ChadMaestro

Archive for the ‘Industry’ Category

Richard Dawkins is a man who firmly believes in a set of principles, philosophies and understandings which are based on science, facts and understandings from many, many writings. Personally I’ve always seen his work approached with an open mind and objection in how the scientific understanding can be “proven”. There is an interview with himself and Wendy Wright where he makes points for Evolution and how it should be taught in schools over Creationism as a theory as to the state of the human race it’s currently in.

One of the first statements made from Wendy Wright is that “if we believe that human beings were made by a loving Creator, we are more likely to treat other people with respect and dignity.” Dawkins, from here progresses to talk about evolution and the facts of evolution. But what I’m concerned with is this philosophy that believing in a being – believing that a being created us with a spirit, should I say – provokes us to be good to each other. Is this true, though? From my understanding the sanctity of human life comes about from the upbringing and the values instilled upon us from our parents. And, if for example, we are taught these values from parents who believe in a Creator, you could leave out the idea of such a being and still get the same message across.

This is one of the fundamental problems I have with Religion, as a whole, is that it teaches the right principles for the wrong reasons. And, as the saying goes, a good decision, made for wrong reasons, can be a wrong decision – because good, bad, right and wrong are subjective to the human mind. So what you find is that once you start including a 3^rd party source for reasoning as to do and not to do, once you gain the ability to think for yourself (that is to say not have a Creator think for you), reasoning for actions done will drastically change and that could change the actions themselves. The reasoning for people to treat other people with respect and kindness, in this case, is that we are from the same Creator and as such we should all respect each other. Personally, I think a better reason would be “would you like it if that was done to you?”

Another issue with this idea is that Creationism itself is an ideology from the old testament of the Bible. The idea of “Love thy neighbour as thy love thy self comes” is a New Testament ideology. I have no idea where the idea of respecting each other comes from in this context because this is the same Jewish Testament that states to kill a woman if she is not a virgin when she marries [Exodus 35:2] and the same Testament that preaches to kill disobedient teenagers [Deuteronomy 21:18-21]. The idea of respecting a point of view and respecting each other as human beings completely contradicts so many matters in the Bible where God demands the death of Thousands simply because they don’t share the same view point – this doesn’t sound like a high respect for one another to me.

The next point she makes is to teach the controversy. The problem I can see straight away with this idea is that one theory is heavily supported, while the other is not. For the purpose of this article it’s meaningless to state what I, personally, believe – but looking at it from a logical point of view, when you want to teach ideas that are formed on a single story in a single book throughout the history of time, versus the many scientific discoveries about a particular theory, that’s not completely fair, is it? I would teach such controversy is a social studies class or a Bible class where matters of the Bible can be established – not in a science class, purely because science builds is statements on the fundamental idea of evidence supporting a view point to such a degree that it is deemed fact.

Wendy Wright seems to be an intelligent woman, however continually pointed out evidence for evolution not being a feasible idea – the first of which she mentions the pig’s tooth which ended up not being the tooth of a man, but really was just a pig’s tooth. These contesting ideas are not the basis to prove a theory, it is simply to disprove a theory – which is fine for debate against and for evolution, but if you’re going to have a hypothesis of your own, it’s suggested that you actually have an amount of evidence that backs up your claim, rather than continuously picking on someone else’s.

Further in the interview, Dawkins’s asks Wendy Wright where she studied science. Her response is “That’s the point; scientists are claiming they are the only ones who can speak on this issue.” – She didn’t study science anywhere, and this is where her entire argument and anything she states falls apart. By this, she’s stating that she’s not studied science. Hence, she’s arguing a deeply scientific point from the basis of a single chapter, in a single book, written 1600 odd years ago.

The final point about Wendy Wright’s argument is that we all have a spirit and/or a soul. She states that we as Human Beings are different from the rest of the Animal Kingdom because we have spirits and souls. She then goes on to say that she has a mentally disabled niece, but her disabled niece has a spirit. “That is the difference between Humans and Animals, is that we have spirits.” She then argues that Darwinism forms a hierarchy of people based on what they can contribute to society who think they are better than other people, and forms systems such as communism. I’m not arguing that we and animals do or do not have souls, but to state that we as humans have a soul simply because we are human, and that an animal who does provide for us in its meat, in its connection to the food chain, etc. does not have a spirit is completely arrogant, ignorant and biased to human. This is what Darwinism itself is conveying, that we are intelligent, supposedly, hence we are better. That in itself is a complete contradiction because on one hand she’s stating that Darwinism is bad because of the hierarchical system it forms, but on the other hand she’s forming another hierarchical system in which human beings, themselves, are above all others.

We are not. We are simply another species in this world and universe which play a part in the continuous cycle that is life. We are no more important than any other species, for without them, life could not exist. Funny enough, though, without “us” life would go on very easily.

Socio-cultural

We have very little control on the outside world, and on anything in general, in fact, you have very little control on anything in existence or reality. Your life is determined by the people around you, in your environment and by the little that they control. But you come to a point where you realise that you have so little control over your life and the experiences of your life that you realise that your entire existence is merely part of a luck in the draw.

