I hear all the time many negative adjectives atributed to my generation. They range from entitled to lazy to uncaring. First of all, it seems a little insane to assign attributes to an entire generation of people who come from such varied backgrounds that such stereotypes could not possibly be true. Furthermore, I think that these generalizations are grossly unfounded.
First of all, they tell us all the time we are entitled. I am not sure what they really even means to be honest...Does that mean we want to be paid well for work we do? Oh gosh darn it, workers want to be paid appropriately for their work? Is this not what union activists fought for in the 19th century? Do we not come form a long legacy of workers constantly fighting for a better portion of their labor's productivity? Perhaps entitled means we expect that if we do what society tells us to do we should get what society tells us we should have gotten. For instance, most of us are told from birth that if we go to college we will end up with a good job. While life has taught me that this is invariably untrue, it is still told to us in a variety of ways. Does it make us entitled to want reality to reflect what we have been instructed reality is?
People say that our generation is lazy and that we do not work hard. How many truely lazy people do you know? I know we are typified as wanting to do nothing at all and just engage in leisure activity. However, could it possibly be that we want to both work hard AND have time to enjoy the fruits of our labor? I think it is indeed possible for us to want to work and to work hard, but at the same time put forth a lot of effort at enjoying life in the way we want to. As Mr. Miyagi in the Karate Kid would say (and I paraphrase), "life is about finding balance." Maybe we do not want to work 65 hours a week doing a shitty job to start of with when we've been engaging in meaningful life experiences the first twenty years of our life. I theorize that my generation is seeing the brutal inequality of the economic rewards of the system and refuse to engage in it full scale on moral grounds.
Finally people say that our generation does not care, that we are not moved to great social action. However, the Wall Street Protests, as brief as they were, should have shown that we are willing to engage in protests. However, I think that much more subtlely than that my generation IS in fact engaging in large-scale social change. We are indeed engaged in the dialogue but instead of through the normal channels of previous generations we are making our own mark in the world through the internet. We are the generation trying to figure out how in fact to harness this strange and ambiguous technology to create greater social good. For instance, downloading music on the internet. People committing acts of crime or clamoring to be heard that economic inequality prevents them from paying the bloated prices the music industry's profits demand? I would imagine that the same people who downloaded music illegally would have been more than willing to pay some portion of money straight to the artist as an alternative, but it was an alternative that did not yet exist. Refusal to pay for copyrighted material is indeed a form of social activism and protest. We are just being led to believe it is in fact not when in reality it is.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Earthbound...Why Was It So Good?
So the other day a friend asked me to describe to him why Earthbound was such a great game. I talk about it with others like it really was the holy grail of SNES gaming. However, when I sort of stumbled to answer this seemingly simple question. I mean, it should be easy to answer if it really was that great of game...right? It seems like one of those games that was indescribable in its greatness.
Was it the simplistic yet classic RPG design? To some degree I think it was. It did not overly complicated the genre by adding tons of special moves or complicated button combos or anything of that nature. Simple turn-based design with your standard gameplay: find baseball bat, equip baseball bat, and bash people with baseball bat.
Could it have been the general whackiness of the game? Yes I think that also contributed. Things like the maze-mouse, trout flavored yogurt, the runaway five, cities named for seasons and numbers, and of course that silly hint-guy all made for unforgettable memories. I mean, who didn't love just ordering a pizza in the middle of a cave and laugh at the delivery guy when you decided you really did not want that pizza after all (or even worse realizing you could not pay for it!). And carrying around that for sale sign so you could get rid of things at a moment's notice. Stopping enemies from painting a town blue? I have yet to see a game re-use that plot device!
To some degree it was also the time it was released. It was the golden age of the simple platform RPG. I think that the older systems with lower graphics may have allowed for a greater variety of game-makers to enter and compete in the market and as a result we had a very diverse and interesting mix of games. It is beginning to seem like most games I hear anyone talk about come purely from an established source (Blizzard, EA, Sid Meyer, Square-Enix, etc.). Had anyone ever heard of APE or HAL Laboratory or even cared? I doubt you had. Perhaps gaming had not yet entered the invariable "branding" phase market economies produce. (Interestingly enough, the economist Schumpeter predicted that "innovation" would move from entrepreneurs to giant corporate research teams and he seems to have been right) For whatever reason gaming seemed different back then, and people were willing to give a chance to a boy, his baseball bat, and a dream.
Oh who am I really kidding. We all just loved Earthbound for the scratch and sniff stickers in the player's guide! (Btw, the mystery scent was pizza. I hope I didn't ruin anyone's childhood by revealing that!)
