Why I don't talk to people

While in India I was reminded of something I’ve been very disappointed to learn about people, but adults especially. People don’t ask themselves the question ‘why?’. Moreover, when confronted with the question in relation to their actions many people dismiss the relevance of asking such a question by claiming there is no answer to the question. Before I begin to tell the tale let me start by stating the importance of being able to answer ‘why’ when faced with evaluating actions.

            The simple question of ‘why’ is the gateway to reason, humanity’s most important tool for dealing with reality. Why gives meaning and purpose to actions and causes us to think critically. There is a reason why children often ask ‘why’ incessantly; they are attempting to find meaning; they are exercising their minds just as they exercise their muscles on the playground. Besides being a tool of reason the question ‘why’ is also the motivation behind the currency of exchange between minds, reason. With anything that is not immediately clear one, assuming they care to understand, would ask a variety of questions to ascertain understanding; the most philosophical question being ‘why?’ If a person is to be understood then they must explain themselves to the person asking ‘why?’ (again, assume the person being asked desires to explain themselves). When examining one’s own actions and thoughts a person must also turn to ‘why’ in order to better understand themselves. Without embracing the question ‘why?’ a person remains a child acting on feelings without critical thought; a practice that can cause tremendous damage to a person’s life.

            So, during a visit to Kumbhalgahr Wildlife Sanctuary I asked a question concerning marriage of the people I was with. The question was simply what is the best thing about being married, the worst thing, and one thing you know now that would have been useful at the beginning of your marriage. All the people in the room were older than myself by at least 5 years, all were academics, all but two were white Americans,  and all but one had been married at least 5 years. I waited until the second round of scotch before asking this question in hopes that people would be loose enough to answer.  Not surprisingly they assumed that I asked the question because I was very nearly ready to ask someone to marry me. When I told them I was very single their interest in answering my question dropped precipitously. This in itself was very discouraging as it shouldn’t matter what stage of a relationship I was in. If anything knowing the answer to my question would be more useful to someone of my status than someone who has mostly made up their mind to get married.

            Nonetheless I pressed the issue and tried to assure them that I was very sincere about the question. Upon realizing I was serious a few proceeded to give mostly incoherent dribble, saying marriage is ‘great’, ‘easier than they thought’, ‘an everyday struggle’, etc. Interestingly none of them answered my question. The best answer was given by Dr. X who said that marriage was about caring for someone else in life. He said it was important to be an individual, but to also have responsibilities outside of oneself in order to stay grounded. I disagree with some of this philosophy, but at least it was coherent and defensible.

            The most upsetting part of this experience was Dr. Y’s response as we were leaving to go downstairs for dinner. He explained that much of marriage is ‘just doing’ for the other person. He continued by saying that once you’re married you do things for the other person because you are married, you sacrifice because that’s what marriage is all about. ‘Just like doing things for your kids, you simply do the things you’re supposed to do’ he finished. Quite appalled by this point I explained that I was interested in the ‘why’ behind such actions. He replied, ‘there is no why, you just act’.

            This is one of the worst things I’ve heard an adult say. Moreover, this statement came from a respected, tenured, scientist! Later on during the visit I discovered that Dr. Y is a Christian, which explains why he’s not particularly interested in discovering the reasons behind his actions. Nevertheless, the rest of the faculty members either didn’t answer anything or avoided the question by chiding me for asking such a question at my young age of 25.

            Needless to say I was disappointed with this response and appalled at Dr. Y’s answer. It is experiences like this that cause me to title entries such as this one. How is one able to grow and improve as a person when their questions aren’t taken seriously or answered at all? How is one expected to be comfortable with just acting because one finds themselves in a particular situation? How are people expected to have meaningful conversations when people are clearly not interested in the question ‘why?’ I am continuously confronted with conversations like this from peers and those older than me. I cannot grow in an environment with people that communicate the way most people communicate their ideas and thoughts. This is why I normally don't have meaningful conversations with most people and why I absolutely treasure the times when I do. The intellectual culture, as I’ve observed thus far, is deteriorating rapidly and it’s disappointing to be reminded that such deterioration is facilitated by those who should be supporting it. I wonder why that is?

Save the environment or save your wallet? Wait, what’s the difference?

