Simplicity in the Work Place

     The work place, an environment that is taxing to the soul (for most of us). The average U.S. wage employee works a 40 hour work week, usually Monday - Friday. The law in France, a 35 hour work week, usually Monday - Friday. The difference? Efficiency. Between these two countries, economics aside, the difference in hours/week worked is just 5 hours, but the efficiency levels between the two countries vary considerably. Does the U.S. really need a 40 hour work week, when we have relatively the same production efficiency as France? It seems as though more and more individuals throughout the U.S. are conforming to this idea of working to the bone, leaving all else to the imagination. This is leading to serious Nature Deficiency Disorder within society. So which system is “better”, or more logical?

      Statistics aside, we can simply imagine what a reduced work week could produce. A 35 hour work week provides, 140 hours worked per month, and out of those hours it provides 530 additional hours per month for individual expression and expansion. As a society it seems as though we have left our imaginations by the wayside to shrivel and mute, while we have expressed concern towards actions that truly lead to absolutely zero benefit, besides that of materialism and conformism. This is a pandemic, again, economics to the side, France has managed to develop a successful and productive nation state, while operating on 35 hour work weeks. Knowing this, why hasn’t the U.S. changed? It is because we are trapped. Just like Anne Leonard makes clear in her book The Story of Stuff, the materialistic manner of our actions has begun to erode our very neurons. Is this over exaggerated? I do not believe it is. It is clear that a reduced work week would benefit our country in many ways, but first, people must reprogram their neurons to once again develop a sense of what is really important on this planet, living.

     That is why as of now, I am declaring a state of urgency for the entire United States of America. This paradigm has gone on long enough, and the ego must be deflated. You may disagree with me, but I believe that our current work ethics are leading us down the same roads of specific individuals in history, slaves. Simply reducing our work week hours from 40 to 35 just isn’t enough. For it to be successful and synergistic in nature, our consumption habits must change, our values must shift, the current paradigms must be transcended, and most importantly this must occur in a wholistic manner, as to keep from leaving a single individual in the “old age”. If all that is listed in the previous sentence occurs, the reduction in work week hours is completely probable. The only question is, are you a slave? Think hard and fast, because nature waits for no human.

      With this probable reduction is work week hours, another issue that is expressed is productivity. How with reduced hours are individuals able to stay productive enough to finish daily work loads? Again if this manner is addressed in a wholistic approach, the adaption of productivity levels would come naturally, as every individual is able to reduce their isolated workload, synergistically the entire system would support itself. As it is in France, and many other European countries, the weekly work hours are less than the U.S., and yet at the same time they are able to accomplish the same work load, if not more. This statement should develop some questions for you, unless your neurons are still muted, against the reasoning behind why the U.S. continues this irresponsible practice, that is unfortunately fueled by the very individuals most harmed by it. Productivity, when allocated responsibly, can be a very efficient tool, but when practiced irresponsibly can lead to dire consequences that experience repercussions far into the future. More efficient productivity equates to less necessary hours worked, that is all.

      Finally, I will address the most important reasoning towards decreasing work week hours, and creating simplicity in the work place. Sustainability. This term is tossed around today more than the plastic bottles we continue to drink water from. Humor me if you understand the analogy, but it is true. So how can sustainability be the most important reasoning towards why we should decrease work week hours? Well, think about it for a second. If work week hours decrease, the production rates will decrease, employees will have more time for their own lives, and less resources will be consumed in the long-term. Again, this shift must be wholistic for it to be successful, people must realize that growing an economy is not the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal for an economy at its roots, is to develop an economy that does not rely on growth factors, but instead relies on efficiency factors, and the overall well being of the systems within. Once this has been implemented, we will all be better off, you will see.

Onward,

Hayden

The Ins and Outs of Community Development

     When a community develops it is comprehensive in this development. The sewage, water, electrical, housing, industry, and transportation are all developed as synergistic units, meaning each unit benefits the next. With all of this development we witness community re-development as well. Old communities require constant updating, and the advent of new technology and new systems is usually more efficient than the old “stuff”. In this manner there have been major advances in every aspect of community development, and even better there have been motions toward more simplistic and sustainable development practices. Before we can continue we must define some key terms that relate to community development a sustainable context.

