Coming from an engineering past, new technology is always slated to outperform current levels of requirements. Another goal of new products is to offer more features for comparable cost which effectively lowers the price. Ideals such as these create barriers in our technology revolving around our energy crisis. We want exactly what we have now replaced with the ability to do more. We want a car that can drive 300+ miles on a single “tank,” we want “gas stations” to be ubiquitous the day we purchase the car, we want every amenity known to man to be included in the vehicle, and we also want it to be priced comparably to our current vehicle market. Apply these same theories to other energy issues and that is where the majority of our problems are.

MIT recently released a report stating that they believe US fuel consumption could decrease by 30-50% over the next 25-30 years. They also studied green house gas emissions and focused on the likelihood of new technology being ready to create a large enough impact. Now, that sounds great to me. If we can decrease our consumption by 50%, let’s just say that cuts our oil demand in half for simplicity’s sake. In 30 years, we will “only” be demanding 10 million barrels per day rather than the 20 million we are at right now. The study, performed by one of the most reputable colleges in the country, isn’t all that groundbreaking. If we can’t reach these goals in 30 years, then our country will have more than just an energy crisis to worry about, we will likely be in an economic freefall or depression.

We MUST decrease our fuel consumption by at LEAST 50% in 30 years to have any economic future whatsoever. Chevrolet is currently marketing their electric/gas hybrid vehicle named the Volt. They are planning on retail sales being available in late 2010. Current information projects the vehicle’s gas mileage will be the equivalent of 150 miles per gallon. If Chevrolet has the technology to create such a drastic increase in effective gas mileage, the other car manufacturers will surely follow suit. Projections for the Chevy Volt are about 2 years off, not 5, 10, or 15. If we have the ability to create a fleet of cars in the next 2-10 years with such drastic fuel consumption effects, we BETTER see a 50% decline in fuel consumption in 3 times that length of time.

As I said before, our wants are surpassing our needs. We are not ready to sacrifice much of anything in our current situation for a better future. So what if an electric/gas hybrid doesn’t go as far as the gas only counterpart of today. Don’t we all stop multiple times on long trips anyway? If we have a car that can get us to work on a single charge, that’s all we need. Drive to work then plug it up and then drive back home. Everyone wants the “end all, be all” solution day 1 plus 25% more. We want too much and are willing to sacrifice nothing. We saw that as gas prices shot up at the pump. It took $4 per gallon of gas to impact us enough to begin altering our driving habits. Seriously? Shouldn’t $2 gas have been enough to create change?

Until we can accept that things HAVE to change across our society, projections like MIT’s will continue to be put forth. Sure, things will change 30 years from now, they absolutely must. But, these changes can begin now with some sacrifice. Thinking in terms of 30 years decreases the “scare factor” of where we are at. 30 years is forever in most people’s lives. We lose the urgency when we hear such projections. However, our last major oil and energy crisis occurred in the 70’s, exactly 30 years ago. Shouldn’t we be using more cost effective technology now? You get the idea. We always talk about change when things are bad but when things get better, we lose the sense to fix things. That is until the next time things get bad and on a much larger scale.

We must focus on the solutions now. We must place urgency on fixing things in the next 5-10 years and change our habits and sacrifice to make things happen. Sitting on our projections that things will be better in the future only creates situations like we are in now. If we would have began fixing things 10 years ago, 5 years ago, or even 2, where would we be now? The future is today… the time to sacrifice is now… our future depends on it. We must stop living in an illusion and believe the future will work itself out without any of our help.

Citation: http://web.mit.edu/

Ages are arbitrary numbers, we all have birthdays. But, maturity of the mind occurs much differently for all of us. Were there in depth studies performed by our previous generations determining that a young mind can withstand such responsibilities we have associated with our current age delineations? Our past generations were thrust into society and given important responsibilities at much younger ages. The fact is they were ready for the luxuries reached by turning 16, 18, and 21. Their minds were trained and ready to deal with the ramifications resulting from their newfound “rights.” Can you honestly say the same about our current generations? Yes, we like to think we are “smarter” than our previous generations, but are we mentally ready for what young adulthood brings with it?

Research currently supports the fact that a human brain does not fully mature until the mid-20’s. Fully mature is a subjective statement if we are talking about common sense and decision making of course. However, the human brain, scientifically, reaches a mature state biologically at that time. An immature mind does not have the experience level associated with it or growth to rationally expect mature decisions from it. We are not even throwing in any side effect inducing substances in the equation that will further dilute the ability of the mind to think at this point. Our minds just do not develop until later in life. Much later than the 16, 18, or 21 ages we allow our younger generations to experience full adulthood responsibilities and luxuries.

I know there are those of us (probably 99% of us) who like to think we were smarter than the average bear and we deserved the rights we received when we reached the age milestones. If everyone is smarter than everyone else, where are the less than smarter people? Self delusion experts have some great research in that area alone. On average, what we believe is just not true when relating to those around us. There are those of us who are ready for the responsibilities of turning 16, 18, or 21, but for each one that is, there are many more that are not. The ones who can withstand the pressures and issues do not have completely mature minds, but they have something else. They have an environment around them supporting their decision making, they have something within separating them from the other immature minds around them, and they are mentally prepared to handle themselves even though they do not have completely developed mature minds.

