Several new studies have been completed, checking possible links between methane gas in well water and nearby hydraulic fracturing operations. But pro-fracking interests have high-jacked this preliminary research to flog it as proof that fracking poses no risk to groundwater.

 

And what about surface pollution caused by fracturing operations? This issue is simply swept under the carpet without a mention.

 

An article on June 11 in the Columbus Dispatch, cites a University of Cincinnati study, but seriously inflates the significance of the findings. A quick read of the original research shows the testing was done on one hundred and eighty samples from twenty-four private water wells. Most of the private wells are located in one county in Ohio.

 

“Three sites were found to contain enough methane to be a risk of fire or explosion in contained areas.”

Despite this, and that only methane, acidity, and electrical conductivity were tested for, the results are billed as proof enough that there’s no groundwater contamination at all from oil and natural gas drilling.

 

Field director Jackie Stewart, for Energy In Depth — called a research, education and outreach program, sponsored by the Independent Petroleum Association of America — was quoted in this article as saying that two dozen other studies reached the same conclusions. The papers were not identified.

 

Another director for the same organization, Nicole Jacobs, appears on Morning Consult’s website — a technology company specializing in data research. She cites the Cincinnati study, and another from Yale University, that also only tested for methane, using eight monitor wells next to gas pads.

 

A third study from Penn State added iron, manganese, total dissolved solids, and sulfate to the substances screened, as well as methane, but didn’t test any human-use water supplies, either. Yet it’s claimed that methane in private wells doesn’t come from fracking activities.

 

When I checked the papers listed on IPAA’ s website, all concerned testing for methane, with one exception. In west Virginia, Duke University’s paper notes that spilled fracking wastewater:

 

“has an impact on the quality of streams in areas of intense shale gas development.”

Avner Vengosh Prof Geochemistry, Dukes’s Nicholas School of the Environment.

 

If the cherry-picked research isn’t bad enough, Ms Jacobs has the gall to claim the latest EPA paper examining issues with fracking and water supplies as evidence of low risk!

 

What Does the EPA’s Fracking Report Really Say?

Here are the highlights from the report, published December, 2016:

 

The huge withdrawals of water needed for fracking can directly affect drinking water due to changes in the quantity or quality of the remaining water.

Biocides, scale inhibitors, corrosion inhibitors and other chemical mixtures used in tracking fluids, are detrimental to water and soil quality.

The potential for fracking fluid movement via abandoned wells into underground and surface waters is of great concern.

Estimates that over a million wells were drilled prior to initial regulations being enacted. The locations and conditions of many of these wells are unknown.

Faulty well casings are a source of contamination

Fracturing has already occurred within underground drinking water resources, polluting these resources.

Water that returns to the surface during fracking operations — called produced water — is hazardous to the environment and requires careful handling.

 

Above Ground or Under, Fracking Spells Long Term Trouble

 

High salinity produced water often contains toxic levels of elements, such as bromine and radium 226. Approaching four million gallons of water can be injected per well. This creates anywhere from twenty-five, to one hundred per cent, of the original volume in waste water. Even if this waste can be disposed of by injecting it deep in the ground, existing and new fractures in the bedrock, along with old wells, all pose a serious risk of leakage to nearby water.

 

There are also solids produced during drilling which can be highly contaminated, and are frequently improperly disposed of.

 

Recent reports of illegal dumping of radioactive fracking waste can’t be ignored. Investigation of radiation levels that increase steadily in the months and years after disposal, due to breakdown of radium into it’s daughter products, has barely begun.

 

Leaking storage pits, broken pipelines and transport accidents, contaminate all they spill on. And the fairly common practice of disposing frack water via regular water and sewage treatment plants never designed to deal with this waste, must stop entirely.

 

And What Else is New in Fracking?

 

Since The Independent Petroleum Association of America is very selective in it’s choosing of research studies, I’ll add a few more for balance:

 

Live Science reports that Dr Avner Vengosh and his team from Duke University, haven’t just looked at methane. They’ve found radium in creek sediments downstream of a fracking wastewater plant in West Pennsylvania to be two hundred times higher than levels upstream of the plant.