Was it the simplistic yet classic RPG design? To some degree I think it was. It did not overly complicated the genre by adding tons of special moves or complicated button combos or anything of that nature. Simple turn-based design with your standard gameplay: find baseball bat, equip baseball bat, and bash people with baseball bat.
Could it have been the general whackiness of the game? Yes I think that also contributed. Things like the maze-mouse, trout flavored yogurt, the runaway five, cities named for seasons and numbers, and of course that silly hint-guy all made for unforgettable memories. I mean, who didn't love just ordering a pizza in the middle of a cave and laugh at the delivery guy when you decided you really did not want that pizza after all (or even worse realizing you could not pay for it!). And carrying around that for sale sign so you could get rid of things at a moment's notice. Stopping enemies from painting a town blue? I have yet to see a game re-use that plot device!
To some degree it was also the time it was released. It was the golden age of the simple platform RPG. I think that the older systems with lower graphics may have allowed for a greater variety of game-makers to enter and compete in the market and as a result we had a very diverse and interesting mix of games. It is beginning to seem like most games I hear anyone talk about come purely from an established source (Blizzard, EA, Sid Meyer, Square-Enix, etc.). Had anyone ever heard of APE or HAL Laboratory or even cared? I doubt you had. Perhaps gaming had not yet entered the invariable "branding" phase market economies produce. (Interestingly enough, the economist Schumpeter predicted that "innovation" would move from entrepreneurs to giant corporate research teams and he seems to have been right) For whatever reason gaming seemed different back then, and people were willing to give a chance to a boy, his baseball bat, and a dream.
Oh who am I really kidding. We all just loved Earthbound for the scratch and sniff stickers in the player's guide! (Btw, the mystery scent was pizza. I hope I didn't ruin anyone's childhood by revealing that!)
Friday, August 3, 2012
Life from a different perspective...
This past month I have been working for my dad in Tennessee. He sort of inherited a pizza place about two months ago from my step-brother. I have been helping do the accounting (which is work I have done before) and also have made/delivered pizzas, done the dishes, and participated in business owner type discussions. After working this type of job and seeing the other workers around me work hard as well I have a new respect for the hard work of "labor" throughout history. However, I am somewhat disturbed by the way I have been tipped working as a deliverer of the fine good known as pizza.
I have found that the only really good tippers are the middle class. The upper class, while usually giving a tip, do not seem to give anything above what they deem their social requirement is (as most of us citizens of the US know it is 10%). When I deliver to a poorer house I am generally ecstatic to get anything since I fully understand how big of a deal eating out must be for them. It is understandable, but I even get a sense from them that they do the best they can. So for the most part, I am disturbed that those that seem to have the most in abundance do their very best to keep as much as they can to themselves. While it makes *sense* that this is the case (you do not really get rich by being generous to others in a market economy - seeing as your profit is extracted from surplus from the work of others...I believe nobody has ever gotten rich purely on their own talents except for sports/media stars and artists but even they have a whole industry surrounding them giving a portion others' work to them), it puts a damper on the human experience to know that for economic disparity to begin to dissipate this type of attitude must be somehow counteracted.
However, there is one gleaming ray of hope. The hope I see comes from both those at the bottom and those in the middle class. To me they get it. They know that we're all in it together. Even though technology has continued to separate human face to face interaction through the phone, internet, television, and even the simple letter, there are still some people that inherently understand the social connectedness that civilization requires. This is the thought that continues to give me hope. To see people continue to work hard and struggle even though life is hard. This gives me hope. Seeing this struggle makes me believe that along with further education that we really can make the world into a better and more fair experience. I think that if people who believe that others do not try and simply live passively would spend some time with these workers they would see how hard they really are working to make life work. Anyone coming from a home with a single mother would truly understand the struggle of survival. While there are obviously no easy answers to life, the more time we spend with each other, see each other, and understand each other the better we can truly make progress as society.
I have found that the only really good tippers are the middle class. The upper class, while usually giving a tip, do not seem to give anything above what they deem their social requirement is (as most of us citizens of the US know it is 10%). When I deliver to a poorer house I am generally ecstatic to get anything since I fully understand how big of a deal eating out must be for them. It is understandable, but I even get a sense from them that they do the best they can. So for the most part, I am disturbed that those that seem to have the most in abundance do their very best to keep as much as they can to themselves. While it makes *sense* that this is the case (you do not really get rich by being generous to others in a market economy - seeing as your profit is extracted from surplus from the work of others...I believe nobody has ever gotten rich purely on their own talents except for sports/media stars and artists but even they have a whole industry surrounding them giving a portion others' work to them), it puts a damper on the human experience to know that for economic disparity to begin to dissipate this type of attitude must be somehow counteracted.