Let’s focus on a single subject that has recently come up. Several colleges, about 100 actually, are trying to lower the legal drinking age to 18. Primary reasoning for lowering the age is that “current laws actually encourage dangerous binge drinking on campus.” They even mention that “this is a law that is routinely evaded … It is a law that the people at whom it is directed believe is unjust and unfair and discriminatory.” Well great, since it’s a tough law to enforce and somehow it discriminates against young people, getting rid of it is the answer right? How much more completely wrong can that opinion be? The age limit and enforcement laws are in place to keep young people safe, not to hurt them. Adding a mind, mood, and decision altering substance to the equation that already includes an immature mind, only adds to potential issues.

If the age factor is creating a binge problem, then theoretically, shouldn’t the age limit be removed all together? I mean if the age is 18, wouldn’t 16 year olds be bingeing because of age discrimination? Let’s be fair to everyone. Next time you buy that six-pack, feel free to share it with your 14 year old, or 13, or 12, it doesn’t stop. The argument to lower the drinking limit has been around for a long time. It’s because people think they are ready for adulthood at an age when they aren’t even ready to take care of themselves. If you cannot take care of yourself, on your own, with your own job, your own money, and your own willpower, guess what, you’re not an adult. Going to college is not the equivalent of making you an adult.

I’ve heard all the good arguments too. I can join the army and shoot people but I can’t drink? I can vote for the next President but I can’t buy a beer? I can get married for the rest of my life but I can’t legally drink that Jell-O shot. Maybe they have a case. Maybe those ages and luxuries should be looked at. Maybe 18 should be 21 and maybe 21 should be 25? Wait, that’s the wrong way, we want it lower so we can all do what we want to do earlier and more often. Personally, I think our younger generations are at such a low experience and mind maturity level that moving the driving age to 18 is feasible and moving everything that comes with turning 18 to age 21 sounds like a good idea also. That will never happen, but I will guarantee that our youth would be better served.

You may think I’m just some old fogey making up rules to limit the youth’s fun and rights. Wrong. As I look back on my life, I carried great school grades, displayed great responsibility during school, and earned a college degree. I can honestly admit during those years, I thought I knew everything. I was a complete adult and I could handle everything thrown at me. How wrong I was. Now, in my mid-30’s, I can look back at my past self and thank the Lord that I am still alive to experience true adulthood. Comparing who I am now to who I was then, who I was then was completely insane. People like to believe they are ready for the world at 16, 18, and 21, but they are not. We are still training to become adults well into our 20’s and we must realize this. Moving the luxuries and responsibilities some adults cannot even manage to a lower age can only result in disaster within our society today. Our 21 year olds can hardly manage their lives with alcohol, what do you think a generation of 18 years olds will do? Let’s get this party started. Shots on the house bartender, I have to get up early tomorrow so I don’t miss my bus.

Citation: http://www.cnn.com/

I’m optimistic though. Eventually, with enough time, money, and breakthroughs in technology, we will find an alternative source for a major portion of our demand for oil. Until then, we are going to have to find a way to decrease our daily utilization of oil by becoming more efficient, finding short term solutions, and basically, deal with a little bit of heartache which will allow us to climb out of the grand canyon sized hole we have dug ourselves into. One of these short term solutions has turned up in the form of retrofitting vehicles with electric “engines.” I ran across an article focusing on a man who turned his gas guzzling vehicle into a battery powered green machine. Let’s take a look at his story and then I’m going to run through some numbers which will illustrate some of our short term pains in the hopes of easing the future.

Larry Horsley, a self described do-it-yourselfer, converted his 1995 Chevy S-10 pickup truck into a battery powered truck. Yes, he did it himself and he says you can do it too if you have any mechanical proficiency at all. However, it did take him about 3 months to complete the conversion with most of the time spent waiting on parts arrival (leads me to believe this is not a one stop shop kit). The conversion involved removing the entire gas powered engine, radiator, fuel injection system, and yes, the exhaust system. As we all know, a battery powered vehicle doesn’t have any emissions to worry about. Great, it saves on gas and also helps out our environment. Everything up until this point sounds perfect. Assuming we have some tools and know how to use them, any of us can convert our car/truck given enough time and effort.

But is it really a cost savings? It hurts each and every time you go to the pump and put upward of $50 in your tank when it used to be $25. It sure would feel good if you had something you could drive which would put an end to that wouldn’t it? The vehicle Horsley has made allows him to do that. He never has to purchase gas for his truck ever again. Horsley states that he has about $12,000 in the truck, including the cost of the truck. Dealers say this is about standard cost. Well, that doesn’t sound too bad considering all of the newer vehicles coming out on the market with high mileage ratings and hybrid technology are well above that. Used vehicles running on battery power aren’t all that big of a deal since the engine wear and tear associated with older used vehicles is non-existent. Basically, go buy any vehicle in good shape structurally and convert it, you’re good to go.

This is where my numbers machine kicks in. I see the costs and the savings and I began to think are we really saving any money? We are all looking for ways to save money right? Since the price at the pump is the primary issue here (we really don’t care how much oil we use, just the price of it), we should be looking at the actual cost of the conversion. Information was not given on the complete cost of the conversion to battery power, so let’s utilize some basic guesstimates. Horsley says the $12,000 includes the cost of the truck. It’s a 1995 S-10 so the cost of that should be fairly minimal considering this is 2008. We’ll give him a generous figure of $6,000 for the truck. That leaves us $6,000 as the cost of conversion, including batteries.

