Wednesday, July 3, 2019
The Art of Writing Well: Game of Thrones Rewrite: Part 1 - Everything Wrong...
The Art of Writing Well: Game of Thrones Rewrite: Part 1 - Everything Wrong...: Every great story must come to an end, and Game of Thrones was one hell of a ride. Seasons one through four may well go down as some of ...
Monday, December 4, 2017
The Art of Awesome: How You Can Feel More Manly In Today's World
The Art of Awesome: How You Can Feel More Manly In Today's World: Welcome back. I'd like to start this off with a story. I have a friend whom I was meeting for lunch the other day. When I got to his pla...
Tribalism: The Importance of Social Cohesion in the Modern World
Long ago, our ancestors hunted in groups with spears of wood tipped with stone, wore furs of beasts they had claimed themselves, and survived by moving fairly regularly while hunting for and gathering food. Foraging together, conserving and sharing resources, innovation and cooperation were all keys to survival for our kind, and it led us to where we are today. Our innately social qualities, the level of which distinguishes humans from all other known species, have led us from small families and tribes slowly spreading across the earth to mighty empires and modern nation-states. We are so successful because of our innovation and cooperation in large groups, and it’s a legacy we cannot ignore. Humans are not overly capable individually, there are many other predatory species larger, stronger and faster, with the likes of claws, large teeth and nocturnal vision to assist them. We are but primates, great apes, and not even the largest or strongest of them. We’ve required groups of us: tribes, clans, kingdoms and nations, to survive and thrive, and we’ve carried this trend with us into the modern day. While fundamental to our humanity, our nature hasn’t keep pace with technology and our lifestyles in the modern West, and this has caused some interesting discrepancies which need to be addressed if we are to truly grapple with the issues of our time.
In this age of cars, phones, the internet, suburbs, large and growing urban centers, mass transit, passenger flight, constitutional nation-states dominated by democratic republics and Western-led globalism, it is very easy to forget where we came from. The vast majority of human history was nothing like what we experience today. The story of the entirety of human civilization is but a cliff note in the history of our species, most of which was spent in relatively small groups of hunter-gatherers, much like the tribes, clans and confederations of Native American nations before European colonization. Writing didn’t even exist until a handful of thousands of years ago, a mere blip on the radar of our already very young species.
Believed to have emerged in eastern Africa somewhere around one hundred to one hundred and fifty thousand years ago, at least in our anatomically modern form, humans did not easily nor quickly colonize the landmass of the earth. We struggled to adapt at times, ran into predators or geography which slowed our progress while diseases nearly wiped out certain populations, and constantly sat on a blade’s edge between having what we needed, and losing lives do to lack of necessities.
Being primates, we humans tend to give birth to one newborn at a time, and have a higher chance of complications during labor than many other mammalian species. We also each require decades to fully develop as adults, notably longer than most other species, even mammalian. So, even though groups of adult humans have proven extremely effective at surviving and thriving on this planet, we require a large investment of time, energy and resources to get to that state. As such, we saw a very slow growth curve in our population until much more recently in our history, a level of gradual growth that is very easy to forget in our age of more than seven and a half billion living people more concerned with overpopulation and climate change than survival of the species.
Even when humans finally began founding permanent settlements and forming culturally and linguistically distinct regional alliances, such as those in the Nile River Basin in modern Egypt, Mesopotamia between the Tigris and Euphrates in modern Iraq, the Indus River Valley in modern Pakistan and India, or the Yellow River in modern China, technological progress, population growth, and social development occurred rather slowly by comparison to today. This required a different way of thinking from what we’re accustomed to: a central focus on family, honor, martial skill, defined gender roles, and survival. Especially during our hunter-gatherer days, there is much evidence many tribes were led by counsels of elders, often including or dominated by women. Even today, surviving hunter-gatherer societies still should an impressive degree of egalitarianism and cooperation among members and leaders.
Yet, in times of crisis, we humans tend to rally around a central figure, typically an adult male that inspires confidence in his abilities and skills and gives us perceived answers to our problems. This manifests even today, as politicians thrive on exaggerating our challenges and over-simplifying solutions to them, all the while telling us they are the best person to lead us. This reactionary tendency is present in all humans, a hardwired response we all share, and while often more damaging that productive in the modern day, proved invaluable to our day-to-day survival throughout most of our history.
We have developed to be a territorial species, to assure our ability to obtain the resources we require, and thus have presented a warrior strain, genetically and culturally, to protect our imagined or needed span of control. Throughout our history, this role has been performed almost exclusively by males. As said in Philosophical Transactions, “Furthermore, where there is intergroup conflict characterized by violence, injury or death, we find that such acts of aggression are perpetuated almost exclusively by men. In fact, research suggests that men's tendency to engage in coalitional aggression is manifest in all cultures, modern and traditional, and is therefore considered a human universal."
Whether it be to protect against attack from predators, fellow humans of an opposing tribe, or to attack others in an attempt to gain resources or territory, our tendency towards violence developed early on. The realities of our environment and requirements for survival shaped our development as a species, leading to our banding together into groups, differentiated roles and professions, collective cooperation and coordination, strong leadership structures, and defined gender roles, even though they were more or less equal early on. We are not alone, as species, “including hyaenas, wolves, lions and most social primates, therefore suggesting some degree of phylogenetic consistency,” demonstrate intergroup conflict, but humans clearly demonstrate a much greater scale of conflict and degree of social structure.
We are so tribalistic today because it was required of us then. We arrange ourselves into groups and see others, even members of our own species, as potentially hostile outsiders due to the necessity of our past. Many of our childrearing traditions, religious dogma, stereotypical gender roles, criminal justice mores, and social and cultural customs are relics of an age where such things were not a comfortable luxury, but required for our continued existence. From spirituality to trade, making war to suing for peace, family structure to nation-building, our sociality and instincts regarding interaction with other people defines us as humans. Human psychology has been shaped by our collective past, and we are still benefitting from and struggling with that legacy today.
While there are many universals of human psychology and culture, such as spirituality, love, kinship, hatred, peace-making, marriage, political alliances, various rituals, and war, how we express these quintessentially human traits varies greatly over time, place and culture. For example, our modern, Western view of romantic love is not shared by many surviving African hunter-gatherer tribes. According to Anthropological Theory, while love between a husband and wife does indeed exist, it is not the center of the family or tribe, kinship is. Marriage is seen as necessary, and the associated love a delightful but un-needed byproduct. “Even in these societies this thing called love may creep in. When it does, the stricken individual is believed to have been bewitched." So, while marriage and the family exist in all known cultures, the centrality of the nuclear family , and the importance of a romantic connection, varies greatly.
Spirituality or claiming of a religion is another obvious nearly-universal human experience. From the early days of sun, ancestor, or animal-spirit worship, which still carries through to today in several cultures, to god-kings and powerful priest-driven polytheistic beliefs during early civilizations, to the emergence of monotheistic religions over the last several thousand years, to something of a rediscovery of our more simplistic, natural, and honest spirituality in modern times, some form of spiritual expression has permeated every known human culture. While driven to connect with fellow humans, we are also profoundly driven to connect with and understand the world and universe around us. At its best, this spirituality leads us to be superior versions of ourselves, and at its worst, it has led to some of the greatest tragedies known to mankind.
And that dichotomy, between the best and worst aspects of humanity, permeates nearly every aspect of human individuals and civilization. We are at once an incredibly innovative, dynamic, intelligent, social, empathetic, nurturing, and resourceful species, while also being remarkably selfish, hurtful, cut-throat, murderous, hateful, hypocritical and closed-minded at various times. We see these traits just as much today as in ages past, humans truly haven’t changed much over the last several tens of thousands of years. Yet, we have a greater understanding of ourselves and each other than ever before. We have technology and a surplus of resources that allow us to connect and enjoy a standard of living unattainable for even the wealthiest rulers in days past. We have improved so much in our lives, at least in the West, yet we still have so far to go to truly maximize our collective human potential.
One can see our tribalistic tendencies all too clearly in the modern world. On the one hand, it has been crucial to our modern nation-states, to our democratic republics, to industrial capitalism and so many of the good things the human collective has to offer. On the other side, however, there is still much poverty in the world, corruption runs rampant in all societies at all levels, and globalization has not equally benefitted everyone by a long-shot. As said in the book, Globalism, Nationalism, Tribalism, while globalization often carries the promise of inclusion and connection, that has not always been the case. “We are implicitly reminded that the present world can be characterized as ‘global savage’ in a second sense - that is, globalization as a savagely distancing and mediating force; globalization that cares little for those who cannot keep up, and fears those who are its ‘others.'"
This sentiment echoes a trait that is and has always been inherent to humanity: insular thinking. We tend to fear and push away what we don’t understand, while also being explorers and dreamers. We have a need to feel safe, which is entirely understandable, but is often pursued at the expense of what is objectively right, or truly beneficial. Take the proposed border wall between the U.S. and Mexico, or so called “Muslim ban,” executive order. Both demonstrate what is ideally intended to protect Americans and safeguard our interests, but falls into the trap of being an oversimplified answer to a far more complex problem.
All of this brings us to the point of how best to hone and channel our innate protectionist, reactionary and tribalistic instincts. There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to protect your people, keep your community safe for your family, or desire and work for a better life for yourself and your family. But, there are effective and ineffective ways to go about doing so, and achieving the latter is what all of us ideally desire. Finding the correct balance is tricky, and there are always unintended side-effects, but we can learn some important lessons from our most successful ancestors in maximizing our chance of success.
In addition, technology and globalization has left many in the West feeling less connected and purpose-driven than our hunter-gatherer or even early agrarian ancestors could have achieved if they’d wanted to. In a pre-agrarian nomadic tribe, every member was needed and useful, everyone had a role, and (most) everyone contributed. You were around your kin constantly, protected your territory and people aggressively, provided for or nurtured your family, and they fulfilled the same roles for you. Purpose and connection was built into their lives, for better or worse, and the world around them was a constant danger and adventure.
This is the sort of world our bodies and minds are best adapted for. We need purpose and challenge and connection. Love, camaraderie, and kinship are crucial elements for a healthy life both then and now. Our lives are far more efficient and easy, personal freedom and expression has never been easier to achieve, but in exchange, many of us have forgotten how to fulfill some of our most basic of human needs. And, it shows in our society.