Without a doubt the phrase and practice of ‘going green’ is one of this countries fastest growing phenomenon. Celebrities and homemakers alike are becoming increasingly aware of how to minimize their impact on the environment. Fascinating new technologies are popping up everywhere offering consumers opportunities to make lifestyle changes that are more environmentally conscious. Companies are innovating and changing in order to become the ‘most green’ in their respective industries. ‘Going green’ appears to have tremendous momentum, but I would argue that there is an element missing from this movement that, if included, would help propel environmentally conscious living even further and faster. The element that’s missing from the green movement is a proper emphasis on the economic viability of adopting green principles.

            There are two primary obstacles standing in the way of green technologies and practices from becoming mainstream among most Americans; the initial costs and an understanding of why it’s important to go green. Many of the big flashy green technological innovations (hybrid cars, solar panel electricity, grey water recycling systems, radiant wall heating system, indoor greenhouse, earthships, etc.) require an initial investment that many Americans cannot afford. The second obstacle is even more problematic because the issue is philosophical for the most part. Philosophical change takes much longer as people must understand and evaluate what they know and decide that their knowledge could benefit from new knowledge. Fortunately there is a philosophical principle embedded within American society that speaks to all people very clearly, money. It is through an appeal to this unifying entity that green industry should focus more of their attention in order to grow a movement that has enormous potential (I will not make the argument for money as a sound and moral foundation in which to advocate the green movement beyond stating that I think it is such a foundation).

The first question that needs to be addressed is how can expensive green technologies, technologies with obvious benefits, become more accessible (cheaper and more widely available) to more people. One could say that that process has already begun with those who are able to afford such technologies taking advantage of fantastic innovations. More and more we see celebrities and the exceptionally wealthy make small changes in their lifestyle that have the potential to impact other consumers. Solar panels and hybrid SUVs can be found in an increasing number of homes in Beverly Hills. From the other end of the perspective, grass roots type community movements are springing up across the nation as people are learning more about organic produce, simple green improvements for their homes, recycling programs, and the like. The result of these miniature movements is an increase in the number of products and services offered on the ‘green market’. As the market grows, more products become available. As more products become available, competition increases. Better competitors are determined by who can offer the best and cheapest products. This example, of course, is a basic economic principle. We see examples of this principle in action with the ever increasing green products available (just walk into any Lowes or Home Depot), the falling costs in various green technologies, and even the creation of a green television network (Planet Green). All of these phenomena would not exist without a growing market. So the issue of green products becoming less expensive and more accessible seems to be a problem that should continue to get better so long as consumers see value in what they are buying.

It would seem then that to expedite an explosion of green technology and green living one would have to show the consumer that it is in their best interest to invest in green products. Since products and services are acquired through an exchange of money the most logical strategy would be to appeal to the economic advantages of choosing green products over non-green products. It may simply be an artifact of those who started the green movement that such an emphasis was not a part of the agenda from the beginning, but continuing to deemphasize economic benefits to going green in favor of an ambiguous sense of altruistic sacrifice for the sake of the environment is misguided at best. Most Americans live apart from the environmental elements and processes that sustain their life and lifestyle. While many see this as a problem I would argue that such an issue doesn’t matter. In terms of green technologies, for the most part, what’s green is also what’s more economical in the long run. This idea is due to nature of green technologies and innovation; such innovation leads to improvements in efficiency of production and waste disposal. Humans, like all other organisms, are products of the environment and must live with what they produce. Human progress depends on how well we manage what we produce and the byproducts (waste) of such production. Getting people to understand this principle, or rather think about this principle when deciding what to buy is unrealistic. Luckily such a principle can be represented when a person chooses to buy solar panels for their new home rather than connecting to the power grid. There may be a variety of reasons why they made such a decision, but I would almost guarantee that such a decision is not made without a foreseeable economic payoff. And so should be the impetus for promoting green products, not petitions to people’s conscience about how buying this widget helps prevent polar bear extinction because it reduces greenhouse gasses. People don’t think about polar bears when they’re buying a car. They think about whether or not making such a purchase makes sense given the price.

The pitch for any green product or service should be simple: Buy our product because it will save you X amount of money because it’s X times more efficient than the other product. IBM has a fantastic line of commercials highlighting the fact that economics and the environment don’t have to oppose each other. Most people do not make decision without considering how things will benefit them. The easiest way to appeal to this characteristic of humanity is to appeal to what we care about most, our means of sustaining and improving our lives. Money is what we’ve chosen to represent our means of survival and progress. Our survival and progress depends on a healthy and efficient use of our environment. Why not take full advantage of such a relationship? A greener, cheaper, more efficient future is waiting, we must simply acknowledge that those three adjectives are one in the same.