LEED Standards: A certification program devised in 1994 by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC; founded 1993) to encourage sustainable practices design and development by means of tools and criteria for performance measurement. It is “a voluntary, consensus-based, market-driven building rating system based on existing proven technology.” The USGBC has established standards for new construction and major renovation as well as existing structures; their standards can be applied to core and shell and to commercial interiors—i.e., the core and shell alone can be certified with no requirement that the interior be so certified. Many building types—schools, offices, retail, health care facilities, and private residences—have been addressed, and standards for neighbourhood development are also in progress.

The five critical areas of focus, as laid out by the USGBC, are “sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection, and indoor environmental quality.”

• Sustainable site development involves, whenever possible, the reuse of existing buildings and the preservation of the surrounding environment. The incorporation of earth shelters, roof gardens, and extensive planting throughout and around buildings is encouraged.

• Water is conserved by a variety of means including the cleaning and recycling of gray (previously used) water and the installation of building-by-building catchments for rainwater. Water usage and supplies are monitored.

• Energy efficiency can be increased in a variety of ways, for example, by orienting buildings to take full advantage of seasonal changes in the sun’s position and by the use of diversified and regionally appropriate energy sources, which may—depending on geographic location—include solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, water, or natural gas.

• The most desirable materials are those that are recycled or renewable and those that require the least energy to manufacture. They ideally are locally sourced and free from harmful chemicals. They are made of nonpolluting raw ingredients and are durable and recyclable.

• Indoor environmental quality addresses the issues that influence how the individual feels in a space and involves such features as the sense of control over personal space, ventilation, temperature control, and the use of materials that do not emit toxic gases.

Peak Oil: The point in time when the global production of oil will reach its maximum rate, after which production will gradually decline.

Urban Infill: As new development that is sited on vacant or undeveloped land within an existing community, and that is enclosed by other types of development. The term "urban infill" itself  implies that existing land is mostly built-out and what is being built is in effect "filling in" the gaps. The term most commonly refers to building single-family homes in existing neighborhoods but may also be used to describe new development in commercial, office or mixed-use areas.

      With the defined terms listed above, we may begin again to discuss the idea of sustainable community development. A great example of this is in Denver, Colorado, in an area known as Stapleton. In 1989 Denver established the site of its new airport, now known as DIA, and at the same time began making plans for what to do with the urban infill land that the old Stapleton airport occupied. After much debate and public input it was decided, Stapleton would become the site of the newest and most advanced sustainable community development project. So in 1995 Denver began the development of Stapleton with the mindset of sustainability towards all aspects, environmental, economical, and equitable. This became a huge success with Stapleton becoming a land mark for the city of Denver as what is possible towards reducing our impact. Some notable attributes include, 80 percent of the children walk to school, 6 million tons of runway concrete has been recycled from the old Stapleton airport, and there is a 93 percent voluntary recycling rate among residents. All these attributes of the community of Stapleton are what all communities around the world should strive for, because based on recent research, these kinds of community developments provide actual happiness and enjoyment, and who doesn’t want that?

      Now consider your own community, and their current initiatives towards reducing the overall impact of the community. Hopefully you are able to live in a community were this is possible, and basic survival tactics are a thing of the past... sorry most of the rest of the world. Personally, when I think about my community and the initiatives taken by them, I believe they are on to something. I live in a small, but popular, ski town called Breckenridge up in the central mountains of Colorado. Currently the Town of Breckenridge (TOB) has taken many initiatives towards reducing their footprint. First, their mission states that the Town of Breckenridge protects, maintains, and enhances their sense of community, historical heritage, and alpine environment.  They also provide leadership and encourage citizen involvement. Now all of TOB’s community development plans stem from the mission and the subsequent values, which creates an environment of true understanding. Some initiatives taken by the Town include, renewable energy investments, community involvement in banning single-use plastic bags, the conservation and preservation of open space land, and the overall sustainable community development through the promotion of LEED certified buildings and the goal of development over growth. Now the Town has their problems, just like any town or city, but if the Town of Breckenridge is able to continue uninfluenced by agendas, then I do believe they will be the leaders of sustainable community development in our high-alpine environment.