There is absolutely no reason why we cannot reclaim our connectivity and purpose, however, we simply need to intentionally do so. Despite many of the complaints about the Millennial generation, of which I am a part, we have a tendency of not settling for the status quo. Perhaps a result of reaching adulthood during the Great Recession, or perhaps because we were raised to believe we can accomplish nearly anything we set our mind to, and have since been slowed down with a healthy dose of reality, we’ve collectively had to embrace something of a ‘return to the basics’ in our lives. It’s been a positive experience for many of us overall.
This trend among young people speaks to a greater longing on the part of all humanity. A certain resurgent tribalism, connected, empathetic, and geared for the twenty-first century, seems poised for rapid acceptance among many. But in this age of hyper-partisanship and ‘fake news,’ both actually fake and just distasteful to some, there are some key concepts to remember and employ. As said in The New Tribalism, “We must refuse to accept simple slogans in place of thoughtful analysis. We must demand of our media coverage meaning and context of the issues. We must talk to our friends and neighbors conscientiously about the consequences of sudden and extreme action in the service of an inflammatory single issue. And, we must let no single-issue demagogue dominate our thinking." I could not agree more.
In this age of cars, phones, the internet, suburbs, large and growing urban centers, mass transit, passenger flight, constitutional nation-states dominated by democratic republics and Western-led globalism, it is very easy to forget where we came from. The vast majority of human history was nothing like what we experience today. The story of the entirety of human civilization is but a cliff note in the history of our species, most of which was spent in relatively small groups of hunter-gatherers, much like the tribes, clans and confederations of Native American nations before European colonization. Writing didn’t even exist until a handful of thousands of years ago, a mere blip on the radar of our already very young species.
Believed to have emerged in eastern Africa somewhere around one hundred to one hundred and fifty thousand years ago, at least in our anatomically modern form, humans did not easily nor quickly colonize the landmass of the earth. We struggled to adapt at times, ran into predators or geography which slowed our progress while diseases nearly wiped out certain populations, and constantly sat on a blade’s edge between having what we needed, and losing lives do to lack of necessities.
Being primates, we humans tend to give birth to one newborn at a time, and have a higher chance of complications during labor than many other mammalian species. We also each require decades to fully develop as adults, notably longer than most other species, even mammalian. So, even though groups of adult humans have proven extremely effective at surviving and thriving on this planet, we require a large investment of time, energy and resources to get to that state. As such, we saw a very slow growth curve in our population until much more recently in our history, a level of gradual growth that is very easy to forget in our age of more than seven and a half billion living people more concerned with overpopulation and climate change than survival of the species.
Even when humans finally began founding permanent settlements and forming culturally and linguistically distinct regional alliances, such as those in the Nile River Basin in modern Egypt, Mesopotamia between the Tigris and Euphrates in modern Iraq, the Indus River Valley in modern Pakistan and India, or the Yellow River in modern China, technological progress, population growth, and social development occurred rather slowly by comparison to today. This required a different way of thinking from what we’re accustomed to: a central focus on family, honor, martial skill, defined gender roles, and survival. Especially during our hunter-gatherer days, there is much evidence many tribes were led by counsels of elders, often including or dominated by women. Even today, surviving hunter-gatherer societies still should an impressive degree of egalitarianism and cooperation among members and leaders.
Yet, in times of crisis, we humans tend to rally around a central figure, typically an adult male that inspires confidence in his abilities and skills and gives us perceived answers to our problems. This manifests even today, as politicians thrive on exaggerating our challenges and over-simplifying solutions to them, all the while telling us they are the best person to lead us. This reactionary tendency is present in all humans, a hardwired response we all share, and while often more damaging that productive in the modern day, proved invaluable to our day-to-day survival throughout most of our history.
We have developed to be a territorial species, to assure our ability to obtain the resources we require, and thus have presented a warrior strain, genetically and culturally, to protect our imagined or needed span of control. Throughout our history, this role has been performed almost exclusively by males. As said in Philosophical Transactions, “Furthermore, where there is intergroup conflict characterized by violence, injury or death, we find that such acts of aggression are perpetuated almost exclusively by men. In fact, research suggests that men's tendency to engage in coalitional aggression is manifest in all cultures, modern and traditional, and is therefore considered a human universal."
Whether it be to protect against attack from predators, fellow humans of an opposing tribe, or to attack others in an attempt to gain resources or territory, our tendency towards violence developed early on. The realities of our environment and requirements for survival shaped our development as a species, leading to our banding together into groups, differentiated roles and professions, collective cooperation and coordination, strong leadership structures, and defined gender roles, even though they were more or less equal early on. We are not alone, as species, “including hyaenas, wolves, lions and most social primates, therefore suggesting some degree of phylogenetic consistency,” demonstrate intergroup conflict, but humans clearly demonstrate a much greater scale of conflict and degree of social structure.
We are so tribalistic today because it was required of us then. We arrange ourselves into groups and see others, even members of our own species, as potentially hostile outsiders due to the necessity of our past. Many of our childrearing traditions, religious dogma, stereotypical gender roles, criminal justice mores, and social and cultural customs are relics of an age where such things were not a comfortable luxury, but required for our continued existence. From spirituality to trade, making war to suing for peace, family structure to nation-building, our sociality and instincts regarding interaction with other people defines us as humans. Human psychology has been shaped by our collective past, and we are still benefitting from and struggling with that legacy today.
While there are many universals of human psychology and culture, such as spirituality, love, kinship, hatred, peace-making, marriage, political alliances, various rituals, and war, how we express these quintessentially human traits varies greatly over time, place and culture. For example, our modern, Western view of romantic love is not shared by many surviving African hunter-gatherer tribes. According to Anthropological Theory, while love between a husband and wife does indeed exist, it is not the center of the family or tribe, kinship is. Marriage is seen as necessary, and the associated love a delightful but un-needed byproduct. “Even in these societies this thing called love may creep in. When it does, the stricken individual is believed to have been bewitched." So, while marriage and the family exist in all known cultures, the centrality of the nuclear family , and the importance of a romantic connection, varies greatly.
Spirituality or claiming of a religion is another obvious nearly-universal human experience. From the early days of sun, ancestor, or animal-spirit worship, which still carries through to today in several cultures, to god-kings and powerful priest-driven polytheistic beliefs during early civilizations, to the emergence of monotheistic religions over the last several thousand years, to something of a rediscovery of our more simplistic, natural, and honest spirituality in modern times, some form of spiritual expression has permeated every known human culture. While driven to connect with fellow humans, we are also profoundly driven to connect with and understand the world and universe around us. At its best, this spirituality leads us to be superior versions of ourselves, and at its worst, it has led to some of the greatest tragedies known to mankind.
And that dichotomy, between the best and worst aspects of humanity, permeates nearly every aspect of human individuals and civilization. We are at once an incredibly innovative, dynamic, intelligent, social, empathetic, nurturing, and resourceful species, while also being remarkably selfish, hurtful, cut-throat, murderous, hateful, hypocritical and closed-minded at various times. We see these traits just as much today as in ages past, humans truly haven’t changed much over the last several tens of thousands of years. Yet, we have a greater understanding of ourselves and each other than ever before. We have technology and a surplus of resources that allow us to connect and enjoy a standard of living unattainable for even the wealthiest rulers in days past. We have improved so much in our lives, at least in the West, yet we still have so far to go to truly maximize our collective human potential.
One can see our tribalistic tendencies all too clearly in the modern world. On the one hand, it has been crucial to our modern nation-states, to our democratic republics, to industrial capitalism and so many of the good things the human collective has to offer. On the other side, however, there is still much poverty in the world, corruption runs rampant in all societies at all levels, and globalization has not equally benefitted everyone by a long-shot. As said in the book, Globalism, Nationalism, Tribalism, while globalization often carries the promise of inclusion and connection, that has not always been the case. “We are implicitly reminded that the present world can be characterized as ‘global savage’ in a second sense - that is, globalization as a savagely distancing and mediating force; globalization that cares little for those who cannot keep up, and fears those who are its ‘others.'"
This sentiment echoes a trait that is and has always been inherent to humanity: insular thinking. We tend to fear and push away what we don’t understand, while also being explorers and dreamers. We have a need to feel safe, which is entirely understandable, but is often pursued at the expense of what is objectively right, or truly beneficial. Take the proposed border wall between the U.S. and Mexico, or so called “Muslim ban,” executive order. Both demonstrate what is ideally intended to protect Americans and safeguard our interests, but falls into the trap of being an oversimplified answer to a far more complex problem.
All of this brings us to the point of how best to hone and channel our innate protectionist, reactionary and tribalistic instincts. There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to protect your people, keep your community safe for your family, or desire and work for a better life for yourself and your family. But, there are effective and ineffective ways to go about doing so, and achieving the latter is what all of us ideally desire. Finding the correct balance is tricky, and there are always unintended side-effects, but we can learn some important lessons from our most successful ancestors in maximizing our chance of success.
In addition, technology and globalization has left many in the West feeling less connected and purpose-driven than our hunter-gatherer or even early agrarian ancestors could have achieved if they’d wanted to. In a pre-agrarian nomadic tribe, every member was needed and useful, everyone had a role, and (most) everyone contributed. You were around your kin constantly, protected your territory and people aggressively, provided for or nurtured your family, and they fulfilled the same roles for you. Purpose and connection was built into their lives, for better or worse, and the world around them was a constant danger and adventure.
This is the sort of world our bodies and minds are best adapted for. We need purpose and challenge and connection. Love, camaraderie, and kinship are crucial elements for a healthy life both then and now. Our lives are far more efficient and easy, personal freedom and expression has never been easier to achieve, but in exchange, many of us have forgotten how to fulfill some of our most basic of human needs. And, it shows in our society.
There is absolutely no reason why we cannot reclaim our connectivity and purpose, however, we simply need to intentionally do so. Despite many of the complaints about the Millennial generation, of which I am a part, we have a tendency of not settling for the status quo. Perhaps a result of reaching adulthood during the Great Recession, or perhaps because we were raised to believe we can accomplish nearly anything we set our mind to, and have since been slowed down with a healthy dose of reality, we’ve collectively had to embrace something of a ‘return to the basics’ in our lives. It’s been a positive experience for many of us overall.