Statistics for his vehicle shows that he can go a total of 40 miles between charges (there are 20 batteries in the system). He can travel up to 60 miles per hour and there is no air conditioning installed. He mentions that people only drive about 20 miles per day on average so the 40 total miles is good enough on average (I don’t know where he got that number but we’ll go with it). Now, we have enough data to find out our savings. Let’s say on average, a gallon of gas costs $3.75 (national average is right there at the moment). $6,000 in cost of conversion divided by $3.75 yields us 1,600 gallons of gas in immediate costs. If we use his 20 miles per day number, an average American will drive only 7,300 miles per year (much lower than the 12,000 I’ve normally heard). Using an average of 21 miles per gallon, at 1,600 gallons, that totals 33,600 miles that can be traveled on the costs of conversion. 33,600 miles divided by 7,300 yearly miles gives us 4.6 years of travel.

The cost savings aren’t really there according to the numbers given. If we utilized 12,000 miles per year, we are still close to 3 years of travel time paid for up front. Horsley mentions that he estimates that he has “saved” about $700 in gas costs in 4 months while driving his converted truck. Working the numbers out, that equates to him driving about 12,000 miles per year given $3.75 per gallon gas and 21 mpg. Even at that rate, he still spent 3 years worth of gas costs up front to “save.” He also mentions that he no longer has to pay for oil changes or tune-ups which would add to the total savings. Agreed, so over 3 years, that saves about $400. However, in all of this, he has left out the cost of electricity to charge the vehicle. Energy costs are high so that must be accounted for.

Is he really saving any money? Sure, after about 3-5 years he will, but is that what we need when we are looking for an actual costs savings immediately to help our budget and wallet? As I said before, our intermediate issues are going to “cost” us more than what we are trying to replace. But, the future will be cheaper. Think of it as “biting the bullet.” Horsley chose to bite the bullet and lay down money up front rather than be nitpicked on a weekly basis at the pump. As we migrate away from foreign oil, we will most likely ALL face similar choices. Pay upfront costs for a better future or continue to be held down by the thumb of bubbling crude. One thing to keep in mind, as more and more people switch to battery power, our electric demands will go up and how does electric get produced? We must be careful on switching demands onto something that will increase its costs to a similar state of peril. We might save ourselves gas money, but end up spending that savings on electric bills.

Citation: http://www.cnn.com/

We are all subject to a certain level of mind control. Whether it is spoken words, print media, or television, media has always grasped the fact that our minds are available for potential direction and cajoling. Throw in our needs to fit in and we have created a fertile ground for the seeds of control to grow. Most of the time, the controlling nature of media is very subtle. The goal is to “train” us over time and generate a predicted outcome from society. However, there are times when immediate action is sought after. This is where we see extremists in our media “pushing our buttons.” Provocative reports, fear mongering, and violence on television provide the necessary means for pushing the public in certain directions.

Think about it, how do you react to certain cues when you are watching television, listening to the radio, or reading a book? I’m sure there are times that you feel the absolute need to immediately say something to someone. Media is looking for a reaction, they are counting upon it. Sometimes, you may even decide to change the channel, turn the station, or just stop reading a certain book. You may even walk away from a public speech if you are so inclined. This is the process of “weeding out” people who are not agreeable to certain cues. The remaining public however is what they are looking for. They now have a receptive audience who they can utilize additional mind control techniques on. Mind control within the formation of a small society.

Do you know of any societies such as these? I’m sure you do, they exist in our everyday lives and come in all shapes and sizes. There are groups that become quite large and can exact pressure at our highest levels of government. Our two political parties are an example of mind controlling methods at work. Through print, television, and other forms of media, they create a community of “like minded” individuals and work towards adding more to their group. Originally, the intent was to work towards achieving what was best for the country and everyone within it. Now, the goal seems to have become a race for power and money and not necessarily what is best for the individual voters.

Everyone is susceptible to various forms of mind control. It’s in our human nature. Knowing this, we have to be wary of the intent behind what is going on around us and we must ask ourselves if we are truly making up our own mind or are we being led down a predetermined path designed by the media? We will still be affected by our environment, but we can limit the effectiveness of the tools being used against us.

Personally, I try and fight the methods of control by choosing to experience multiple viewpoints. I do not stick to watching a certain news channel. I don’t read a specific author and similar agreeable content. I listen to alternate viewpoints. I do this on purpose, even if the content infuriates me. I have made a choice to open my mind’s horizons by doing such things. Too often, groups of people choose to disregard anything that could possibly be opposite of how they think and they are falling into a trap. They are falling into the mind controlling tools of their society. Without experiencing opposite viewpoints, the mind will only continue down the path of what is known, until some enlightening experience should come along. We’ve all seen it. Groups of people become like each other over time. Why else would parents want to make sure we keep our kids away from the “bad apples?”

To go back to books being a mind control object similar to television, we are missing one important aspect of television when compared to books. Television comes with instant visual and sound cues along with the content. Books require the mind to create the environment within. The simple fact of television displaying the environment to us desensitizes us to our environment. Viewing violence and bad behavior carries with it a much more profound effect upon us than reading and creating a fictional world in our minds. Yes, television is mostly fiction, but society places undue emphasis on the television “reality.” We speak of television as if it were real, we assume because it’s on television, people act that way and it’s acceptable. Television infiltrates millions more of our minds than a single book designed for mind control could ever hope to achieve.

Television is a ubiquitous medium that affects everyone. Reading is limited to those who choose to read. Usually, the people choosing to read are more adept at distinguishing mind control tools. People who read are statistically proven to be on average smarter than those who do not. The general concept of mind control can be thought of as simple “gang mentality.” Focus on the weaker individuals, give them something to grasp onto, and create a community of likeminded individuals. Gangs are the epitome of mind control at work.