     The response towards all this “sustainability” business has been only positive, as the great mind of R. Buckminster Fuller expressed, when you develop a system that is more logical, more sustainable, and requires little adjustments, then the population immediately affected will naturally adapt to the new, and improved system, leaving no trace to the old ways of doing things. With this understanding we can find reasoning as to why it is imperative that sustainable community development exists if our society demands to evolve, because we cannot continue to view our species, homo sapiens, as static, when nature is dynamic in its own respect.

Thank you for your interest.

*I have no connection in promoting the Town of Breckenridge or the City of Denver, they were simply examples that portrayed the information adequately.

Onward,

Hayden

Why we need to start using the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) over the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) indicator.

    Now that the dust has settled, we can begin to review another year’s black Friday, along with small-business Saturday, and cyber Monday, and the repercussions that come along with these irresponsible consumerism practices. For this year’s black Friday consumers spent approximately $12.24 billion between online and brick and mortar retail, as projected by ShopperTrak and comScore. This $12.24 billon all contributes to the U.S. GDP, which is the Gross Domestic Product of the U.S. economy. This is were the repercussions can be found, but before we go down the rabbit hole, we must first prepare for the journey by defining the key terms necessary to curb this pandemic.

Consumerism: The theory that an increasing consumption of goods is economically desirable; Also a preoccupation with and an inclination toward the buying of consumer goods.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): Is a technique to assess the environmental aspects and potential impacts associated with a product, process, or service, by:

• Compiling an inventory of relevant energy and material inputs and environmental releases.
• Evaluating the potential environmental impacts associated with identified inputs and releases.
• Interpreting the results to help you make a more informed decision.

     With the two key terms listed above, we may continue to develop the argument against the foundations of consumerism, the GDP, and economic growth. Let’s begin with the GDP; The GDP was developed to document the movement of monies within the U.S. economy. This means many things, one, when money is spent on health care that is related to environmental degradation, like emphysema, or most forms of cancer, the flow of monies for that contributes to the GDP. This is a VERY big problem, because it is not distinguished as a negative aspect in the economy. Instead it is viewed as just another growth factor. Another issue with the GDP indicator is when the country begins to experience stagnant growth, as happened during the recession, the country views this as a negative experience, which needs a stimulant to promote growth. This is the market failure in my beliefs, because continued growth is not necessary in an economy, what is necessary, is development, and sustainable development at that. That is why we should introduce the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), because as the name states, it indicates the genuine progress of a country. In this manner, pollution, increased spending on medical costs, current consumption habits, and many other aspects that grow the GDP will all be unacceptable in GPI standards. The GPI calls for sustainable development, distributed wealth, and sustainable consumption habits -- if done correctly -- and can revitalize a country’s economy for long-term development and prosperity.

     If the Genuine Progress Indicator is adopted by a country as the main economic indicator, this would require many goods and services to be taken out of the market economy based on their poor sustainability practices. The GPI requires that only actions that will benefit an economy be allowed to operate within it. An example of this would be the sales of guns, as the gun is an obsolete object in a society that exhibits logical critical thinking, the sales of guns would decrease and disappear as an economy based on GPI is developed the need for an outdated technology is no longer needed. This provides that the consumption of meat decreases, the incentives to commit crime would be abolished as resources are provided to every individual, and any other uses for the primitive tool are discontinued as an economy using GPI develops and evolves. The fact is, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of products and services that would find no place in an economy using the GPI, and this would cause the population to evolve in a beneficial way. Using GPI would also decrease the consumption habits of a society, and additionally promote the Life Cycle Assessment of products and services that do find competitiveness within the new economy, both of which would only benefit society.

     Please contest these points if you find logical points of argument, because the only way to find solutions to these pressing problems is to discuss and develop solutions previously untested by society.

It seems history repeats itself in many ways, they scoffed Newton, as they scoff the great minds of today. I am just attempting to disband the ignorance that has clouded our imagination.