This trend among young people speaks to a greater longing on the part of all humanity. A certain resurgent tribalism, connected, empathetic, and geared for the twenty-first century, seems poised for rapid acceptance among many. But in this age of hyper-partisanship and ‘fake news,’ both actually fake and just distasteful to some, there are some key concepts to remember and employ. As said in The New Tribalism, “We must refuse to accept simple slogans in place of thoughtful analysis. We must demand of our media coverage meaning and context of the issues. We must talk to our friends and neighbors conscientiously about the consequences of sudden and extreme action in the service of an inflammatory single issue. And, we must let no single-issue demagogue dominate our thinking." I could not agree more.
On The Many Variables Affecting Sexual Orientation
The human brain, as is well known, is a remarkably complex organ. It is, in fact, the most complex object currently known to mankind. In addition, it has the distinction of driving and directing the activity of every single human being on this planet. Enter into this complex organ a tangled web of attractions and drives that pushes nearly every one of us to complete our most basic biological function: passing our genes on to the next generation. Layer atop this millennia of social customs, expectations, mores and taboos, and you have the fantastically misunderstood and oft-disdained subject that is sexual orientation.
The topic has taken up new meaning and prevalence over the last few decades in the West. According to Gallup polling, in 1978, only 13% of U.S. citizens believed sexual orientation was a condition one was born with or into. Yet, as of 2013, that number has increased to 47%. This change comes in lieu of remarkable social change on the subject, and substantial scientific advancement in understanding of it. It is now commonly believed, as this paper will argue, sexual orientation is a product of complex interactions between genetics, developmental hormones at various stages, and various degrees of social constructs and interactions that inform those determining and understanding their own orientation.
According to the American Psychological Association, "Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, or sexual attraction that one feels toward men, toward women or toward both. Although sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, it is generally discussed in terms of heterosexual — attraction to the other sex — homosexual —attraction to the same sex — and bisexual —attraction to both sexes." This topic, by its very nature, is a complicated one. Sexual orientation doesn’t even require sexual activity, and those that have had same-sex encounters very often consider themselves heterosexual, and vice versa. It is a very personal and subjective subject, made all the more difficult to define by the lack of any one obvious culprit for these discrepancies.
Many differing theories exist around sexual orientation, and how it manifests as it does. Back in the 90s, and to a degree continuing to this day, the talk was heavily focused around a “gay gene” or group thereof that led to one being born bi or homosexual. Evidence has mounted around either ‘traditional’ genetics or epigenetics, how the genetic code is expressed in a given individual, being a major component of sexual orientation, but no specific group or common answer has been found. In addition, it is now commonly held genetics is only one part of the overall picture.
According to Scientific American, “What you have learned about homosexuality as you were growing up will affect whether you consider engaging in homosexual acts to be desirable or disgusting. Some people might argue that if you are “genetically gay” but the thought of homosexuality nauseates you, then you just haven’t accepted the fact that you really are gay. That argument is based on the assumption that sexual preference is purely biological; therefore, it has no place in a discussion about the possible causes of homosexuality." This thought-process rings true to an extent, in cultures where bi-or-homosexuality is common, accepted or expected, such as Classical Greece, such behavior was much more common. Yet, in all recorded cultures at all known times, there have always been a sizable portion of the adult population that was exclusively heterosexual, and a smaller portion solely homosexual.
So, we are left with both genetic influences and social contributors as components of one’s discovered sexual orientation, but lack a conclusive or final culprit. Into this arena enters hormones and neurotransmitters, and the pivotal role they play in physical and sexual development during several key phases of human growth. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America rather plainly stated, “A role for serotonin in male sexual preference was recently uncovered by our finding that male mutant mice lacking serotonin have lost sexual preference. Our results indicate that serotonin controls sexual preference." So, at least in mice, serotonin appears to have a notable effect on sexual interest.
Meanwhile, during a separate series of tests, LiveScience claims, “When the researchers injected a compound into these mice to restore neurotransmitter levels, they found that the animals mounted females more than males. But too much serotonin reduced male-female mounting, suggesting that the amount of this chemical must stay within a certain range to foster heterosexual rather than homosexual behaviors." Thus, serotonin appears to have a substantial sway over sexual interest and behavior. Once again, however, this was only tested in mice.
Another potent theory surrounding the issue regards what is known as the Fraternal Birth Order Effect, possibly increasing the likelihood of homosexual behavior by approximately 30% per older brother a young male has. According the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), “Later fraternal birth order (FBO) is a well-established correlate of homosexuality in human males and may implicate a maternal immunization response in the feminization of male sexuality. This has led to the suggestion that FBO may relate to other markers of male sexual orientation which are robustly sexually dimorphic."
At the end of the day, the current scientific landscape points to sexual orientation being a mixed and complex issue. During embryonic development, the human body has several ‘sensitive phases’ that allow the body to be told how to develop, sexually and otherwise. This may very well play a large role in determining long-term sexual orientation. Then again, so may underlying genetics, and epigenetics, childhood experiences, and culture. In all likelihood, all of these elements play a role in shaping a given individual’s expression of sexuality.
So, what we are left with may seem something of a frustrating hodgepodge of leads that ultimately lead nowhere, but that isn’t strictly-speaking true. It is commonly understood that genetics influence predispositions, and epigenetics how this is expressed. Neuroendocrine influences likely pull more than their weight in this category, while society and psychological development may often fill in the blanks. A fuller picture has thus begun to emerge, and looks far more satisfying in this light.
Regardless of the reason, however, a more important point should be made here. As was elegantly said in Scientific American, “Just as gay people who are happy as they are should not be forced to change their sexual orientation, gay people who want to be straight should have the right to change if they can – and the correct word is “change” – not “cure." In my view, as saddening as it is to need to say, this is exactly as it should be.
The topic has taken up new meaning and prevalence over the last few decades in the West. According to Gallup polling, in 1978, only 13% of U.S. citizens believed sexual orientation was a condition one was born with or into. Yet, as of 2013, that number has increased to 47%. This change comes in lieu of remarkable social change on the subject, and substantial scientific advancement in understanding of it. It is now commonly believed, as this paper will argue, sexual orientation is a product of complex interactions between genetics, developmental hormones at various stages, and various degrees of social constructs and interactions that inform those determining and understanding their own orientation.
According to the American Psychological Association, "Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, or sexual attraction that one feels toward men, toward women or toward both. Although sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, it is generally discussed in terms of heterosexual — attraction to the other sex — homosexual —attraction to the same sex — and bisexual —attraction to both sexes." This topic, by its very nature, is a complicated one. Sexual orientation doesn’t even require sexual activity, and those that have had same-sex encounters very often consider themselves heterosexual, and vice versa. It is a very personal and subjective subject, made all the more difficult to define by the lack of any one obvious culprit for these discrepancies.
Many differing theories exist around sexual orientation, and how it manifests as it does. Back in the 90s, and to a degree continuing to this day, the talk was heavily focused around a “gay gene” or group thereof that led to one being born bi or homosexual. Evidence has mounted around either ‘traditional’ genetics or epigenetics, how the genetic code is expressed in a given individual, being a major component of sexual orientation, but no specific group or common answer has been found. In addition, it is now commonly held genetics is only one part of the overall picture.
According to Scientific American, “What you have learned about homosexuality as you were growing up will affect whether you consider engaging in homosexual acts to be desirable or disgusting. Some people might argue that if you are “genetically gay” but the thought of homosexuality nauseates you, then you just haven’t accepted the fact that you really are gay. That argument is based on the assumption that sexual preference is purely biological; therefore, it has no place in a discussion about the possible causes of homosexuality." This thought-process rings true to an extent, in cultures where bi-or-homosexuality is common, accepted or expected, such as Classical Greece, such behavior was much more common. Yet, in all recorded cultures at all known times, there have always been a sizable portion of the adult population that was exclusively heterosexual, and a smaller portion solely homosexual.
So, we are left with both genetic influences and social contributors as components of one’s discovered sexual orientation, but lack a conclusive or final culprit. Into this arena enters hormones and neurotransmitters, and the pivotal role they play in physical and sexual development during several key phases of human growth. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America rather plainly stated, “A role for serotonin in male sexual preference was recently uncovered by our finding that male mutant mice lacking serotonin have lost sexual preference. Our results indicate that serotonin controls sexual preference." So, at least in mice, serotonin appears to have a notable effect on sexual interest.
Meanwhile, during a separate series of tests, LiveScience claims, “When the researchers injected a compound into these mice to restore neurotransmitter levels, they found that the animals mounted females more than males. But too much serotonin reduced male-female mounting, suggesting that the amount of this chemical must stay within a certain range to foster heterosexual rather than homosexual behaviors." Thus, serotonin appears to have a substantial sway over sexual interest and behavior. Once again, however, this was only tested in mice.
Another potent theory surrounding the issue regards what is known as the Fraternal Birth Order Effect, possibly increasing the likelihood of homosexual behavior by approximately 30% per older brother a young male has. According the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), “Later fraternal birth order (FBO) is a well-established correlate of homosexuality in human males and may implicate a maternal immunization response in the feminization of male sexuality. This has led to the suggestion that FBO may relate to other markers of male sexual orientation which are robustly sexually dimorphic."
At the end of the day, the current scientific landscape points to sexual orientation being a mixed and complex issue. During embryonic development, the human body has several ‘sensitive phases’ that allow the body to be told how to develop, sexually and otherwise. This may very well play a large role in determining long-term sexual orientation. Then again, so may underlying genetics, and epigenetics, childhood experiences, and culture. In all likelihood, all of these elements play a role in shaping a given individual’s expression of sexuality.
So, what we are left with may seem something of a frustrating hodgepodge of leads that ultimately lead nowhere, but that isn’t strictly-speaking true. It is commonly understood that genetics influence predispositions, and epigenetics how this is expressed. Neuroendocrine influences likely pull more than their weight in this category, while society and psychological development may often fill in the blanks. A fuller picture has thus begun to emerge, and looks far more satisfying in this light.
Regardless of the reason, however, a more important point should be made here. As was elegantly said in Scientific American, “Just as gay people who are happy as they are should not be forced to change their sexual orientation, gay people who want to be straight should have the right to change if they can – and the correct word is “change” – not “cure." In my view, as saddening as it is to need to say, this is exactly as it should be.