What I want to do, for the purpose of understanding is work from the outside in. A man by the name of Urie Bronfenbrenner developed a theory which shows the influence on a child’s life from a socio-cultural perspective. And the understanding I have is that the most influential part of the theory comes from the outside. And this is how I’ll be talking about it, explaining how you really have no control over your life and, really, on your life’s experiences. PS: The diagram used in this article neglects the Meso System (talking about neighbourhood influence).

Macrosystem

The macro system is the most influential part of our current existence. The reason this is, is because the economic and political system govern and determine the other systems, and you will find that that is the case of all the systems, they determine and essentially control the systems below them – which is slightly surprising because you’d think that the influence closest to the child/human being would have the most influence, but this is not the case due to the control of the system above. Macrosystem, as you can see, is what includes political, economic and even some religious standards. The reason they are in the most control is if you are born into a country of economic turmoil, you will be in financial turmoil for as long as you are in that country, and because this is the way the country is, nothing you can bring to the table can change this. An example would be if you’re a brilliant piano player, or rather, you have the gift to play piano, you cannot do a thing with that gift if you are born into a country where no one can teach you, such as various parts of India where there is no economic support to allow the support of Piano, or even schooling in general. Countries which mix their politics with Religion will often have rules and laws which limit a human being from experiences, removing your Veil, as a woman, in the Muslim religion in Afghanistan is punishable by death. So in this sense, you really have no control over your life, and by explaining this of the Macrosystem, I’ve almost explained it for all the systems.

Exosystem

The choice of school you go to is ultimately the choice of your parents, as are a lot of choices in your life as a child. But at the school you are taught what is accepted by a panel of people known as the Ministry of Education. You really have no choice what you learn at school, in terms of Linguistics and Logics, religion is often a subject choice in primary schools by your parents. To be quite honest, I’ve never really met a person who looked forward to school every single day of their life, and the majority did not like school as a whole – and for good reason. You’re required to regurgitate some information which someone else believes is useful, and if you regurgitate is well enough, you get a piece of paper which states you’re academically not an outcast. But that’s for another article. As a child we attend school and generally we don’t have any choice as of what we learn. We have no control as to what is displayed on Mass Media, there are laws in place to prevent inappropriate material from being displayed. But if someone were to display something which was objectionable, the only real thing we can do is change the channel. We have no control over that.

Microsystem

Probably the more obvious realisation is that we don’t choose our family. Our family, no matter how good or bad, is there and we have no choice or control as to who they are, when we’re born. Our families often determine what values and morals are instilled upon us, and often our religious setting. As Dawkins would say, there is no such thing as a Muslim child or a Christian child; there is a child with Muslim or Christian parents. Which is true, children are not old enough to understand that what they are doing is one of many ways to do things – when you don’t know any better, your point of view is right.

Genetics

So we have half a conclusion, here. The life and experiences we intake are really nothing more than a chance of luck. But there is another important factor that makes up the person we are, Genetics.

Genetics are the result of our for-fathers and are most commonly known for reasoning the way we look. But Genetics are also partially (about 50%) responsible for who we are. It is said that Preparation + Opportunity = Luck. Well we’ve established that opportunity is a luck factor, because opportunity can’t arise if you don’t live in the right socio-cultural environment. But preparation – is that luck? Preparation is how you present yourself, your personality, how hard you work, who you are and what you have to offer as person. Guess what. All those things are Genetic. And because we have no say, choice or influence on our genetics, they are in fact nothing more than a chance of luck.

With that in mind you can grasp the fact that our lives are literally bi products of the people before and around us, and even ahead of us. We will change as our children exist.

Some of you may start to be thinking of examples where you are actually in control of your life, and maybe even the lives of others. The truth is that there are numerous other factors controlling your life at the moment, and as such, these things have a large influence on what happens to you.

I have the choice to buy a new car and that car is mine, I control the car. Well firstly you have the illusion of choice, I’ll come to in a second – but your control over the car is merely because the car is yours to use, not yours to own. You own nothing – owning something is an illusion as well. You own a car, what about if it gets stolen and stripped. You own the car, don’t you? How could someone take it and do that to it? You didn’t own it, you were simply using it, and you paid a large sum of money to give you the illusion that you own it. And I should rather say delusion because if you don’t know it’s an illusion, you’re being deluded. You own a house – the house catches a light and burns to the ground. Your control over what happens to these material objects which you think you have control over is completely illusory. You don’t have control over it, hence whatever happens to it and effectively you is due to luck.