 

Also, in Pennsylvania, the state had to stop the spreading polluted fracking wastewater on roads. It was assumed to be safe to use as a dust suppressant.

 

And here’s a joint effort between Duke, Stanford, and Ohio State Universities, to address the lack of any study on fracking well depth:

 

“Because hydraulic fractures can propagate 2000 ft upward, shallow wells may warrant special safeguards, including a mandatory registry of locations, full chemical disclosure, and, where horizontal drilling is used, predrilling water testing to a radius 1000 ft beyond the greatest lateral extent.”

So much for the claim that fracturing is done deeply enough to prevent intrusion into underground fresh water.

Alternatives to Fracking

Biomethane is just one practical, and far safer, fuel to replace fracked gas,oil, but since the infrastructure is already in place, might be the better route to take. The generation of natural gas goes on everywhere on the planet every minute of the day. Following nature’s example, the water wasted on fracking would be best used to grow algae suitable for methane production. Byproducts are water to recycle back into the process, and high quality fertilizer that can replace synthetic inputs for better soil quality. And biomethane certainly isn’t all that algae is good for.

 

It might take a lot of us to yell loud enough to make it happen. New companies trying to put environmentally friendly fuels into the front-running need all the back-up they can get. The up-and-coming generation have enough consequences of poorly thought out policy to contend with. The sooner we start demanding an end to it, and promoting better technology, the faster fracking will wind up a foot-note in the history books.

 

No one has the right to lie and cover up the risks. The mess already made by fracking is enough reason to knock it off. The potential for even more environmental damage just adds urgency.

 

Although the dismal economic reality of fracking comes far second to the environmental state-of-affairs, if you’d like to know more, I recommend this recent article by Justin Milkulka and Sharon Kelly.

It’s been obvious for decades that depending on conventional power must end. Nuclear generation is no exception. This article in Forbes Magazine – If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive? by Michael Shellenberger – leaves critically important information out in the cold. The most glaring omission is his failure to disclose his advocacy on behalf of nuclear power.His full Bio is here.

 

The True Costs of Energy

 

The author’s speculation about pricing in the conventional and fledgling alternative energy sectors amount to nothing more than distractions – red herrings. Context matters. Not long ago, the alternative route was prohibitively expensive. Only recently have costs dropped to a point where the investment can be seen to pay out in the long run. Cheaper today, yes – but still not cheap.

The new solar and wind technology must also first build it’s infrastructure. The initial costs can’t reasonably be compared to existing, mature systems.

All energy technologies were heavily subsidized in the beginning to offset high first-time expenditures. Typically, tax dollars shouldered the lion’s share. The consumer is dinged more directly than in the past to cover this latest start-up.

There are many bugs in the new system yet to be worked out. Inefficiencies, while they should be declared up front, are common when new technology rolls out.

As start-up costs are recovered and adaptation to the new kind of supply structure stabilizes, the price of the product will more reflect the actual generation and delivery costs.

The short-term pain is accepted in favor of the long term gain.

 

More Comparing of Nuclear and Conventional Apples to

Solar and Wind Oranges

 

Three heavy users of nuclear power are claimed to have the lowest energy costs. And a few areas where costs have increased are linked with closure of nuclear generating plants.

It’s obvious that areas not paying for new infrastructure will be laying out less money than those who’ve made the commitment to replace unsustainable technology.

Let’s not forget that decommissioning a power plant isn’t free or a close-it-and-forget-about-it deal.

Leaving these factors out skews the context enormously. There is mention of the fracking revolution, but it seems rather detached from the latest economic reports. But I digress. What is the main point?

 

The Real Costs of Nuclear Energy that

Solar and Wind Stop Cold

 

Safe, or economically attractive, ways to deal with nuclear leavings and their endless after-effects don’t exist. And we are all are inescapably stuck paying for the pursuit of managing it all.

The health-care and tax bills that result keep growing and will continue to do so.

Who had the right to paint humanity into this corner?

Unfortunately, even a total moratorium on nuclear-related activity is no more than a band-aid. And for the countless numbers of people and environments already impacted, it’s far too little done far too late.