The Art of Awesome: Love Isn’t An Emotion, So What Is It?
The Art of Awesome: Love Isn’t An Emotion, So What Is It?: What’s up guys! Today I want to talk about romantic relationships, and the multiple stages of and experiences in what we collectively call ‘...
The Art of Awesome: How To Develop A Magnetic Personality
The Art of Awesome: How To Develop A Magnetic Personality: When you think of charisma, who do you think of? Robert Downey Jr.? James Bond? Steve Jobs? President Obama? All are superb examples, but ...
The Art of Awesome: How To Build Your Self Confidence
The Art of Awesome: How To Build Your Self Confidence: Out of every positive personality trait known to mankind, which would stick out to you as being the most important and predictive of futur...
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
The Rise and Fall of the Nintendo Empire
I’ll admit, the title is possibly, maybe, slightly over-dramatic. The ‘Big N’ hasn’t really fallen. Yet, with the recent announcement that the long-running Nintendo Power magazine is closing its doors, and as a loyal consumer and fan-boy of Nintendo’s for over two decades, I cannot ignore the perceived decline of a gaming juggernaut.
Allow me to take you back to the beginning to fully understand where I am coming from. Imagine, if you will, the Christmas of 1991, back when the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (Super NES) had recently launched. Its predecessor, the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES), successfully revitalized the entire gaming industry in the late 80′s after the Gaming Crash of 1983, and Nintendo now dominated this fledgling landscape. I was nearly three years old, however, and as such don’t remember much from that year. What I do remember, though, is unwrapping an original Nintendo Entertainment System.
Yes, that’s right, I said the original NES. Apparently, my parents wanted to see how I would like a video game system, and opted for the now cheaper precursor to the Super NES. It worked out perfectly, though, because I had access to an already established library of games, and the term “love at first sight” may not be strong enough to describe the affection I had for this little gray box.
Metroid, The Legend of Zelda, Final Fantasy, Castlevania, Mike Tyson’s Punch Out, the Super Mario Brothers + Duck Hunt combo game and others all became well-worn cartridges while encased in my magical electronic machine. Hundreds of hours were poured into these titles, many of which went on to spawn several of the most successful franchises in gaming. I would destroy my cousins, friends and younger siblings alike in Duck Hunt and Super Mario level runs, and even though my parents ensured I technically shared the console with my brother and sisters, in reality there was no question as to who actually owned the machine.
The trend continued for a couple of years, when I finally got my hands on a Super Nintendo like ‘all’ of my friends. Hundreds of hours more were sunk into Super Mario Kart, Super Mario World, The Lion King, Super Metroid, Donkey Kong Country, Star Fox, and other iconic games on the system, leaving another indelible mark in my mind on the legacy of Nintendo.
It was around this time in my life that I began to become more involved in school sports, and my free time available for gaming dropped significantly. The later portion of the Super Nintendo console generation flew by me, as did much of the Nintendo 64′s. The sheer awesomeness of the three-dimensional revolution did not escape me, however, and games like The Ocarina of Time, Super Mario 64, Super Smash Bros., Donkey Kong 64, and 007 Goldeneye provided moments of bliss between busy school days.
By the time the GameCube generation started, in 2001, I was pulling back on sports to place more focus on my social and family life (I was, in fact, in Jr. High, and needed to ensure I became and remained a bad-ass), but strangely I did not find myself putting more time into my new Nintendo system. Don’t get me wrong, I still enjoyed Metroid Prime, Super Mario Sunshine, and Mario Kart Double Dash, and I played the hell out of Super Smash Bros. Melee, the Wind Waker, and Twilight Princess, but overall I logged far fewer hours on the ‘Cube than its fore-bearers, and I played almost exclusively Nintendo-made games on it. Instead, I found myself playing more Halo, SOCOM, and Kingdom Hearts on the PS2 and Xbox. I was disturbed.
Notice, if you would, the game titles I have given you to justify my attachment to, and explain my affection for, the Big N. Nearly all of them were developed by Nintendo (first-party) or a second-party developer (namely, Rareware). The original Nintendo system sold nearly 62 million units, the Super Nintendo nearly 50 million, the Nintendo 64 close to 33 million, and the GameCube almost 22 million units, and what largely drove these huge sales numbers was the wide appeal and lasting impact of Nintendo’s first party games and high quality franchises. Also good to notice is the fact every successive Nintendo console, from the Super NES to the GameCube, sold fewer units than its predecessor.
This pattern began to reveal a structural problem for Nintendo. The company has been notorious for their handling of third-party developers and publishers from the early days of the NES all the way through to the Wii, and a steady flow of support was fleeing to the cheaper, more open competition like Sony and later Microsoft. And, even when third-party games were released on Nintendo’s systems, they often lost out to first-party titles in sales while selling better on other consoles.
The result was a slow sapping of Nintendo consumers to Sega, Sony, and Microsoft machines. The company was still successful in its own right, but less in relative and absolute terms with every new generation of hardware. Nintendo’s first-party games continued to fly off retailer’s shelves, but the migration of gamers old and new to its competition proved a new strategy was in order.
Enter the Wii. This strange little device actually made me laugh the first time I heard the name. Was Nintendo serious? Did they really expect to take on the PlayStation dynasty with a “Wii-mote”? Apparently, they were, and they made myself and many others look the fool while doing so. To date, the Wii has sold nearly 97 million units around the world, putting it just behind the original PlayStation’s 102 million to land the #3 spot on the best-selling consoles list (the PlayStation 2 has sold around 154 million units to take #1).
Though the motion controls proved incredibly popular, and propelled Nintendo’s sales through the roof for several years, time has shown its success to largely be a fad. That’s not to diminish its accomplishments, or predict the Wii U will not be successful, but it is intended to put some perspective on the Wii’s good fortune. The console was able to both correct several of Nintendo’s mistakes with past consoles and simultaneously make new ones, primarily against those that stuck with the company through previous generations.
Millions of ‘casual gamers’ jumped on board the Wii-train years back. Middle-aged parents played Wii Play and Fit with their families, senior citizens in retirement homes were entertained with Wii Sports by the boat-load, and young men and women in their teens and early twenties got together to play Rock Band (back when it was still socially acceptable) and Mario Party (slightly stereotypical, I know, but often true). Now, however, Wii sales are stagnant, software sales lag behind those of the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, and Nintendo is being pressured to launch a successor platform at least a year ahead of the competition. Where have all these casual gamers gone?
Why, to mobile games and Facebook, of course! You see, casual gamers are quite the fickle bunch, seeing as they are often new to the industry and have little to no emotional attachment or loyalty to specific brands or companies. That is not to say we ‘core’ gamers are paragons of customer loyalty, merely that casuals are often even less so. So, with quicker development times, lower prices for software, more open and eclectic development communities, and the benefit of always having your device on you, a majority of these casual gamers have simply jumped the Wii-ship.
Simply put, the Wii has actually been competing more with the iPhone and Android than the Xbox or PS3 in recent years. Microsoft’s and Sony’s respective jaunts into the market with Kinect and Move haven’t helped the Wii’s sales either. All the while, those of us that grew up with Nintendo have been left with a dry spell from the casual-catering company, forced to wander to other options for ‘core gamers’.
There have been some truly fantastic games on the Wii, and a number of excellent first-party titles have slowly come to fruition (Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Skyward Sword, Super Mario Galaxy, and Mario Kart Wii come quickly to mind). Yet, my Wii sits disconnected from my television collecting dust, because it’s been clear that the “wider audience” has been the Big N’s target this generation. Now, they seem to want to change that.
It appears that finally, Nintendo has accepted they need to fundamentally change the way they do things. They continue to dominate the handheld market with the now-successful 3DS, but in many respects have lost their way with consoles. So, with the Wii U, Nintendo has reportedly been incredibly gracious with third-party developers and publishers, looping them into the system’s development and courting them to attempt renewed commitment to their brand. In addition to greatly improving their online features and user connectivity (supposedly), Nintendo has promised renewed focus on the legacy gamers, those that have followed and supported the company for years. Gamers like myself, and quite possibly, you.
I would be remiss, however, to fail to tell the inspiring story of the handheld side of Nintendo’s business, which has been an unstoppable boon to their coffers. Way back in ’89, the first Game Boy launched Nintendo to the very top of the handheld charts (aided by little competition), and its a title they hold to this day. For five generations of the Game Boy, the company easily trounced all competition, and if you ask most gamers which products competed with Nintendo’s handheld line before the PlayStation Portable (PSP), I’d bet my Xbox 360 (not really, if you try to take me up on the offer I will not hesitate to bitch-slap you) few would be able to tell you.
Then came the year 2004, and the Nintendo DS (Dual-Screen). A new chapter dawned in the handheld saga with this unique and ridiculously successful device, but well known and far heftier competition emerged to challenge the Big N’s unquestioned dominance. Released in 2005, the PlayStation Portable had the full weight of the PlayStation brand recognition behind it, and Sony’s machine put up quite the fight, selling over 71 million units. This was still no match for Nintendo’s charming darling, however, which went on to sell over 152 million units through four different iterations of the device.
As it turns out, three-dimensional was the next step for Nintendo. Not three-dimensional graphics in-game mind you, that obviously already existed, but full stereoscopic 3D display in the form of the Nintendo 3DS. A mix of a spiritual successor to the Virtual Boy (if you don’t know what that it is, check it) and a physical successor to the DS line, the latest handheld of Nintendo’s stumbled out of the gate a bit, with few attractive titles and a slightly too high price point. Games like Mario Kart 7, Super Mario 3D Land, and The Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time 3D, plus a price drop in July of 2011, helped lift the 3DS out of its doldrums, and suddenly the device became the latest of Nintendo’s handhelds to become barely acquainted with store shelves.
So, with the continued success of Nintendo’s handhelds, the wide appeal of the Wii, and the refocusing of the Wii U, one might think the Big N is nearly unstoppable. I, and many others, would disagree with that train of thought. True, only a fool would argue Nintendo is doing poorly, or is somehow doomed to fail (and let’s face it, I am no fool), but the way the gaming market appears to be heading does not bode well for their current position.
Take the handheld market, as an example. Mobile gaming is exploding, and though there is certainly a niche for a dedicated gaming device or two, it narrows with every passing day. As technological advances draw the iOS, Windows Phone, and Android platforms closer to handhelds in ability, and gaming experiences become ever better on them, people’s go-to device is and will increasingly be their smartphone or tablet.
