religion gives people structure to do things they should do, but wouldn’t otherwise get around to

i’m really into alain de botton these days. earlier this week, i listened to the on being episode in which he was interviewed. among  many brilliant things he said, one great point he made was about how organization religion gives people structure they wouldn’t have otherwise had. and that that’s a good thing. his point developed like this (generally):

people, more often than not, know what things they need to do to be well. however, left to their own devices, we simply won’t or don’t do those things. we simply just don’t get around to them. for example, most people know that forgiveness is an important part of having healthy, lasting relationships. unfortunately, those same people may just not ever get around to doing the forgiving. or, another example he gave, was that people know that celebrating the seasons is a good idea. however, without some sort of outside prompting, most of us will just flow right through the year.

religion gives people excuses (structure) to do things they otherwise wouldn’t have gotten around to. holidays, collective rituals, and spiritual calendars give us space do those things. for example, in jainism, kshamavani is the annual day of forgiveness. description from wiki:

On this sacred day, every member of the Jain community approaches everyone, irrespective of religion, and begs for forgiveness for all their faults or mistakes, committed either knowingly or unknowingly. Thus relieved of the heavy burden hanging over their head of the sins of yesteryears, they start life afresh, living in peaceful co-existence with others.

 it’s a lot easier to go out and find the person you need to forgive about something when everyone else is doing it and it has a designated day.

as much as i have rejected the organized religion of my childhood (christianity), alain does have a good point here. as he does with many other things… more posts on that on being episode coming soon.

why i don't read fiction

earlier this week i was talking with my friend spencer and he suggested a pair of books to add to my reading list. i said that i likely wouldn’t read them. he asked why. i responded ‘because they’re fiction.’ he said we should talk about it later, but that he disagreed. 

he and i will probably talk about it later, but the reason i don’t read fiction is because i genuinely feel like i don’t have time for it. for better or worse, i feel like i carry a lot of weight from my ancestors. hopes and dreams from people who lived through incredibly difficult times are in my blood.

obviously i have the freedom to do whatever i want with my life. and yet, i feel a responsibility to do the most that i can with the life and energy i have been gifted.

not only that, but my parents spent a lot of time, energy, money, and family heartache to give my brother and me opportunities to do well (by conventional definitions).

and i feel like the best use of my time and energy is learning as much as i can as quickly as i can so that i can be the most effective change agent as possible.

and again, for better or worse, that means that i feel like if i’m going to read, i want to read things that are going to give me the most tools and teach me the fastest. of course, i believe that fiction and narrative (and futurism) are important. but given my education and socioeconomic status, if i’m going to read, i want to read something that’s going to make me a more effective change agent and fast. i loved reading ender’s game and i learned a ton from it. and reading books like pedagogy of the oppressed and resilience taught me just as much, if not more, in less time.

also, real life is crazy enough. sometimes even watching the news is surreal. to read fiction seems superfluous to me much of the time because real life is crazy enough.

so yea. that’s why i don’t read fiction.

sorry, not sorry.

(bad) trend: makers being promoted to managers

yesterday, i met up with my dear friend angela for lunch. we touched on a trend that i’ve noticed and went in depth on it because it’s happening to her.

in hierarchical organizations, there is a trend to promote skilled makers into management positions. anyone who has been in an organization for any significant amount of time has probably seen this happen. someone who’s good at what they good gets “rewarded” by being promoted. because of the way that hierarchical organizations tend to be structured (thanks industrialism), higher on the ladder means more management responsibilities along with more money. people who manage people are perceived to be worth more to the company so they are compensated more.

unfortunately, making and managing are two completely different skillsets. of course, that doesn’t mean that some people aren’t good at both. but it is a mistake to assume that someone who is good at making will also be good at managing.

the number of times i have watched this process crash a team or organization is astounding.

holy shit. light-bulb moment. now that i think about it, this is actually some oppressive bullshit. i recently wrote about why it no longer makes sense for modern managers to be higher up in a hierarchy than makers. in that reality, there actually isn’t a reason managers should be paid more.