In summing up, sure, books can be devices of mind control. But to think books are at the same level of mind control as television is incorrect in my opinion. Television creates a fictional “reality” which people place value upon. Books create a fictional world inside the mind of the individual and this world will be vastly different from reader to reader. Television desensitizes our society where books generally expand our knowledge (yes, even fiction). We can create road blocks to mind control techniques the media uses by making appropriate choices in how we interpret our environment. We must also open our minds to alternative viewpoints or we will risk walking the path like the lemmings they want and believe us to be.

We make up our own minds right? Yes, of course, someone else cannot think and make decisions for us. But, our experiences learned via our interaction with our environment can create situations where the outcome can be predetermined by an individual successfully playing the game of body language, signaling, and inserting subliminal cues into the equation. A simple example of our environment training us is shown during a trip to the local cinema. Commercials run continuously displaying popcorn, soda, and treats prior to the flick and our mouths start to water. Most of us who have any experience going to movies know to buy the appropriate “meal” before entering the seating area because we have been taught that popcorn and soda complete the movie experience. Next time you go to the theater, watch the amount of waste that is thrown away as the customers leave. It is simply amazing. Did they really want it or were they cued and taught to purchase it?

It’s a pretty simple concept. Insert enough cues into the environment and over time, the wanted outcome will eventually happen at a high rate. We are still making the decisions, but our past experience is guiding and weighting the decision due to external factors. Simply put, we are being led to a decision expected by the entity inserting the environmental cues. People and businesses utilize these extremely effective maneuvers to gain an advantage in many situations. I recently read a report on MSNBC featuring two body language experts detailing how you can utilize signals and cues to get “what you want” in life, work, or even in romance. Subtle information at times, even if you’re on the lookout for decision altering cues, can be missed and results in our mind interpreting these signals and thus motivating our decision.

The body language experts provide a few examples of how signals can affect how people think and react. To be viewed as a team player at work, hang up a picture or two of a pet in your cubicle or office. They say people view a pet loving person as loyal. Another example they cite involves creating an aura of power at work. They suggest wearing black outfits because black has been shown to display dominance. Another point they make is to try not and smile as much as you would like. By keeping a neutral face, they say it indicates power and status in the work place. One last tidbit they offer is to offer your boss a hot cup of coffee and engage in a conversation while the boss happily drinks down his morning “wake me up.” Our body language experts inform us that the warm temperature of the drink permeating through the cup and through their body while drinking correlates to us being a warm and likeable person (I personally think this one is a little skewed by the kiss-butt factor).

As you can see, these are very subtle cues within our environment. Over time, we are trained to react to specific cues in a manner which can be predicted. No, it doesn’t work in every situation, but the frequency in which they do is worth the bother to incorporate some of the information body language “experts” suggest. Another simple example of body language carrying subliminal motivation is readily apparent in how our politicians gesture when they are speaking publicly. Next time you watch Obama or McCain speaking to a crowd, watch their hand gestures. Their mannerisms are specifically trained so the public feels “better” when listening to them. Similar to when you speak to someone, you want them to listen intently to you. You want them to be leaning towards you, hanging on your words, not leaning back in a bored state of mind. Our politicians move their arms and hands around while walking around the stage to generate a specific reaction from those who are listening. Anyone remember the Bill Clinton closed hand pump with his thumb over his index finger while speaking? Research that for some interesting homework.

Our environment plays a large part in our decision making, whether we are specifically cognizant of the fact or not. Our minds and bodies have been trained to assimilate data and our responses are generally the same and can be predicted over time. Yes, we are trained like puppies to a certain extent. We like to think we are in control of every single second of our decision making when it comes to our lives, but in reality, we have quite a bit of help. Some of that help comes from people who are intentionally manipulating the environment to create the outcome they wish. Beware of your surroundings and environment, you will begin to notice more and more how your decisions are being affected. You will also spot those who are playing the game for their best interests. Take some time and learn their tricks and turn the tables. Take back a portion of your decision making and throw a wrench into the plans of those who are trying to manipulate your decisions.

Citation: http://www.msnbc.com/

Of course, I start out skeptical when I hear most “facts” spoken by experts. Rarely is the day I take a report seriously until I can prove the validity of the information. This is one of those cases. I heard these expert backed facts and I put on my internet research hat and decided to find out if this hot air balloon was actually air worthy. So let’s get into some numbers.

Obama’s camp cites several “efficiency” experts regarding car maintenance. They propose that if American’s kept their tire pressures at the optimal level, car mileage would increase by 3%. On top of that, they state regular car maintenance will improve mileage by another 4%. This results in a 7% increase in American car mileage. 7% sure does sound like enough of an increase to create an impact. Based on some recent data, the average American car mileage is estimated to be 21 miles per gallon (mpg). If we tack on an additional 7%, we are now at 22.5 mpg. Now if we put it that way, it doesn’t sound like much. Wow, an extra 1.5 miles per gallon? Well, how about rolling that increase across the millions of miles Americans drive.