Next, take the console market. Though I believe cries of, “consoles are dying,” from gaming media is overblown, it is undoubtedly clear the market is becoming more competitive and risk-averse. PC gaming is on the rise again (partially because we’re nearing the end of a console cycle), and social gaming on Facebook and the mobile market has sucked many potential consumers away from consoles.
More specifically, many potential casual customers have been drawn away from consoles. This cuts directly into the Wii’s and Wii U’s margins, as I stated earlier. Now, given that the Xbox and PlayStation brands basically have a lock on the dedicated ‘core’ gamers that are the consumer engine of the industry, this puts Nintendo in a precarious position. Hence, the change in strategy as described with the Wii U.
Nintendo can go many ways from this point. They may decide the console market is more risk than reward, deciding to focus on making the best mobile/handheld experiences possible. Or, they may be edged out of the handheld market, instead putting their energy into developing innovative and forward-thinking consoles to fully take on the likes of Sony and Microsoft. Another possibility is Nintendo goes the way of Sega, admitting defeat in both the handheld and console spaces, instead becoming a third-party developer with some of the most popular franchises in gaming at their back.
Of course, my beloved Big N may also do what it does best, surprise us all with out-of-the-box-thinking, and write the ticket to their own success. Only time will tell if Nintendo is able to attract meaningful third-party support while drawing in casual and core gamers alike to its successive devices and schemes. The company will have to rely on its unmatched stable of first-party products, continue to innovate on the status quo of the industry, convince outside companies their products are worthy of investment, and keep gamers of all kinds tied into their platform. Though that seems like a tall order in this competitive market, the Big N has handled worse before, and is well suited to deliver under pressure. Hopefully, we will all live to see the rebirth of the Nintendo Empire.
Allow me to take you back to the beginning to fully understand where I am coming from. Imagine, if you will, the Christmas of 1991, back when the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (Super NES) had recently launched. Its predecessor, the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES), successfully revitalized the entire gaming industry in the late 80′s after the Gaming Crash of 1983, and Nintendo now dominated this fledgling landscape. I was nearly three years old, however, and as such don’t remember much from that year. What I do remember, though, is unwrapping an original Nintendo Entertainment System.
Yes, that’s right, I said the original NES. Apparently, my parents wanted to see how I would like a video game system, and opted for the now cheaper precursor to the Super NES. It worked out perfectly, though, because I had access to an already established library of games, and the term “love at first sight” may not be strong enough to describe the affection I had for this little gray box.
Metroid, The Legend of Zelda, Final Fantasy, Castlevania, Mike Tyson’s Punch Out, the Super Mario Brothers + Duck Hunt combo game and others all became well-worn cartridges while encased in my magical electronic machine. Hundreds of hours were poured into these titles, many of which went on to spawn several of the most successful franchises in gaming. I would destroy my cousins, friends and younger siblings alike in Duck Hunt and Super Mario level runs, and even though my parents ensured I technically shared the console with my brother and sisters, in reality there was no question as to who actually owned the machine.
The trend continued for a couple of years, when I finally got my hands on a Super Nintendo like ‘all’ of my friends. Hundreds of hours more were sunk into Super Mario Kart, Super Mario World, The Lion King, Super Metroid, Donkey Kong Country, Star Fox, and other iconic games on the system, leaving another indelible mark in my mind on the legacy of Nintendo.
It was around this time in my life that I began to become more involved in school sports, and my free time available for gaming dropped significantly. The later portion of the Super Nintendo console generation flew by me, as did much of the Nintendo 64′s. The sheer awesomeness of the three-dimensional revolution did not escape me, however, and games like The Ocarina of Time, Super Mario 64, Super Smash Bros., Donkey Kong 64, and 007 Goldeneye provided moments of bliss between busy school days.
By the time the GameCube generation started, in 2001, I was pulling back on sports to place more focus on my social and family life (I was, in fact, in Jr. High, and needed to ensure I became and remained a bad-ass), but strangely I did not find myself putting more time into my new Nintendo system. Don’t get me wrong, I still enjoyed Metroid Prime, Super Mario Sunshine, and Mario Kart Double Dash, and I played the hell out of Super Smash Bros. Melee, the Wind Waker, and Twilight Princess, but overall I logged far fewer hours on the ‘Cube than its fore-bearers, and I played almost exclusively Nintendo-made games on it. Instead, I found myself playing more Halo, SOCOM, and Kingdom Hearts on the PS2 and Xbox. I was disturbed.
Notice, if you would, the game titles I have given you to justify my attachment to, and explain my affection for, the Big N. Nearly all of them were developed by Nintendo (first-party) or a second-party developer (namely, Rareware). The original Nintendo system sold nearly 62 million units, the Super Nintendo nearly 50 million, the Nintendo 64 close to 33 million, and the GameCube almost 22 million units, and what largely drove these huge sales numbers was the wide appeal and lasting impact of Nintendo’s first party games and high quality franchises. Also good to notice is the fact every successive Nintendo console, from the Super NES to the GameCube, sold fewer units than its predecessor.
This pattern began to reveal a structural problem for Nintendo. The company has been notorious for their handling of third-party developers and publishers from the early days of the NES all the way through to the Wii, and a steady flow of support was fleeing to the cheaper, more open competition like Sony and later Microsoft. And, even when third-party games were released on Nintendo’s systems, they often lost out to first-party titles in sales while selling better on other consoles.
The result was a slow sapping of Nintendo consumers to Sega, Sony, and Microsoft machines. The company was still successful in its own right, but less in relative and absolute terms with every new generation of hardware. Nintendo’s first-party games continued to fly off retailer’s shelves, but the migration of gamers old and new to its competition proved a new strategy was in order.
Enter the Wii. This strange little device actually made me laugh the first time I heard the name. Was Nintendo serious? Did they really expect to take on the PlayStation dynasty with a “Wii-mote”? Apparently, they were, and they made myself and many others look the fool while doing so. To date, the Wii has sold nearly 97 million units around the world, putting it just behind the original PlayStation’s 102 million to land the #3 spot on the best-selling consoles list (the PlayStation 2 has sold around 154 million units to take #1).
Though the motion controls proved incredibly popular, and propelled Nintendo’s sales through the roof for several years, time has shown its success to largely be a fad. That’s not to diminish its accomplishments, or predict the Wii U will not be successful, but it is intended to put some perspective on the Wii’s good fortune. The console was able to both correct several of Nintendo’s mistakes with past consoles and simultaneously make new ones, primarily against those that stuck with the company through previous generations.
Millions of ‘casual gamers’ jumped on board the Wii-train years back. Middle-aged parents played Wii Play and Fit with their families, senior citizens in retirement homes were entertained with Wii Sports by the boat-load, and young men and women in their teens and early twenties got together to play Rock Band (back when it was still socially acceptable) and Mario Party (slightly stereotypical, I know, but often true). Now, however, Wii sales are stagnant, software sales lag behind those of the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, and Nintendo is being pressured to launch a successor platform at least a year ahead of the competition. Where have all these casual gamers gone?
Why, to mobile games and Facebook, of course! You see, casual gamers are quite the fickle bunch, seeing as they are often new to the industry and have little to no emotional attachment or loyalty to specific brands or companies. That is not to say we ‘core’ gamers are paragons of customer loyalty, merely that casuals are often even less so. So, with quicker development times, lower prices for software, more open and eclectic development communities, and the benefit of always having your device on you, a majority of these casual gamers have simply jumped the Wii-ship.
Simply put, the Wii has actually been competing more with the iPhone and Android than the Xbox or PS3 in recent years. Microsoft’s and Sony’s respective jaunts into the market with Kinect and Move haven’t helped the Wii’s sales either. All the while, those of us that grew up with Nintendo have been left with a dry spell from the casual-catering company, forced to wander to other options for ‘core gamers’.
There have been some truly fantastic games on the Wii, and a number of excellent first-party titles have slowly come to fruition (Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Skyward Sword, Super Mario Galaxy, and Mario Kart Wii come quickly to mind). Yet, my Wii sits disconnected from my television collecting dust, because it’s been clear that the “wider audience” has been the Big N’s target this generation. Now, they seem to want to change that.
It appears that finally, Nintendo has accepted they need to fundamentally change the way they do things. They continue to dominate the handheld market with the now-successful 3DS, but in many respects have lost their way with consoles. So, with the Wii U, Nintendo has reportedly been incredibly gracious with third-party developers and publishers, looping them into the system’s development and courting them to attempt renewed commitment to their brand. In addition to greatly improving their online features and user connectivity (supposedly), Nintendo has promised renewed focus on the legacy gamers, those that have followed and supported the company for years. Gamers like myself, and quite possibly, you.
I would be remiss, however, to fail to tell the inspiring story of the handheld side of Nintendo’s business, which has been an unstoppable boon to their coffers. Way back in ’89, the first Game Boy launched Nintendo to the very top of the handheld charts (aided by little competition), and its a title they hold to this day. For five generations of the Game Boy, the company easily trounced all competition, and if you ask most gamers which products competed with Nintendo’s handheld line before the PlayStation Portable (PSP), I’d bet my Xbox 360 (not really, if you try to take me up on the offer I will not hesitate to bitch-slap you) few would be able to tell you.
Then came the year 2004, and the Nintendo DS (Dual-Screen). A new chapter dawned in the handheld saga with this unique and ridiculously successful device, but well known and far heftier competition emerged to challenge the Big N’s unquestioned dominance. Released in 2005, the PlayStation Portable had the full weight of the PlayStation brand recognition behind it, and Sony’s machine put up quite the fight, selling over 71 million units. This was still no match for Nintendo’s charming darling, however, which went on to sell over 152 million units through four different iterations of the device.
As it turns out, three-dimensional was the next step for Nintendo. Not three-dimensional graphics in-game mind you, that obviously already existed, but full stereoscopic 3D display in the form of the Nintendo 3DS. A mix of a spiritual successor to the Virtual Boy (if you don’t know what that it is, check it) and a physical successor to the DS line, the latest handheld of Nintendo’s stumbled out of the gate a bit, with few attractive titles and a slightly too high price point. Games like Mario Kart 7, Super Mario 3D Land, and The Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time 3D, plus a price drop in July of 2011, helped lift the 3DS out of its doldrums, and suddenly the device became the latest of Nintendo’s handhelds to become barely acquainted with store shelves.