imo, the role of a manager is to support the forward motion of a team. a good manager can be measured by how well the team they manage works. a great manager will improve the rate of progress of their team over time. but managing, just like different types of making is just one function on a team. managers bring a skillset and experience to the table just like everyone else.

the oppression comes in when it is perceived that the manager should be making more money than the parts of the team. this seems like a really great way to keep powerholders in power. it also entices makers to become managers. the more i think about it, the more parallel this seems to how the “work hard and get rich” dream (which has been proven by many research studies to be false and there are even books on it) allows rich elites to convince poor people to vote for tax policy that actually undermines their own well-being and is against their own interests.

:O

ps - none of this is to say that makers can’t be managers. some people have natural management skill. some people have developed it in other areas of their life and having an opportunity to show it at work is a good thing. i believe most people can learn how to be good managers. the trouble is when makers are promoted to managers with the assumption that because you’re a good maker you will also be a good manager. the hell breaks loose when that assumption goes unchecked and it turns out the person isn’t a good manager. 

the things i write about: take three

this is the third pass at summarizing what my writing is about. this frame came from cameron, the other person who said i should write a book.

my writing is really to answer the question: what do we do in late stage capitalism before we don’t have any choices left?

early- and mid-stage capitalism got us here with much destruction and gnashing of teeth, but also much productivity and many gains. we have massive, global infrastructure for many differnet systems: transporation, energy, communication, et cetera.

now that we’re here, the things needed to get to us here are less necessary and relevant. the don’t need to produce massive amounts of goods, because we can have raw material shipped to a local craftsperson and customized how we want. our identities, which are currently tied up in wealth and success (which is often measured in wealth) no longer need to be measured by those metrics.

many of us looking forwards or already on the edges of systems know that those metrics are outdated. so the question is how do we get to systems that reflect that?

this is what my writing is about: the pieces and parts that will aid the transition.

we need identities based on the creation of real value for other people and the planet. creating real value, sustainably (in all the ways), will mean that people are doing the work that is theirs to do. following your passion and using it to get your needs met isn’t privilege or nicety; it’s revolution and necessary. finding and living your passions will net you more well-being (the new success) than all the economic wealth in the world.

the things i write about: take two

yesterday, spencer and i had a really long, wandering, good conversation about many things. one of them was me writing a book and it might be about. this is my take on spencer’s take of what my book could be about.

what are the cultural implications of making and consuming differently?

i think a lot about objects: what they are made of, where they come from, who they come from, how long they last, what they mean to us (individually, collectively, societally).

this manifests in my daily life on a number of practical planes. i try to consume as little as possible (recycling is nice, but most of the waste our society produces is upstream, says my friend jonathan krones, who studies waste and urban metabolism).

that has two implications. first, because i try to minimize my throughput, i think a lot about what things i do consume. and by consume i mean, purchase, use, and discard (hopefully in circular ways, but not always). second, it means i try to pick things that have high utility. utility in this context is defined by how much i like the thing (shoutout to marie kondo), how long it’ll last, how often i’ll use it, how much it fits into my other possessions, and how durable it be for someone else once i no longer need it.

these two things involve a lot of thinking; thinking through what it means to use objects and what that means for consumption.

this, i imagine, will lead very quickly to differences between my generation and my parents’ generation. the question there will be: in a practical and technological sense, what are the implications of us not wanting the things that our parents wanted/created? my parents’ generation created mass consumption, consumerism, et cetera.

what, then, are the cultural impacts of wanting different things? as spencer put it, “lots of people think about the tools themselves but not the cultural impact of the tools.” this rings true to me, particularly as i think about about how the institutions that facilitate (dominate?) our society seem increasingly out of touch… but not from lack of trying. they just were built for a different era with different constraints and desired outcomes.

so, what are the cultural implications of making differently and consuming differently? i missed the local implications of this, but i guess that’s what the book is for?