Based on some additional simple math, Americans average about 250 billion miles driven per month (3 trillion miles driven per year). This equals out to 11.9 billion gallons of gas per day at 21 mpg, 11.1 billion at 22.5 mpg. WOW! That is a lot of gas… and oil. Reports also state America utilizes 20 million barrels of oil per day. Each barrel of oil can produce about 19.5 gallons of gas. Simple math puts us at 20.3 million barrels of oil per day at 21 mpg, 19 million barrels at 22.5 mpg. Can it be? So far, we are right on the money with our estimates and math. Experts say we are at 20 million barrels of oil per day and our math above is right at it! As a note since we are using variable data here, if the average mpg per vehicle is lower (which I imagine could be true), the oil savings are actually better with any efficiency increase.

In those numbers above, it shows that based on a simple 7% increase in overall gas mileage, we can lower our oil utilization by 1.3 million barrels of oil per day. That equates to roughly a 6% decline in oil utilization (demand). After this trek through number crunching, we can safely say the experts are correct based on their “facts.” However, even though the numbers come through and support their stance, is it logical to truly believe the American automobile is in such a state across the board that will yield such an increase? Is it feasible?

I’m not so sure. So, I went searching for more statistics. I found the median age of the American vehicle fleet ranges from 7-9 years old. Half older, half newer, so let’s cut it in the middle and say all vehicles are on average, 8 years old. That means that in 2008, your average vehicle on the road is a model 2000. Based on these facts, the American highways are not littered with vehicles in terrible shape or running inefficient engine and vehicle designs. What the reports are missing is a major factor in these calculations. Where does the diesel, or tractor trailer, fit into the equation? Statistics show on average, the semi gets about 6-10 mpg. Do the efficiency experts include semi trucks in their equation? What about the total mileage driven by Americans, does it include tractor trailer mileage? I don’t know the answer to either.

I am highly skeptical as to the “facts” stated by the efficiency experts suggesting we would see an increase of 7% in mpg across our vehicle fleet. They are assuming a pretty sad state of vehicle maintenance and tire pressures. I just think we are aiming a bit too high here. In 2006, there were about 250 million registered vehicles in the country, 40% of them 6 years old or less (data supports the 8 year median age). If the experts are half right, we can potentially save about 700,000 barrels per day. Even at a measly 1% increase in mpg across our vehicle fleet yields a savings of 200,000 barrels per day.

Ok, I will settle and believe the efficiency experts that we could at least gain a measly 1% in mpg if we corrected our tire pressures and maintained our cars better. Does 200,000 barrels per day have any significance? Yes, it does actually. Current efforts to open up offshore drilling will supposedly lead to an increase in US oil production of 200,000 barrels per day… by the year 2030. So, if we were to be more efficient today, we could save the equivalent of what our offshore capabilities are 22 years from now. What about that oil field in Alaska we hear about called ANWR? Several estimates put production from the ANWR fields anywhere from 800,000 – 1.5 million barrels per day… in 2023.

Lots of numbers and lots of so-called facts from a variety of “experts,” but where does it leave us? Is it true we can save oil by being more efficient? Sure, but I believe Obama’s campaign is stating the absolute best case scenario known to man to achieve their 7% mpg increase. On the other hand, even 1% increase in efficiency creates the same effect today the opening of our offshore drilling sites would create by 2030 (when demand for oil is unknown). ANWR drilling is the only currently available option that could greatly impact our demand for oil. But, even then, that is 15 years away.

The efficiency experts are correct in their pursuits to have Americans keep their cars in optimal shape. It will help definitely our oil demands. But, unless there is a much larger than 1% overall increase, the impact will be negligible. What I am saying is that I don’t think an overall change in efficiency is going to impact our oil demands, today. It’s nice to think we will be more efficient, but how many people leave the lights on at home when it would be more efficient to turn them off when you leave the room? How many people leave the tv, computer, dvd player, or stereo on? Getting American people, all 300 some odd million of us, to be more efficient is a change that will take place along the same lines as the drilling programs above. I.E. it will take Americans 15-20 years to adopt new habits of efficiency. The simple answer to our problems day one is to not drive so much in our gas guzzling vehicles. That is the single, largest impact on our oil utilization we can achieve TODAY!

Citation: US Department of Transportation & http://www.time.com/

Personally, I think the propensity for violence in our society is near 100%. I’m speaking about rational, functional individuals living amongst us. We are ALL born with the “genes” of violence within us, men and women alike. It’s in our nature, specific genes or not. Our current crop of scientists believes they can pinpoint each individual gene, or group of genes, responsible for everything. The Human Genome Project has shown great promise when working towards counteracting disease and trying to inhibit their impact on people but are we looking too deep into this equation? Maybe one day they can find the gene that makes men believe they are always going the right direction even without a map. Better yet, maybe we can find the gene and eliminate it from our children before birth that causes teenagers to think they know everything when in fact, they do not.

Given enough time, money, and human subjects, every “study” will produce results which can form some semblance of a “ground breaking” statement. Why exactly would we be looking for a “violence gene?” Are we looking to weed out the bad apples from society? Are we trying to find out who would be best suited for military careers? Are we trying to “correct” them before they become violent? Why do we believe we must fix everything? Finding a violence gene in humans is like finding out babies cry when they are hungry. To only assume that 1% of our nation has these genes is ludicrous. Every person has the ability to be violent. Most are able to say no to their nature because of some of the following: They are rational. They have moral and ethical values. They have religious faith deeming violence is wrong. They know right from wrong. They are mentally stable.

We live in a free society where most people are rewarded for being non-violent. However, that does not mean that 99% of us are born without the propensity for violence and have dormant “violent genes” residing within our genetic makeup. According to the study, some triggers which results in violence from these genetic anomalies are: stress, family problems, failing school, and low popularity. They cannot be serious can they? Studying 20,000 young men resulted in the profound findings you just read? Oh, and the study also found that if the family eats dinner together on a regular basis, the propensity for violence returned to almost zero. Yes, yet another groundbreaking insight into human behavior.