So, with the continued success of Nintendo’s handhelds, the wide appeal of the Wii, and the refocusing of the Wii U, one might think the Big N is nearly unstoppable. I, and many others, would disagree with that train of thought. True, only a fool would argue Nintendo is doing poorly, or is somehow doomed to fail (and let’s face it, I am no fool), but the way the gaming market appears to be heading does not bode well for their current position.
Take the handheld market, as an example. Mobile gaming is exploding, and though there is certainly a niche for a dedicated gaming device or two, it narrows with every passing day. As technological advances draw the iOS, Windows Phone, and Android platforms closer to handhelds in ability, and gaming experiences become ever better on them, people’s go-to device is and will increasingly be their smartphone or tablet.
Next, take the console market. Though I believe cries of, “consoles are dying,” from gaming media is overblown, it is undoubtedly clear the market is becoming more competitive and risk-averse. PC gaming is on the rise again (partially because we’re nearing the end of a console cycle), and social gaming on Facebook and the mobile market has sucked many potential consumers away from consoles.
More specifically, many potential casual customers have been drawn away from consoles. This cuts directly into the Wii’s and Wii U’s margins, as I stated earlier. Now, given that the Xbox and PlayStation brands basically have a lock on the dedicated ‘core’ gamers that are the consumer engine of the industry, this puts Nintendo in a precarious position. Hence, the change in strategy as described with the Wii U.
Nintendo can go many ways from this point. They may decide the console market is more risk than reward, deciding to focus on making the best mobile/handheld experiences possible. Or, they may be edged out of the handheld market, instead putting their energy into developing innovative and forward-thinking consoles to fully take on the likes of Sony and Microsoft. Another possibility is Nintendo goes the way of Sega, admitting defeat in both the handheld and console spaces, instead becoming a third-party developer with some of the most popular franchises in gaming at their back.
Of course, my beloved Big N may also do what it does best, surprise us all with out-of-the-box-thinking, and write the ticket to their own success. Only time will tell if Nintendo is able to attract meaningful third-party support while drawing in casual and core gamers alike to its successive devices and schemes. The company will have to rely on its unmatched stable of first-party products, continue to innovate on the status quo of the industry, convince outside companies their products are worthy of investment, and keep gamers of all kinds tied into their platform. Though that seems like a tall order in this competitive market, the Big N has handled worse before, and is well suited to deliver under pressure. Hopefully, we will all live to see the rebirth of the Nintendo Empire.
On the Dualism of Humanity
Duality, this is what characterizes humanity, life on earth, the universe. Chaos and order, creation and destruction, coming together and tearing apart, death and life, selfishness and compassion, dichotomies we cannot escape. Life is struggle, existence is an uphill battle, order is rare and easily destroyed, yet chaos always gives way to order once order is imposed.
Energy, composing everything in our plane of existence, visible and otherwise. Colliding, fusing, repelling, radiating and combining, energy is the very definition of chaos, yet it is the precise foundation on which order is built. Balanced on a blade’s edge, energy forms asteroids, planets, stars, galaxies, and at least on our planet, life. It is the lifeblood of our duality, order in the chaos.
Life, the product of particle physics and quantum mechanics giving way to Newtonian physics, and that to chemistry, finally giving way to biology itself. A remarkably improbable event, life nonetheless will exist where it is able. An infinitesimally small, blue dot in the incomprehensibly vast universe, which may itself be in a sea of many, the Earth, Terra Nostra, is our bastion of order in an ocean of chaotic energies.
Time, a concept developed by those with a finite amount of it. 13.82 billion years, the estimated amount of time our plane of existence, our laws of physics, our universe has existed. Our own planet formed an estimated 4.8 billion years ago. Colliding, super-heated masses of energy coalesced, separated and settled over the course of eons to produce our solar system. Our particular rock would come to retain its heated, molten core, liquid water, chaotic order, indelibly defining life on it.
Cells, conceptually simple yet functionally impressive things. Lipid bilayers folding in on themselves, creating membranes which house proteins, amino acids, organelles which power the most advanced of creatures today. Beginning as objects hardly different from a virus, life struggled, fought the chaos, and shaped the very nature of this planet. Basic chemical reactions repeated, continued, combined with others of its kind to create ever more complex, self-sustaining cells over the course of eons. Prokaryotic cells gave way to eukaryotic cells, colonies of cyanobacteria reworked the very atmosphere of our planet, single-celled bacteria filling warm, shallow oceans the world over began to work together as multicellular organisms. Order in the chaos.
Death and rebirth, time and again our planet has provided this reality. Soft-bodied creatures in the Achaean, diversification of sea-based life in the Cambrian, early fish in the Devonian, land plants and insects in the Carboniferous, dinosaurs and large-scale diversification of life from the end of the Triassic to the beginning of the Cretaceous, dominance and diversification of mammals upon the downfall of the Jurassic-era world, emergence of the great apes, humanity’s more recent relatives the like of Heidelbergensis and Neanderthalis, and finally anatomically modern man. A never-ending cycle of order fighting chaos, death and life, creation and destruction, the duality of our existence at its most apparent.
Struggle, the only true constant known to life on this planet. Survival demands it, our planet ensures it, our very neural structure, instincts and primal urges, compel us to challenge and overcome obstacles in our path. We are the product of hundreds of millions of years of such struggle. Fighting to survive, outcompete our adversaries, dominate the environment around us, continue our genetic heritage, give a safer, tamer world to our offspring, such prerogatives define life on this planet, and ourselves as a species.
Humanity, currently the undisputed, dominant land-based life-form on Earth. As impressive as this position is, we cannot escape the duality of our nature. Our reptilian brain structures still instruct us to respect strength and violence, to take, dominate, and win at all costs. Selfishness leads to survival, and survival is the rule of the day. In contrast, our more mammalian brain functions push us to be social, caring about others and their opinion of us, taking care of the community and cooperating with fellow humans for the greater good, promoting survival of the species over the individual. Both aspects of humanity, our urges to create and destroy, take and give, dominate and protect, accept what we have and struggle for something more, these urges define us, motivate us, keep us keen and working towards something greater. We are, in essence, both the figurative light and dark, good and evil, a delightful and terrible fusion of order and chaos.
Acceptance, this is required for one to truly live a fulfilling life. Our social customs, law codes, cultures and religions all acknowledge our duality, whether passively or actively. The reasons given for this duality vary based on custom and belief system, but the fact thereof remains inescapable. We may be born innocent and primarily ‘good,’ yet are selfish and self-absorbed from the outset. As we age the world forces one and all to adapt to the relative harshness of our existence, the more feral side of our nature. Yet, caring people and institutions abound even in the most chaotic places on the planet. Family, friends, and communities still support each other in a way remarkably uncommon outside of the human species. With the exception of small percentages of the population that are incredibly philanthropic or sadistically lack empathy, humanity is a never-stopping sliding scale between what we commonly consider good and evil. Rarely one, rarely the other, thin strands of order atop the chaos.
Thusly, I propose the human species wholeheartedly embraces and adapts to this reality, mapping it onto more primitive belief systems if they must. Realistic relativism within absolutist concepts would most equitably govern the nature of human society today. Laws which acknowledge human nature, mitigating the effects of its negative components while preserving individual freedoms, seem far more valuable than neo-puritanical governance we are too often saddled with today, which prefers to pretend the problem of humanity’s more negative nature is strictly criminal or does not exist.
Social structures and institutions which enact and personify the best in our species should be uplifted, ensuring a baseline equality for all citizens in the realms of education, healthcare, housing and sustenance. Modern religion, notably the semitic variety, with a focus on the supernatural and archaic, outdated beliefs supported by violent and arrogant deities, would better serve humanity to give way to less legalistic, discriminatory and close-minded versions of themselves, simply encouraging the selfless parts of human nature, pushing humanity to greater discovery and cooperation while admiring and appreciating the natural world.
All in all, humanity would do well to remember we were not the first, nor are we likely to be the last dominant species on this planet. Caring for our environment, responsible management of resources, supporting our fellow humans and building a theoretically more ordered world are worthy goals we should work towards. Yet, we must also accept and relish our more primal nature. Our anger, violence and vanity, when properly harnessed, drive us to work harder, protect our loved ones, compete more intensely, and push everyone around us to be the best version of themselves. Our sexuality should be explored and nurtured in safe, sane and consensual environments, fulfilling one of our most basic urges in a healthy, gratifying manner for all involved. Our need to love, be loved, and feel wanted is intoxicating when met, and loved ones allow us to tap into a drive to better ourselves and our lives more than nearly any force known to mankind.
Humanity must fully embrace our nature if we are to properly harness and maximize its effectiveness, as individuals and a collective species. We are dualistic creatures, light and dark, good and evil, selfish and selfless, order and chaos, creation and destruction, we are the product of a dualist world in a dualist universe. Struggle and competition will continue to define us, as will compassion, love, and determination. When accepted and internalized, the duality humanity possesses allows us to be the most dynamic, successful, reality-changing species to ever exist on this planet. In short, a channeled order on the knife's edge of chaos.
Sunday, October 19, 2014
The Essence of American Politics
It's been over two years since I've posted anything on this blog, and over three since any sort of political topic has emerged. Yet, I find myself interested on doing just that: Commenting on the state of our nation and government as I currently view it.
To begin, since I last posted I've rejected my involvement with the Republican party, realigning as a disenchanted independent with a mixture of libertarian and socialist leanings. So be aware, this will not be partisan propaganda, but a general rant against the 'system.'
If you haven't already seen the documentary, "Inequality for All" by Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, I highly recommend it, as it lays out much of what I'm about to argue in beautiful detail.
Where many, particularly those on the political right, see government involvement as the problem, I see it as the sabotaged solution. It is well understood that the primary political concept behind representative democracy is that of power residing with the people (the Latin terms from which we derive the word republic, res publica, in fact means 'public affair'), the government being the representation of the people's will. As such, when our government goes awry, it is our responsibility to bring it to heel, to bend it to our collective will and assert our authority over it. We are not doing this, and haven't been effectively doing so for decades. Thus, what we see now is closer to that of plutocratic oligarchy, or rule by a wealthy few.