However, there is one gleaming ray of hope. The hope I see comes from both those at the bottom and those in the middle class. To me they get it. They know that we're all in it together. Even though technology has continued to separate human face to face interaction through the phone, internet, television, and even the simple letter, there are still some people that inherently understand the social connectedness that civilization requires. This is the thought that continues to give me hope. To see people continue to work hard and struggle even though life is hard. This gives me hope. Seeing this struggle makes me believe that along with further education that we really can make the world into a better and more fair experience. I think that if people who believe that others do not try and simply live passively would spend some time with these workers they would see how hard they really are working to make life work. Anyone coming from a home with a single mother would truly understand the struggle of survival. While there are obviously no easy answers to life, the more time we spend with each other, see each other, and understand each other the better we can truly make progress as society.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Man's Best Friend (and I don't mean beer and pizza)
I have not really spent much time around dogs since I was a lot younger. Growing up we had an outside dog that was some kind of a mongrel (fancy term for mutt...I looked it up!) and I do not necessarily recall that much about him. This past month though I have spent quite a bit of time with my dad and step-mother's golden retriever. Although I am not really a dog person, seeing how this dog interacts with people kind of worries me a bit about humanity and here is why:
Whenever my parents are not at home, and it is just me with the dog, she essentially just lays down in front of the door waiting for them to get back. It is like without her masters around there is less of a reason to live or engage in life. I know that the dog is a domesticated animal and such but seeing that such complete dependence was bred into dogs in this way kind of makes me wonder why humans would try to create an animal so completely dependent on them for survival. So in this sense I find it disturbing we willingly manipulated this other living creature to become subservient to us. Do we harm them physically? Not necessarily, but it is still somewhat disturbing to think about humanity's drive to subdue others. I recall someone once saying "look at how someone treats their pets because this will indicate how they will treat you."
Does this simple statement provide insight into the human condition? I think that if you look at it on an individual basis it shows how someone with absolute power over another living creature will act when power is divided unequally between two parties. On a society-wide level perhaps it indicates a deep-rooted desire to dominate other living things (including other humans). It is this latter fact that disturbs me. If this is indeed the case then humanity must strive to work harder at overcoming this desire for us all to live better and more worthwhile lives with each other.
I recall reading somewhere that the only domesticated animal that would survive without humans is the cat. This fact has made me respect cats more. In fact, it makes me feel like the relationship between cats and humans is more symbiotic than one-sided. It is like the cat gives me companionship (when it feels like it) and in return I give it toys to play with, food, and clean up after it. In this relationship cats usually seem like they are more than capable of telling their humans "No, I don't feel like it today so I'm going to go do something else." Perhaps those comics showing cats having domesticaed humans are more true than we would like to admit to ourselves!
Whenever my parents are not at home, and it is just me with the dog, she essentially just lays down in front of the door waiting for them to get back. It is like without her masters around there is less of a reason to live or engage in life. I know that the dog is a domesticated animal and such but seeing that such complete dependence was bred into dogs in this way kind of makes me wonder why humans would try to create an animal so completely dependent on them for survival. So in this sense I find it disturbing we willingly manipulated this other living creature to become subservient to us. Do we harm them physically? Not necessarily, but it is still somewhat disturbing to think about humanity's drive to subdue others. I recall someone once saying "look at how someone treats their pets because this will indicate how they will treat you."
Does this simple statement provide insight into the human condition? I think that if you look at it on an individual basis it shows how someone with absolute power over another living creature will act when power is divided unequally between two parties. On a society-wide level perhaps it indicates a deep-rooted desire to dominate other living things (including other humans). It is this latter fact that disturbs me. If this is indeed the case then humanity must strive to work harder at overcoming this desire for us all to live better and more worthwhile lives with each other.
I recall reading somewhere that the only domesticated animal that would survive without humans is the cat. This fact has made me respect cats more. In fact, it makes me feel like the relationship between cats and humans is more symbiotic than one-sided. It is like the cat gives me companionship (when it feels like it) and in return I give it toys to play with, food, and clean up after it. In this relationship cats usually seem like they are more than capable of telling their humans "No, I don't feel like it today so I'm going to go do something else." Perhaps those comics showing cats having domesticaed humans are more true than we would like to admit to ourselves!