While I am all for studying people and how our genetics impact our lives and health, studies such as these are time fillers, money wasters, and gibberish. People who are prone to violence do not need a blood test to show the world they need help. They produce specific knowledge to those who know them. People who are more apt to “snap” display social characteristics throughout their life both during their younger years and during adulthood that differentiate them from the people who can readily control their violent nature within. I’m sure you know a few individuals who fit this bill, we all do. Personally, I know I am prone to violence as there are some people in my past who can attest to that fact. But, now that I’m older, more mature, and have a very good base of moral and ethical parameters differentiating what is right and wrong, I can control my violent nature and choose to do what’s right and be non-violent.

Right there, ever so subtle, the word “choose” comes into the equation. We, as thinking human beings, have choices to make. We choose to be violent or we do not. Even the most “crazy” individuals make choices. In the end, we are continually searching for reasons to blame our problems on. We, the individual or even society, are never the culprit in what has gone wrong in our lives. It must always be something or someone else’s fault for why we are the way we are and what we do. Accepting that we have choice and choose to do the wrong thing brings about accountability. And with accountability, you must have consequences for action and responsibility. These words carry great weight in our lives. Many people just cannot deal with the ramifications of their choices and return to their violent nature. We are all capable of doing what is wrong just as much as we are at doing what is right.

However, we want something other than ourselves to blame for when we choose to do what’s wrong. We take the accolades and compliments for when we make the right decisions as we have earned them right? But when we are wrong, low and behold, it was a genetic anomaly that was at fault. While I’m sure genetics plays a big part in the formation of who we are and creates “roadblocks” during our development, we become mature, rational adults at some point in our lives. Young people will always act out, some more than others, but trying to place the blame on a genetic sequence is beyond me when violence is in our human nature. Our environment around us also plays a large part in determining who we are. The study of course showed bad environments will “trigger” violence from people “afflicted” by these genes. However, aren’t we all?

I’m not convinced we are born to follow a certain destiny our genes have been imprinted with upon creation and then birth. If we believe our genetics and environment are to blame for every single thing we do, then are we actually thinking individuals or just products of pre-wired destiny? The one thing that separates us from everything else on this planet is that we are rational, thinking beings. When was it ok to start blaming everything else but the one thing at the root of the issue? We make our choices and we must accept the results from those choices. Genetics or not, we are still in control of our decisions, even if we are “pre-disposed” to violence (which we all are). I choose to be non-violent, so can everyone else.

However, as I mentioned, would this be any different than what we see today in our lives? The answer is no for the most part, but there is an issue. While we do pay “per-use” fees on products such as water, electric, gas, food, and other various consumables, paying a fee based on your weight is not something that can always be changed. Yes, our country has the label as being overweight. Yes, the vast majority of those overweight can choose to alter their lifestyle and lose weight and thus receive a theoretical cheaper airline ticket. But, a genetic difference between people complicates the basic formula and creates a tax upon individuals who fall outside the normal data range.

Is that a fair solution to the energy crisis facing our airline industry? On first look, the suggestion appears rational. But wait, aren’t there other “taxes” on these people who fall outside of the genetic “norm?” Yes. People who are tall pay more for their clothing. Large people pay more for their clothing. People with large feet may pay more for their shoes. Large or tall people must pay more for personal transportation because a compact car is too small. Even in our current system, larger people are being forced to pay a “tax.” Is that fair? Larger people require more of everything involved in their lives. They require more water, more food, more material for clothing, etc. The “fat” or “large” tax is already in effect in our current system and nobody seems to have a major issue with it. Extra large and under is basically the same price, but anything over, expect to pay more.

Well isn’t that fair? People who are genetically different and “punishing” them by requiring them to pay more for their goods and services while everyone else receives a lower fee is generally thought of as not being fair. Our business methods have settled on this particular system though. With economies of scale at work for the majority of what we produce, businesses are ok with the tradeoffs in the XL and below classes. They win some, they lose some, but on average, they are coming out ahead by charging the same price. However, for the “special” market, they must charge more to compensate their costs. That’s both fair and rational in the sense of business. Taking this thought process to the airline industry I can see them at some point assuming such a price break could be fairly and rationally instituted. Charge everyone under X amount of weight the same price while charging people over the limit, more.

The airline industry would of course be slammed by bad media just as they were for requiring extra large people to purchase two seats. However, that has since passed and people have accepted the fact. I believe the airline has the right to begin charging people based on a weight class. Would it be a popular decision? No. Would it help the airlines cover their costs of transportation? Yes. Would society fall into disarray because people are being charged for their actual consumption? No. In a per-use charging method, there will always be subsets of society who are “unfairly” taxed because of some reason. However, a per-use charge is the most fair and rational method we can settle upon. I would rather pay for what I use than a flat rate which includes every cost associated with the product in small portions.

We pay for the total gallons of water, kilowatts of electric, gallons of heating oil, gallons of gas, quantity of food, and most everything in our life based upon how much we personally use. Yes, there are some flat rate costs in our lives and some of us are coming out ahead and some coming out behind. I don’t see any reason why the airline industry could not or should not assume a similar charging method. I’m not saying this because I’m someone who would benefit from the change, I am saying this from the standpoint that it makes sense to do so as a business and society already follows these guidelines in most everything we do. Why would we get so upset about an airline charging more for larger or taller people? Of course it takes more money to transport larger packages. The same rule applies to people.