Terrible recent Supreme Court decisions the likes of Citizens United, McCutcheon and Hobby Lobby are exacerbating the problem, and it's about time we collectively 'wake up'. We the People need to once again see our government as truly ours, its primary purpose to provide for the people before the interests of those who saw fit to effectively purchase our system. Despite the misinformation, corruption and ineffective spending habits such programs are oft known for, we need to first view Medicare, Social Security, public universities, public health services and similar institutions as ours, causes we collectively chose to contribute to, and react to our government accordingly. The progressive tax rates, introduction of the minimum wage, public services and infrastructure projects of the New Deal and Great Society modern Koch-bothers-inspired libertarians and tea-party-ers appear to disdain were, in point of fact, products of a far superior age in American politics.
As many know, following the second World War, the American middle class expanded profoundly. College graduation rates soared, home ownership skyrocketed and the very basis of modern middle class living was built on the subsidized education, housing and interstate system of the ingenious, notably socialist-inspired New Deal of the FDR era. American buying power boomed throughout the post-war period all the way up to 1978, when a mere handful years after the dollar was taken off the gold standard (official in 1973), inflation, falling union participation, poor economic policies on the part of the federal government and the altogether falling out of favor of FDR-inspired policies led to the Reagan-esque, pro-big business, ridiculously out-of-balance spending and wealth inequality we see today.
From systematically lessening funding for everything from Veteran's Affairs to higher education and public health services the likes of the FDA and CDC for years, our government, particularly the right as of late, remains determined to tell us that cutting such spending is in our best interest, yet condemns these same institutions when they fail to act as desired. Proclaiming the injustice of ineffective government while extolling the 'virtues' of private industry, many of our elected officials would and do prevent effective public services (and by extension public support for those services) for the purposes of their donors and agendas, rather than legitimately serving the People.
We can apparently afford to launch poorly-planned, sustained wars for over a decade, subsidize every major industry from oil to pharmaceuticals to the point of many such companies paying a negative tax rate and even bail out a prolifically corrupt financial system with tax-payer funds. Yet, we can't any longer afford to properly fund our universities, public health organizations or veterans whom fought for us in said wars? It couldn't be much more clear wealthy donors and political maneuvering take precedence over the People.
To summarize, both primary political parties are generally terrible at a federal (and often state) level. A number of ill-advised Supreme Court decisions made over several decades has allowed corporate America to dominate our government in a manner not seen since the early 1900s. Wealth inequality is at levels not seen since before the Great Depression, supposedly tax-and-spend policies are not aimed at the middle and working classes to anywhere near the degree they were in decades past, yet we're still told so emphatically that government is the problem. Ultimately, it's not: we're the problem.
We have not held our government accountable, and we've allowed our major media networks to convince us we should be fighting with each other over far less important issues. We the People must begin to see our current political environment as a contest between the majority of us and the billionaire, power-broker classes, not between Democrats and Republicans or conservatives and liberals. Our great grandparents figured this out back in the 1930s (it only took the Great Depression), and after proper policies were in place we experienced the emergence of the largest and most prolific middle class in the world. I want that back, we all want it back, and taking our government back is how we start.
To begin, since I last posted I've rejected my involvement with the Republican party, realigning as a disenchanted independent with a mixture of libertarian and socialist leanings. So be aware, this will not be partisan propaganda, but a general rant against the 'system.'
If you haven't already seen the documentary, "Inequality for All" by Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, I highly recommend it, as it lays out much of what I'm about to argue in beautiful detail.
Where many, particularly those on the political right, see government involvement as the problem, I see it as the sabotaged solution. It is well understood that the primary political concept behind representative democracy is that of power residing with the people (the Latin terms from which we derive the word republic, res publica, in fact means 'public affair'), the government being the representation of the people's will. As such, when our government goes awry, it is our responsibility to bring it to heel, to bend it to our collective will and assert our authority over it. We are not doing this, and haven't been effectively doing so for decades. Thus, what we see now is closer to that of plutocratic oligarchy, or rule by a wealthy few.
Terrible recent Supreme Court decisions the likes of Citizens United, McCutcheon and Hobby Lobby are exacerbating the problem, and it's about time we collectively 'wake up'. We the People need to once again see our government as truly ours, its primary purpose to provide for the people before the interests of those who saw fit to effectively purchase our system. Despite the misinformation, corruption and ineffective spending habits such programs are oft known for, we need to first view Medicare, Social Security, public universities, public health services and similar institutions as ours, causes we collectively chose to contribute to, and react to our government accordingly. The progressive tax rates, introduction of the minimum wage, public services and infrastructure projects of the New Deal and Great Society modern Koch-bothers-inspired libertarians and tea-party-ers appear to disdain were, in point of fact, products of a far superior age in American politics.
As many know, following the second World War, the American middle class expanded profoundly. College graduation rates soared, home ownership skyrocketed and the very basis of modern middle class living was built on the subsidized education, housing and interstate system of the ingenious, notably socialist-inspired New Deal of the FDR era. American buying power boomed throughout the post-war period all the way up to 1978, when a mere handful years after the dollar was taken off the gold standard (official in 1973), inflation, falling union participation, poor economic policies on the part of the federal government and the altogether falling out of favor of FDR-inspired policies led to the Reagan-esque, pro-big business, ridiculously out-of-balance spending and wealth inequality we see today.
From systematically lessening funding for everything from Veteran's Affairs to higher education and public health services the likes of the FDA and CDC for years, our government, particularly the right as of late, remains determined to tell us that cutting such spending is in our best interest, yet condemns these same institutions when they fail to act as desired. Proclaiming the injustice of ineffective government while extolling the 'virtues' of private industry, many of our elected officials would and do prevent effective public services (and by extension public support for those services) for the purposes of their donors and agendas, rather than legitimately serving the People.
We can apparently afford to launch poorly-planned, sustained wars for over a decade, subsidize every major industry from oil to pharmaceuticals to the point of many such companies paying a negative tax rate and even bail out a prolifically corrupt financial system with tax-payer funds. Yet, we can't any longer afford to properly fund our universities, public health organizations or veterans whom fought for us in said wars? It couldn't be much more clear wealthy donors and political maneuvering take precedence over the People.
To summarize, both primary political parties are generally terrible at a federal (and often state) level. A number of ill-advised Supreme Court decisions made over several decades has allowed corporate America to dominate our government in a manner not seen since the early 1900s. Wealth inequality is at levels not seen since before the Great Depression, supposedly tax-and-spend policies are not aimed at the middle and working classes to anywhere near the degree they were in decades past, yet we're still told so emphatically that government is the problem. Ultimately, it's not: we're the problem.
We have not held our government accountable, and we've allowed our major media networks to convince us we should be fighting with each other over far less important issues. We the People must begin to see our current political environment as a contest between the majority of us and the billionaire, power-broker classes, not between Democrats and Republicans or conservatives and liberals. Our great grandparents figured this out back in the 1930s (it only took the Great Depression), and after proper policies were in place we experienced the emergence of the largest and most prolific middle class in the world. I want that back, we all want it back, and taking our government back is how we start.
Sunday, July 22, 2012
The Wonderful World of Animation
As a kid born in the late 80's and raised in the 90's and early 2000's, I believe I can attest to growing up in one of the greatest eras to be a child at the movies. The first film I ever remember seeing in theaters was Aladdin, which was hugely successful and still sits as one of my favorite animated flicks, while another of my earliest movie going experiences introduced me to The Lion King, my favorite animated film and arguably the greatest animated motion picture in history.
These were just the tip of my magical-childhood iceberg. 1989, the year I was born, was also the kickoff year of what is now known as the Disney Animation Renaissance, and I had the privilege of spending the first ten years of my life surrounded by the films and merchandise of one of Disney's greatest creative ages. The Little Mermaid's Ariel was my first crush (I liked her "seashells," as my mother enjoys reminding me), Belle taught me that taking women hostage is not only acceptable, but is destined to develop into romance, the Genie brought myself and everyone around me to laughter, Mufasa's death made me cry like, well, a five year old, Hercules was literally my hero, and Eddie Murphy's Mushu was his best performance until Donkey (Shrek).
And, all of this was merely the traditionally animated side of the industry, which began to change dramatically after the phenomenal success that was Toy Story. Released in 1995, the first full-length computer generated animated film ever revolutionized the industry, as most of us know. Nearly twenty years later, animation is dominated by CG, it has a larger number of studios involved than ever before, and even has its own category in the Academy Awards. Names like Pixar, DreamWorks, Disney, and Blue Sky are synonymous with animation, while Starz, Sony, Fox, ILM(Industrial Light and Magic), Lucasfilm, Imagi Studios, Illumination(Universal Pictures), and several others all have or are animation studios involved in the industry today.
Back in '89 there were only two major animated theatrical releases, according to IMDb. These were Don Bluth's All Dogs Go To Heaven and Disney's The Little Mermaid. Now, fast forward to 2012, and we have nine theatrical releases, not including 3d re-releases. In the late 80's animation was a dying art form, and now it is a full-fledged industry of money-sucking, audience engrossing juggernauts in 3d.
This incredible change was by no means an accident, and took place while my generation was growing up. My age group has been called the "Harry Potter generation," and rightfully so, but we would be just as accurately described as the Disney Renaissance or Toy Story generation. We fueled the growth in the industry, and conversely animation and the geniuses behind it left us with a legacy that stays with us into our adult years and will transfer to our children.
So far this year I have seen the re-release of Beauty and the Beast, The Lorax, Brave, Ice Age 4, considered seeing Madagascar 3, and look forward to seeing Wreck-it Ralph, Rise of the Guardians, and the glorious return of Finding Nemo later this year. That there are so many options today speaks to the legacy of animation. Though that legacy stretches back to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, and even beyond, it was ushered from the brink of oblivion in the late 80's, and it is from this legacy that today's industry operates and succeeds.
Families and children growing up today have a wide range of options and talented companies vying for their attention and money, far more than I did when I was young. Yet, they would not have been possible if the industry had not reshaped itself, and I'm proud to say I was there to witness and appreciate animation in a way only my generation can.