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
First Post- Let's be semi-political!
Okay so this will be my first official blog post. I will see how this changes over time, but for now I want to talk about something that is at least kind of political! The reason we should care about what the rich do with their money!
So, upfront, as a freedom loving American I initially want to say, "who cares? It's not my money!" However, thinking more about this fact, it really *is* my money to some degree. First of all, I pay for their goods or services and the extra they charge me for themselves is what I'm giving them...so yes it does kind of matter. If I know you're taking that money to buy a gold-plated SUV to drive into the ocean and let it sink I don't really want to be paying for that!
This becomes a much more important focus when I think about the fact you're making money off the labor I provide you. Now, yes I understand that in a philosophically pure world we are able to match our ability with income and all that nonsense. However, let's be realistic here for a moment. The real world places great constraints on ability to move jobs, negotiate, wait for getting paid what you are worth, etc. This becomes even harder in the event that you are raising a family. And I want to point out that nobody here would be reading this ever if it wasn't for someone deciding to have a baby so we should probably respect the whole process of creating new citizens regardless of our own personal place in the family raising process. So in this light I am not going to be able to really get what I'm worth especially with all the competition from other very similar human beings (as much as we'd love to think we are all unique and different, most jobs can be performed by the average person who has had adequate training). Furthermore, for me to be employed the person above me wants to make more from my labor than it costs to employ me. (or in other words you must make more than enough to pay for yourself only to be employed)
So yes, I do care what you spend your money on to some degree because you are getting that money directly from me. Now if I lived in Sweden, where there is not as much of a difference between the rich and poor, I wouldn't care what you spent your money on. I would work hard for my employer knowing that, while he's probably making more than me, he's not making so much more that I should care. If Americans lived with the attitude "I believe the guy under me should make good money along with the business and I shouldn't make grossly more than him or her" then we'd have a much fairer and verdant democracy. As long as the pervading attitude is to get as much as you can from the other guy then we will always have problems not only motivating all of our citizens to reach their full potential but also fully developing them. (ironically economics tells us that this attitude actually maximized the performance of an economy, but I have come to believe that it does not motivate human beings)
On a tangential note, it also does matter what business leaders make for political statements. Because if I am patronizing your business I am paying you to be able to use your profits from my money to push your own political agenda. So once you go public with your views, you better be prepared for me to now use that information when spending my dollar.
So, upfront, as a freedom loving American I initially want to say, "who cares? It's not my money!" However, thinking more about this fact, it really *is* my money to some degree. First of all, I pay for their goods or services and the extra they charge me for themselves is what I'm giving them...so yes it does kind of matter. If I know you're taking that money to buy a gold-plated SUV to drive into the ocean and let it sink I don't really want to be paying for that!
This becomes a much more important focus when I think about the fact you're making money off the labor I provide you. Now, yes I understand that in a philosophically pure world we are able to match our ability with income and all that nonsense. However, let's be realistic here for a moment. The real world places great constraints on ability to move jobs, negotiate, wait for getting paid what you are worth, etc. This becomes even harder in the event that you are raising a family. And I want to point out that nobody here would be reading this ever if it wasn't for someone deciding to have a baby so we should probably respect the whole process of creating new citizens regardless of our own personal place in the family raising process. So in this light I am not going to be able to really get what I'm worth especially with all the competition from other very similar human beings (as much as we'd love to think we are all unique and different, most jobs can be performed by the average person who has had adequate training). Furthermore, for me to be employed the person above me wants to make more from my labor than it costs to employ me. (or in other words you must make more than enough to pay for yourself only to be employed)
So yes, I do care what you spend your money on to some degree because you are getting that money directly from me. Now if I lived in Sweden, where there is not as much of a difference between the rich and poor, I wouldn't care what you spent your money on. I would work hard for my employer knowing that, while he's probably making more than me, he's not making so much more that I should care. If Americans lived with the attitude "I believe the guy under me should make good money along with the business and I shouldn't make grossly more than him or her" then we'd have a much fairer and verdant democracy. As long as the pervading attitude is to get as much as you can from the other guy then we will always have problems not only motivating all of our citizens to reach their full potential but also fully developing them. (ironically economics tells us that this attitude actually maximized the performance of an economy, but I have come to believe that it does not motivate human beings)
On a tangential note, it also does matter what business leaders make for political statements. Because if I am patronizing your business I am paying you to be able to use your profits from my money to push your own political agenda. So once you go public with your views, you better be prepared for me to now use that information when spending my dollar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)