What I see as the basic problem for the dissenters of such a change is that everyone (when money is involved) wants to be treated equal in all manners of life when in fact, we are all very different. We promote individuality on one hand and on the other, we want complete similarity. Our mindset is that we want to be an individual when it personally helps us the most and we want to be similar when being the same is the cheapest and most effective way to keep money in our pocket. Problem with that mentality is that we cannot have both at the same time. Either we are going to be individualistic or not.

I believe we should all only pay for what we use, on everything. There should be no flat rate on anything we purchase. True fairness is to pay per-use. Flat rates are a way for businesses to exploit their economies of scale and purchasing power to achieve their profit margins. Per-use fees on everything of course will never materialize because it would just be too hard for businesses to keep up with appropriate inventory and costs with each product line. We will continue to pay the same price for everything under X size and pay more for size X and up. I’m just using the clothing example here but it applies to many other products and services. Pay the basic amount until certain X level and then you must pay more.

What I boil it down to is the old standby, the 80/20 rule. 80% of the people will fall into the normal category and 20% will fall into the “taxed” category over time. It’s the simplest, most rational, and most fair way to charge without using the per-use methodology. As for my support and stance on Jeremy’s suggestion, I say sure, let the airlines charge more for larger people. Its part of life and larger people require more so being fair, they should pay more. Even if we moved to the fairest method of all, per-use, they would still be required to pay more. Currently, without charging for large people and charging a flat rate, we are effectively taxing the 80% for the 20%’s cost. Is that fair? No.

Getting away from just reporting what the article had to say, I’m going to tell you why I’ve been such a supporter of this schedule for many years. How many of you out there right now are on a 4 day work week? I know my parents are fortunate enough to be on a 4 day week with their day off being Monday. I’m pretty sure they can comment on here and state that of course there are cons to working longer days, but the pros and extra day off are more than enough to offset any potential hardship. So, hopefully they will stop by here and offer their insights into the real life 4 day work week. Personally, I think the benefits far outweigh the additional costs of moving to the new “shortweek.” Let’s take a look at some of the benefits and costs.

Primarily, the number one human benefit of moving employees to a 4 day workweek is giving them an extra day off. Everyone knows how precious time has become these days and the addition of a free day is priceless. Most people just assume that Friday will be the day given off but that’s not always the case. The business can create an acceptable work schedule to remain open exactly the same as they are now and rotate their employees through different 4 day workweek, 3 days off schedules. Sure, businesses and mangers will have to rearrange their schedules and come up with something that suits everyone involved, but it’s not a roadblock that can’t easily be overcome. The idea is to give everyone a continuous 3 day off block. Actually, where I used to work, my department and I submitted a work schedule along with the pros and cons of the 4 day work week to management about 5 years ago. We described how we would cover our necessary duties appropriately and still allow for our department to run at maximum capacity. Of course, it didn’t see the light of day because such an idea was against the grain of conventional business and management. Employee satisfaction and morale usually isn’t the number one thing on management’s minds these days. That’s an entirely different subject that I will touch upon one of these days.

Another prime benefit of the shortweek is that depending on the particular job, an extra 2 hours added to the day can increase production. The stop and go nature of some 8 hour jobs distract and disrupt the work flow. Throw in a couple of breaks and you have but a few continuous blocks of actual work being accomplished. With an additional 2 hours added to each workday, you can extend the continuity of work and potentially experience valuable work production and quality. Sure, there can be an opposite reaction to the extra 2 hours and people can experience a decrease in work production and quality. That is for the managers to determine and adjust as necessary. However, longer periods of time focused on job tasks lead to more work being accomplished and completed. I’m sure you have read the reports of how little time people are actually working at their jobs these days with all of the distractions in our daily work lives. This could in fact, help increase the amount of quality work due to economies of scale.

Those are 2 pretty good pros for moving towards a 4 day workweek. What kind of cons are there? The first con that I can think of is that people will have to get up earlier and stay later at their job. Are these hours the prime hours for quality work? Would it be better to tack the 2 hours on in the afternoon? No, that won’t work for most. What about adding them to the morning? Still, probably not. The easiest method to add in the 4 day week is to tack 1 extra hour on in the morning and 1 in the afternoon making an 8 to 5 job a 7 to 6 job. Depending on the commute, you are looking at about 12 or more hours each day dedicated to work which doesn’t leave much time for family and wind down at home. Is the 4 day week cutting our 4 work days too thin? Possibly, but it depends on the person’s situation. Sometimes, the additional 2 work hours may in fact be worthless hours depending on the employee. Managers must determine how to get the highest quality and most production out of their employees. The 4 day week will potentially stretch the employees to their limit and decrease quality and production if the appropriate employees are not in place.

A second con to the 4 day week is the potential closing of businesses on the off day. Some businesses may in fact choose to only open for 4 days of the week easing their schedule and business practices. This can hurt society in the fact that businesses people could use their extra time off to go to are now closed. During the week, they don’t have enough time to do everything since so much of their day is devoted to work. They may find a hard time satisfying appointments and many other tasks of daily life outside of their home. However, I believe this con can be easily remedied. Many businesses have worked with odd shifts and employee hours. I don’t think a 4 day workweek would damage the normal business society we have in place. Businesses will continue to find a way to stay open to meet everyone’s needs.