These were just the tip of my magical-childhood iceberg. 1989, the year I was born, was also the kickoff year of what is now known as the Disney Animation Renaissance, and I had the privilege of spending the first ten years of my life surrounded by the films and merchandise of one of Disney's greatest creative ages. The Little Mermaid's Ariel was my first crush (I liked her "seashells," as my mother enjoys reminding me), Belle taught me that taking women hostage is not only acceptable, but is destined to develop into romance, the Genie brought myself and everyone around me to laughter, Mufasa's death made me cry like, well, a five year old, Hercules was literally my hero, and Eddie Murphy's Mushu was his best performance until Donkey (Shrek).
And, all of this was merely the traditionally animated side of the industry, which began to change dramatically after the phenomenal success that was Toy Story. Released in 1995, the first full-length computer generated animated film ever revolutionized the industry, as most of us know. Nearly twenty years later, animation is dominated by CG, it has a larger number of studios involved than ever before, and even has its own category in the Academy Awards. Names like Pixar, DreamWorks, Disney, and Blue Sky are synonymous with animation, while Starz, Sony, Fox, ILM(Industrial Light and Magic), Lucasfilm, Imagi Studios, Illumination(Universal Pictures), and several others all have or are animation studios involved in the industry today.
Back in '89 there were only two major animated theatrical releases, according to IMDb. These were Don Bluth's All Dogs Go To Heaven and Disney's The Little Mermaid. Now, fast forward to 2012, and we have nine theatrical releases, not including 3d re-releases. In the late 80's animation was a dying art form, and now it is a full-fledged industry of money-sucking, audience engrossing juggernauts in 3d.
This incredible change was by no means an accident, and took place while my generation was growing up. My age group has been called the "Harry Potter generation," and rightfully so, but we would be just as accurately described as the Disney Renaissance or Toy Story generation. We fueled the growth in the industry, and conversely animation and the geniuses behind it left us with a legacy that stays with us into our adult years and will transfer to our children.
So far this year I have seen the re-release of Beauty and the Beast, The Lorax, Brave, Ice Age 4, considered seeing Madagascar 3, and look forward to seeing Wreck-it Ralph, Rise of the Guardians, and the glorious return of Finding Nemo later this year. That there are so many options today speaks to the legacy of animation. Though that legacy stretches back to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, and even beyond, it was ushered from the brink of oblivion in the late 80's, and it is from this legacy that today's industry operates and succeeds.
Families and children growing up today have a wide range of options and talented companies vying for their attention and money, far more than I did when I was young. Yet, they would not have been possible if the industry had not reshaped itself, and I'm proud to say I was there to witness and appreciate animation in a way only my generation can.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Resetting the American Dream: Back to the Basics
Update: This post is rather out-of-date at this point, but I will leave it up as something of a comparison to where I began with this blog.
As Republican primary candidates release their job plans, bash Obama and each other, and incite the greatness of America at every opportunity, the economy is taking center stage. This is completely expected, of course. With sluggish domestic growth potentially leading to a 'double dip', an unemployment rate nearing 10% nationally, the euro crisis looming across the pond, and the apparent lack of effective leadership, all eyes have turned to the importance of getting our economy back on track with sustainable growth and meaningful job creation and retention.
As a 22 year-old college student, I have a special interest in seeing our economy improve, and improve soon. That is not to say those younger or older than myself necessarily care less than I, merely that I am part of a generation whose potential is intimately tied to the success or failure of our economic recovery.
It is into this environment that I have decided to begin a series detailing economic reform I believe will dramatically and relatively quickly turn our economy around. My core philosophy involves my belief that we can simultaneously reform and streamline a number of industries while spending less money, and integrate private investment with limited government leadership and regulation to ideally produce a more efficient economy and equitable jobs market.
This will be a series about renewing and reviewing our economic machine, resetting the march of the traditional 'American Dream,' and bringing our nation's focus back to the basics that allowed us to soar to the cultural, military, and economic heights we have achieved in less than 300 years.
Achieving this will involve discussing such issues as: streamlining the government and changing the economic climate of our nation through federal regulations and policy changes; the healthcare industry from restructuring insurance to adjusting medical training and standards; reforming our public education system through refocusing on how we prepare teachers, teach various learning styles, and prepare students for college and the jobs market; reworking the criminal justice system to create a more efficient industry that costs less and works better for more people; completely overhauling social welfare and entitlements to increasingly privatize retirement and medical care, develop a welfare system that helps more of the right people, while preventing those who do not require such services from taking advantage of the system, all for a lower cost than we currently expend; restructure certain aspects of the financial sector to encourage responsible lending and growth, and prevent another scenario like that of the 2008 housing collapse; reviewing industries that would benefit America the most, from bringing back efficient manufacturing on a larger scale to retooling our service, financial, energy, and manufacturing sectors to work more efficiently individually and collectively; expanding and diversifying our energy sector to not only create more jobs and become increasingly independent in the short-term, but encourage gains in renewable sources and cooperation of various companies and specific industries to produce a drastically more cost-effective and efficient system in the long-term; reform of our tax code to create a system that is not only more simplistic and easily understood by the common citizen, but is also far more cost effective and beneficial for individuals, companies, and even the government; and likely a few other issues I have not laid out here.
As daunting as this list is, I plan on tackling each issue separately, each with its own full-length entry. Social issues that are either important to me, or are of economic importance may sneak their way into this series as well.
I must warn you I am a registered Republican, and will likely be writing slightly from the right of the political mainstream. Nonetheless, I plan on being as moderate, rational, and pragmatic as possible regardless of traditional viewpoints. Each entry in this series will be thoroughly researched and contemplated, and though I have many of my own ideas from the start I will input plans and ideas from both sides of the political spectrum if available.
I am writing this as much for myself as anyone reading, and in fact would not particularly mind if this remained something of a journal exclusively for my own thoughts. My curiosity for different viewpoints and desire for healthy debate have motivated me otherwise, however, and I hope to interest at least a few passing individuals over time.
In any case, I look forward to this ride, whether the following ideas affect policy-makers and power players, or just myself. One way or another, good times will roll.
Edit: Though I still find politics just as interesting as I did when I wrote this, school has taken up much of my time, and I have decided to write about simpler, lighter topics as I choose. For example, I just wrote about my perspective on animated films, and I plan on continuing in that vein as opposed to more serious and research-heavy posts that politics would require. I may still write about politics, but for now they will be independent and outside of any organized series.
As Republican primary candidates release their job plans, bash Obama and each other, and incite the greatness of America at every opportunity, the economy is taking center stage. This is completely expected, of course. With sluggish domestic growth potentially leading to a 'double dip', an unemployment rate nearing 10% nationally, the euro crisis looming across the pond, and the apparent lack of effective leadership, all eyes have turned to the importance of getting our economy back on track with sustainable growth and meaningful job creation and retention.
As a 22 year-old college student, I have a special interest in seeing our economy improve, and improve soon. That is not to say those younger or older than myself necessarily care less than I, merely that I am part of a generation whose potential is intimately tied to the success or failure of our economic recovery.
It is into this environment that I have decided to begin a series detailing economic reform I believe will dramatically and relatively quickly turn our economy around. My core philosophy involves my belief that we can simultaneously reform and streamline a number of industries while spending less money, and integrate private investment with limited government leadership and regulation to ideally produce a more efficient economy and equitable jobs market.
This will be a series about renewing and reviewing our economic machine, resetting the march of the traditional 'American Dream,' and bringing our nation's focus back to the basics that allowed us to soar to the cultural, military, and economic heights we have achieved in less than 300 years.
Achieving this will involve discussing such issues as: streamlining the government and changing the economic climate of our nation through federal regulations and policy changes; the healthcare industry from restructuring insurance to adjusting medical training and standards; reforming our public education system through refocusing on how we prepare teachers, teach various learning styles, and prepare students for college and the jobs market; reworking the criminal justice system to create a more efficient industry that costs less and works better for more people; completely overhauling social welfare and entitlements to increasingly privatize retirement and medical care, develop a welfare system that helps more of the right people, while preventing those who do not require such services from taking advantage of the system, all for a lower cost than we currently expend; restructure certain aspects of the financial sector to encourage responsible lending and growth, and prevent another scenario like that of the 2008 housing collapse; reviewing industries that would benefit America the most, from bringing back efficient manufacturing on a larger scale to retooling our service, financial, energy, and manufacturing sectors to work more efficiently individually and collectively; expanding and diversifying our energy sector to not only create more jobs and become increasingly independent in the short-term, but encourage gains in renewable sources and cooperation of various companies and specific industries to produce a drastically more cost-effective and efficient system in the long-term; reform of our tax code to create a system that is not only more simplistic and easily understood by the common citizen, but is also far more cost effective and beneficial for individuals, companies, and even the government; and likely a few other issues I have not laid out here.
As daunting as this list is, I plan on tackling each issue separately, each with its own full-length entry. Social issues that are either important to me, or are of economic importance may sneak their way into this series as well.
I must warn you I am a registered Republican, and will likely be writing slightly from the right of the political mainstream. Nonetheless, I plan on being as moderate, rational, and pragmatic as possible regardless of traditional viewpoints. Each entry in this series will be thoroughly researched and contemplated, and though I have many of my own ideas from the start I will input plans and ideas from both sides of the political spectrum if available.
I am writing this as much for myself as anyone reading, and in fact would not particularly mind if this remained something of a journal exclusively for my own thoughts. My curiosity for different viewpoints and desire for healthy debate have motivated me otherwise, however, and I hope to interest at least a few passing individuals over time.
In any case, I look forward to this ride, whether the following ideas affect policy-makers and power players, or just myself. One way or another, good times will roll.
Edit: Though I still find politics just as interesting as I did when I wrote this, school has taken up much of my time, and I have decided to write about simpler, lighter topics as I choose. For example, I just wrote about my perspective on animated films, and I plan on continuing in that vein as opposed to more serious and research-heavy posts that politics would require. I may still write about politics, but for now they will be independent and outside of any organized series.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Introductions
Greetings. My name is Jeremy and I am new to this blogging service. Most of what I have written online has been in the form of film and video game reviews on social networks dedicated to those endeavors. At least initially, that is exactly what I plan on doing with this blog.
Everything from media reviews to thoughts on politics, schooling, or public transportation may be covered. So, in many respects this is more of an online journal for myself than a platform to support anything specific.
In any case, I look forward to enjoying this service and hope to be introduced to some cool people in the process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)