all). Clearly, humans must consume substantial resources to live, all large animals do by necessity. So, do we have any real choice? The answer is “yes.” First, we overconsume, producing excessive amounts of waste. Many of the products that we buy aren’t necessary to living a fulfilling life. Second, we, if we really cared to do so, could find many of the resources that we do need to thrive from producers that aren’t destroying the environment in their work. This is particularly true with food but is doable, albeit difficult, in other areas as well. (Here are a few articles that lay out some of these options, ref 1, ref 2). Third, all of us are entangled, whether we like it or not, in the most immoral component of our “consumption”: the trillions of dollars lost (which we pay in taxes) on the continued militarization of the world and its ties to resolving humanitarian and economic challenges with arms and violence, rather than diplomacy and peace.

All this said, it must be noted that many of those that live in “rich” countries, especially the U.S., live under great economic stress and this limits their ability to act morally with regard to their consumption patterns. Reasonably, until they are relieved of their structural impoverishment, their immorality doesn’t deserve much attention; though increasing their “take” and not causing further damage would necessitate a different type of growth than we are use to. On the other hand, the behaviors of those that live in middle- to upper-class lives cannot be overlooked. Sadly, much of what they (and “I”) consume falls into the category of “horrible.” Our educational system and mainstream media (both increasingly influenced/controlled by corporations), in their effort to ensure that we continue to consume, completely fail to teach us what we need in order to consume morally.

So, where does this leave us? I don’t think there are any magical solutions. But, just as alcoholics must admit their addiction before making headway, we need to admit our immorality as well. Perhaps part of the solution is something equivalent to AA (or NA) where people could meet regularly and figure out ways to modify our (individually and collectively) consumption patterns toward moral pathways. Such meetings are happening under other auspices (e.g., Green Party, First Nations Environmental Network, Urban Ag/Permaculture, etc.). Start your own group or check one of these out. Let us know what you find!

Lincoln’s shadows

At the fourth of seven Lincoln-Douglas debates, the following was spoken, “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone.” So whom do you think said this? Hint, it wasn’t Douglas.

But, less than a month later, while in Galesburg during the 5th Debate, Lincoln said, “Now, I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social and political evil, having due regard for its actual existence amongst us and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and to all the Constitutional obligations which have been thrown about it; but, nevertheless, desire a policy that looks to the prevention of it as a wrong, and looks hopefully to the time when as a wrong it may come to an end.”

So, which Lincoln do we know or choose to remember? Obviously, most of us learn that Lincoln was the champion for equality and eliminating slavery. We learn that he was a man who was killed because he had the courage to support such “radical” ideas during a different, less “enlightened” period in our nation’s history. Yet, in simplifying and mischaracterizing his beliefs and contributions, aren’t we making a major error, one that makes it harder to understand today’s political discourse and action as well?
Obviously, based on the two quotations provided, Lincoln was very conflicted about race and equality. He didn’t see humans as equal but at the same time he didn’t think it was right for one person to be so powerful relative to another. This is simple to understand, yet we generally don’t learn this complexity in school. Many other “great” Americans (such as Thomas Jefferson) thought that certain humans were inherently inferior and to others and this belief rationalized their superior position and privilege. This is our nation’s history. Rather than recognize it, we are too willing (or wanting) to accept the rosy and simple version of it. (For a great piece on modern slavery, check out Doyle’s article from 2006, link.)

Though it might “feel good” to publicize and celebrate the “good” beliefs/thoughts/actions of our heroes and sheroes, we do a disservice not being more honest about our history. By living with a “lily-white” version of history, we fail to understand the complexities and hypocrisies that our former (and current) leaders live with. A truer picture of our history reveals that all of our idols had/have contradictions and confusions. And, by extension, so do we. It is one of those things that comes with being human. This shouldn’t be used as an excuse to justify irrational or immoral beliefs or actions, but it does allow us to understand things as they were/are rather than glossing over disagreeable elements in our past and present.

History is formed through contestations–moral, intellectual and physical. Our predecessors made it and we are also playing a part in making it. Realizing this in light of the inconsistencies and contradictions of our historical icons might give us reason to be: (a) more inquisitive about our collective past; (b) more textured in our assessment of our nation’s success; and, (3) more willing to be self-critical about our own beliefs about important challenges we face today. With these things in mind, we should be able to be better makers of history ourselves.

out of sight

Most of us know that terrible things are done on our behalf each and every day. These awful deeds may come at the expense of the our food which, if meat, probably comes from animals living in concentrated feeding operations (CAFOs) where they are pumped full of antibiotics and growth hormones on a daily basis, or, if vegetables and fruits, probably come from farms where the laborers are grossly underpaid, overworked and exposed to harmful chemicals broadly sprayed by industrial agriculture techniques (farm workers have poverty rates double other paid workers) (ref 1, ref 2). They could come from the clothes we wear, many which are made in factories here or abroad where workers are treated horribly and suffer many human rights abuses (ref 3). They also come by way of our ubiquitous use of electronics. Nearly all electronic devices that transmit Wi-Fi (which includes phones, video games, and computers) have a metal alloy called coltan in them. Sadly much of this rare metal comes from regions of the world mired in war and conflict (such as The Congo), which the valuable resource has largely exacerbated (ref 4). And every time we use energy, in virtually every form it comes in, whether its source be fossil fuel or renewable (e.g., in solar panels that are increasingly made in China), large amounts of toxic material is produced and many humans are abused. (The Story of Stuff puts a lot of this into perspective: the Book & the Videos).

Not a fun paragraph to read, was it? Well, if all this harm is being done on our behalf, especially those of us fortunate enough to live affluently, why aren’t more of us doing anything about it? Many answers come to mind but the most telling may be that the bulk of the harm done is done “out of sight,” somewhere far from us. I believe that humans are moral beings. Most of us are not intentionally and purposefully doing harm to others. We wouldn’t. Most of us would be sick to our stomachs if we were forced to live this way. Wouldn’t we? Perhaps this is why when presented with “facts” that implicate us, and our lifestyles, we ignore them or get defensive. This creates a real existential problem then. The people that need to change (us) to make the world more humane aren’t willing to accept responsibility for the damage being done. So what can we do about it?

This blog is largely dedicated to exploring answers to this question but I think the first step for everyone is to familiarize themselves with the various “pains” created by our way of life. This knowledge can be very liberating. It motivates us to do something to make others’ (and by extension our own) lives better. This revelation is extremely eye-opening for many. And many of us definitely recognize this. Consider how many people in your community donate/volunteer 100’s of hours a year for the greater good! We do get greater satisfaction from intrinsic rewards even though our culture (especially that component that is trying to sell us something or another) puts so much emphasis on extrinsic ones (ref 5). So by knowing more about the true impacts of our lives and, then, intentionally acting to make them more humane, we can all begin to heal and feel better all the while.