Onward,

Hayden

We Are Consuming Ourselves?

     Consumption patterns dictate the longevity of a species' survival, and technology has a limit when it comes to extending this longevity as far as homo sapiens are concerned. As our consumption patterns increase by day, we must now face the hard facts. Are we consuming ourselves? Now most people do not want to hear this “blasphemy” as it may be called, but our ignorance of consumption patterns must be relieved.

      An example of this is expressed in our consumption habits from 1949 to 2011, and the affects we can witness on our planet. To begin, based on statistics from the website, World-O-Meters, currently as of now, 10:22a.m. on December 4, 2012, we (as a global species) have consumed 4,821,778 hectares of forest this year. We have also consumed 4,596,633 billion Liters of water this year, and 170,500,248 MWh of energy today (including non-renewable and renewable sources). Just from these numbers we can see that we are consuming too much. In fact, we don’t even need the numbers, remember the Dust Bowl in the U.S. How about the countless crop famines that sweep over Africa, or all the desertification being experienced in Australia. All these visual signs have been accumulating since humans began developing agricultural societies, and they have not subsided. Now our practices have been perfected, decreasing the inevitable collapse, but it is not enough. Between 1949 and 2011 we have most likely increased our consumption habits a hundred fold. I am sorry, but this is pathetic. Who gave us the right to consume so much? I know some possible answers, but these answers have no credibility in today’s world. But that is beside the point, the point of this post is to relieve us of our ignorance towards global consumption habits, which along with the scale of them, the equality of consumption habits on a global scale is at an all-time low. Meaning that global resource allocation is becoming more unequal every day, as corruption and greed continue to ravage our species. Obviously now I hope to have relieved you reading this of any ignorance you may have had towards our species’ consumption habits, and if not, that is too bad.

      As the inequality continues we find terms in the news like “true price”, which brings to mind all kinds of meanings. This term “true price” really only has one meaning though, and this meaning is rooted in most of the economic problems facing our societies poor. An example that clarifies this term is the U.S. agriculture system. The United States government provides subsidies to the agricultural businesses in the country, which in turn allows the agribusiness's to create synthetic prices for the crops they produce. These prices are at lower values than what small non-subsidized farms could sell their products at, which creates an unfair advantage leading to the smaller farms either specializing in crops that do not have subsidized competitors, or eventually going out of business due to competitive costs. So this relates back to the “true price” because as the U.S. agribusinesses provide food all over the world, this allows them to sell their product at a lower price than the local farms of the countries buying from the U.S., which in total creates a global phenomena resulting in the collapse of the foundational diversified small agribusinesses. This subsidized cost that U.S. agribusinesses sell their product at is synthetic. If we wanted to experience the “true price” of food, then the subsidies would be ended, the large agribusinesses would collapse due to their lack of efficiency, small diversified agribusinesses would start back up providing product that has a “true price” with it, and on a global scale the economy of food production would prosper, as more small operations would begin again providing security to families in countries experiencing development.

      Until agricultural subsidies are ended in countries like the U.S., we will continue to see global degradation and inequality. But until then there are many other aspects that we must consider when making decisions regarding the food supply when making and changing policies. One such policy is the production of ethanol, the biofuel developed from corn. This policy towards developing the biofuel comes with a very “true price” in food production. Since the first drop of ethanol was produced food prices have been slowly climbing as more and more acres of producing soil are designated to producing corn for ethanol. Now that corn and other food prices have tripled in other parts of the world, and oh yeah, ethanol has not even had an impact towards reducing emissions, we can now find where we went wrong. Was it when the patent office boxed all the different patents for clean free energy? Was it when the FBI went and confiscated and persecuted hundreds of scientists and their labs that were working on solving the energy crisis? Or maybe it was when Monsanto began patenting seeds for GMO crops, which then led them to destroying any farm that had said seeds from cross-pollination? Or maybe it was all of it?

      I just hope we come to our senses before all is lost, just because I live on the same planet as everyone else, doesn’t mean I am aloud to act irresponsibly.

Thank you for your interest, please comment and subscribe.

Onward,

A concerned inhabitant of planet Earth.