Choice is a big one, you really don’t have choice in this world, and this should really be in another article but choice is nothing but an illusion created by people in power to keep ignorant people ignorant. You may think you have the choice to fill up at one petrol station or another, those are illusions because ultimately they’re owned by the same company, a company which causes you to pay a lot of money for something ultimately meaningless – and it is this materialism which factors in our ignorance. The people higher up keep us busy and distracted with issues which should be brought to the table. But these companies are owned by people who also have an impact on your life. As such when you think you have control over your life because you have choice, try to stop a sec and realise that this “choice” is not actually a decision between two factors, but rather the illusion given to you so that you feel in control – you have no control, your choice still benefits someone in a penthouse somewhere in the 52^nd floor of a 7 star hotel.

The bigger scheme of things – Acceptance

We mentioned opportunity briefly just before but there is another side to it, which makes up about 50% of success. Success is determined by luck, but there is another factor which, in itself, is also luck – it is acceptance. One can easily have the right personality and the right opportunity from someone, but it means nothing if after everything, you do not get accepted by the other party. Acceptance is a big thing though, because it involves around 6 billion other people all working on luck as well – so your chance of true success is actually quite a slim one, because people are individuals. If you think of the millions of atoms moving around in the sun which cause the fusion to happen, those atoms which collide are just as lucky as we are to find success, because of the randomness that is the universe.

So what do you do?

There are only 2 things which are truly ours which we have some form of control over. They are the knowledge in our minds, and our perception. These are what we can consciously change if we so wish and should change as we can, because without their modification we tend to live a rather dull and unhappy/depressing life.

To conclude this article, there is something very simple which you can do which will make you a much happier person, a much better-off human being. And that is to change the way you perceive the world. If life is a game of luck then 50% of things should make you happy, and 50% should make you unhappy, but if you can condition your mind to disregard things which should make you unhappy, then you will be happy more often. Life is a game of luck and hence will inevitably screw you over, but if you can take these perceivably negative actions done to us with a grain of salt, you’ll find that you’re generally happy more of the time.

When something good happens, rejoice, but when something bad happens, don’t get upset about it, because if you let yourself, your emotional state of being and in essence your well-being itself become controlled by external factors, you find that your pain and suffering is a lot higher than that of which you can easily disregard.



So Vodafone announced yesterday at about 12pm that the usage of Best Mate is going to be changed, or rather cut down. From the first of July, 2010, the number of texts is going to go down from Unlimited to 1000, and the number of calling minutes is going to go from Unlimited to 1000. This basically equals about 16 hours of talking time, and for $6 that’s honestly not bad – IF it were to more than one mobile. Comparing this a feature of their Super Prepay plan, $2 for 2 hours – this basically entails $16 for 16 hours of talk time, which is obviously a lot more expensive, but I could call 3 or more numbers and use that $16, which is cheaper than getting Best Mate 3, which a person could use to make 16 x 3 hours of calling, but only 16 hours per person – which makes it a bit complicated as you would have to keep note of how much you are using per person per call.

That’s another issue, simplicity. At the end of the informational message the lovely lady says something along the lines of “get ready for a simpler Best Mate”. I would like to make it clear that there is nothing simpler about this for the end user, nor is there any benefit at all. The users are literally getting ripped off more and more. In fact, how does Best Mate 2 work? Do I get 2000 minutes to split between two numbers? Or do I get 1000 Minutes per number? Sure, I’m being a bit anal here, but this is the issue I have with bullshit fed, like “more simple” for the end user.

The funny thing is that we should be used to this sort of thing from Vodafone, now. They are truly masters of manipulation due to their monopoly over the Market. They have so many charges which other countries and even other services within New Zealand know are ridiculous, for example, changing a plan (as simple as changing from Best Mate 1 to Best Mate 2) costs $3. You are spending more money a month with their service, yet they’re charging you a fee to do so. Imagine going into a super-market and after your purchase you went back into the store and bought something else, and because of this the teller said to you that you have to pay a fee. Personally I would laugh and walk out. Another fee they charge is if you wish to speak to a customer service representative – you must pay $1 to do so.

This sounds like it’s something to expect from Vodafone, a high charge for their services, so why are they the leading industry in mobile services in NZ? They offer 1 or 2 services which appeal to the majority of the consumers, and because they offer an affordable service that gains their market, they find it necessary to charge ridiculous amounts on everything else. This service being the TXT2000 add-on for prepay mobiles, allowing you to send 2000 texts for $10 a month to any Vodafone mobile. Recently it was announced that you can get a service called TXT4000 for $14 a month. How does a company allow 4000 texts (or SMS messages) for $14/month and 1000 texts to a single other number for $6/month. It literally is nothing more than a rip-off of the end consumer.

There is one other factor that some of you may be thinking of: “But Chad, GST is going up to 15% soonish.” Fair call, however limiting the end user in their usage is a complete step backward in the industry. It would be much wiser for Vodafone to increase the charge of their service to make up the lost profit, rather than create limits to take us backward in the industry technology. Income tax is also being reduced, basically allowing the consumer to spend more money, and because GST is increasing companies will have to raise their prices to make up the money sent to ye ol’ John Key.

Creating limits is just not the answer – and is why Continents like Europe and America look at New Zealand and wonder how we’re classed as a first world country.