We could continue on at length discussing a multitude of pros and cons with each being of lesser significance. However, I think the above pros and cons are probably some of the most important when looking at the shortweek and I believe the pros by far outweigh the cons in almost every situation. Of course the business has to determine the benefits on their own, but in the end, we all know that happy employees make the company more money. If you can design a system that allows your employees to have more time at home, they will be happier and in return work harder. Time is more valuable than small increases in pay the vast majority of time. As I said earlier, time off is priceless. An individual can always find a way to make a few extra dollars but they cannot EVER make a few extra days. Time is of utmost value in our lives. The shortweek allows us to have our time and in the end, business can reap the rewards of rested and focused workers.

Citation: http://money.cnn.com/

I’m sure if you’ve watched the news over the last 2-3 years, you know that the world’s poor nations are growing and the nations that were behind the technology curve are moving forward. Couple that with the increased demands of consumers in all nations and you have a serious supply and demand issue for one of the most important ingredients of commerce, oil. At least that is what we are led to believe. I can’t even keep a mental count of how many times I heard analysts stating that the world is at oil capacity. Every barrel created is being used. We are at the edge of supply versus demand. Being that we are at such a crossroads, this leads to the supply of oil costing more and more. Eventually, the cost of the product will become so high, that demand will have to revert to a more normal level. Assuming we are talking about rational people.

So demand will fall if we continue this pace? I would hope so, or we aren’t a rational society. If we consistently empty our wallets for fuel and other products impacted by high oil prices, then I would hope that we would be bright enough to look for an alternative solution. By replacing the demand of oil with the demand for an alternative, the demand for oil will in turn decrease and with it, the cost of oil will begin to follow suit. But that doesn’t really help us does it? We really don’t have an alternative at this time. We don’t have an alternative lined up for the next 5-10 years even if something were started today. Car manufacturers have hybrid cars coming out, we have E85 gasoline, and we have some battery powered vehicles. But none of that is readily available to the masses. Hybrid cars are still depending on gasoline, they just get more MPG using more effective methods of saving gas. E85, while made of ethanol for the most part, still utilizes gas. Battery driven cars don’t have the distance capabilities we desire at this point.

We are only talking about the vehicles at this point. What about all of the products that are utilizing oil in the manufacturing process? What about all the tools that require oil and oil products? What about the transportation of goods back and forth through our country? There are many, many issues facing the demands of oil and associated replacement with an alternative product. Even if we had an alternative product, would it save us money? The major problem with oil supply is that it is “limited.” It is a natural resource that is very expensive to find, refine, and disseminate to the world. Would our alternative be any different? What resource do we have that is so abundant that the impact of our extreme demand would not immediately price the new replacement similar to that of oil?

If we switch our demand to E85, the price of corn will increase. It already has. If we replace our demand with battery operated cars, our price of materials to build batteries will drive up the manufacturing costs to levels similar to our current gas crisis. How do we achieve a cheaper alternative? We have to focus on a resource that is readily renewable and not expensive to acquire. Water is a simple answer. How can water be an alternative to oil? I don’t have a clue. It’s an example of a resource that is readily renewable, easy to acquire, and is available in mass quantities for a very cheap cost. Are there other resources like this available to us? I’m sure there are. There could even be some man-made products. However, even man-made products will suffer a price increase from increased demand and limited supply over time.

Is there any hope? Sure. But we have to fund the engineers and scientists working on potential solutions now more than ever. We cannot be in this same position of unknown in the upcoming years or our economies will hit more than a recession. Every consumer product has felt the impact of our oil crisis. Increased transportation costs, increased manufacturing costs, and increased energy costs are affecting every single product in our life. Food has begun a steady increase in price. Energy costs for electricity and heating fuel have gone up by great percentages. Our basis costs of living are far outpacing our income growth. We cannot continue this path. Eventually, demand will have to subside without a replacement or not. People will be forced to make decisions that will not only hurt their families, but the communities they live in, and also our country. Our economy is dependent upon people spending money. If people begin to stop spending money on anything but the core products that sustain life, our market economy will implode.

After all that, we are back to our market. The article stated that the analysts believe that the United States could alter the futures market by instituting a law keeping speculation to a minimum in the energy markets. Is that fair? Not really. The market and capitalism is based upon free trade and earning what the market will allow. If the US changes the field and puts limits on the market, they are creating a different type of market. The speculators will of course leave the US markets and enter another market where their money will return the largest profit in return for their risk. What will this do to the US markets? You got it, the US market will undergo a serious correction with millions (billions) of dollars leaving our investment facilities and begin entering other foreign markets. Money has no loyalty. While the analysts are correct in that the price of oil will drop because of the restraints put into place, they are also missing the impact of doing such a thing to the rest of the market.

People invest money to make money. If you remove the ability to make money, the investors will leave and find a new market for their money. Our society keeps focusing on the wrong end of the issue. We need to focus on the demand side of the issue and not the supply issue. If we add supply, demand will eat the new supply in an instant with nothing but a small respite of lower prices. We MUST focus on the demand side and find an alternative to oil. That is the only TRUE way of returning our energy crisis to normalcy. Anything we do will take time to integrate and produce, more than likely, 5-10 years worth of time. Do we have that kind of time with the state our economy and world is in? I don’t know. Demand will only continue to increase and unless someone finds an ocean of oil that can be tapped easily in the near future, we are on pace for $6 per gallon gas in the next 2 years.

Citation: http://www.marketwatch.com/