There’s no escaping the burden of attempting to protect health and rights for ourselves, and all who come after us.

 

Money Does NOT Talk – or Think, Either

 

Just mull of over how different things would be had those responsible for allowing nuclear industry in the first place used their common sense instead of their calculators?

How would it be if they’d put the health of the planet we all depend on, first – even if critical thinking wasn’t their forte? How would it be now if the effort went into solar and wind power forty years ago?

At the very least, we’d be free of the ongoing human and economic costs of disasters already created. And we’d also be free of the constant effort required to ensure there are no more.

 

Nuclear Power Has Always Been the Wrong Way
Down a One Way Street

 

The mental and financial energy wastefully and misguidedly poured into nuclear development would have been available to create sensible power – and medical – solutions long ago.

People have lived on Earth without electricity for all but the equivalent of a mere blink in our history. We can easily adapt to doing with far less than we currently use.

This action would make solar and wind even more effective. And we’d have a far easier time of eliminating any more poisonous additions to our environment.

 

There Sure is More Than One Side to The
Nuclear Story

 

Among the many citations on Mr Shellenberger’s Bio Page is a TED talk called How Fear of Nuclear Hurts the Environment.

Those who understand the reality of radiation pollution are not reacting out of fear and ignorance. They are actively working to protect human health and that of the planet. Anyone claiming otherwise is making a gross misrepresentation.

I whole-heartedly agree with the reasoning that obligation to report fairly and accurately must be upheld on all issues.

The surviving victims of the nuclear industry are equally and legally entitled to be heard without pre-judgment. And this counts for those affected – but don’t know it, yet.

The people who labor and research to help them – and us all by default – also have the same right to be fairly represented.

 

Our Descendants Have Been Robbed of Their Rightful Say on the Nuclear Legacy

 

Pandora should never have been let out of the box. But we can – we must – decide to do far, far better from here on in. There are many alternatives already. There are sure to be many more discovered.

Some may think it too expensive, but this is relative to whether they just consider at- the-tap dollars and cents or the true, never-ending price. The bottom-line is environmental safety, not money.

Links:

 

Pilgrim Nuclear Plant in Massachusetts to Close by 2019, Owner Says

Historic Nuclear Waste

Kennetcook Still Nova Scotia’s Ground Zero

Materials on Radioactive Shale Gas Drilling Waste

 

The war against bad teachers is in full swing according to this report. Teacher tenure is believed by some to protect the worst teachers. This is apparently sufficient justification for fighting to eliminate it. And I do appreciate the author passing on the news, but do google it. There are many other articles discussing  the woes in the educational field.

Tenure certainly isn’t the only target.

A study mentioned in the same report, released in 2012 by economist Raj Chetty, claims that one year of exposure to the worst teaching could cost a class full of kids 1.4 million dollars in adult income.

The research is based on English and Math scores compared to tax earnings.

A very interesting study, and a lot of water has gone under the bridge since it’s debut. But Mr Chetty’s conclusion is still generating oodles of controversy, so I include it:

 

Reward high value teachers and fire low value ones.

 

Don’t bother to investigate what led to the disparity in teaching quality? Just base everything on outcome? Just throw money at it? Nothing else to learn here, folks – move along?

 

What Does Standardization in Education Mean?

 

Can you imagine a system for building a basic, reliable car where the rules differ, not just in every region, but even routinely diverge between manufacturing plants? Even from individual worker to worker? It might be considered miraculous that any of the cars turn out to be functional. It would certainly be no surprise that those from some areas fall apart, and that a mixture of results from each region are also noted. But instead of implementing a consistent standard for all, differences in manufacture are examined and fought about endlessly.

Rather than prompt us to come up with a workable, effective blueprint to guarantee quality, all eyes go to the failures. And from these are generated endless blame. All efforts focus on correcting minutiae, case by case, sometimes all the way to the top levels of the courts.

Laws definitely matter, but don’t do much good if they aren’t uniform or are inconsistently applied. Since the educational laws are in obvious disarray, it would make sense to begin with putting them straight, wouldn’t it?

If there’s no standard, there’s no basis for quality assurance – and no way to evaluate properly, either.

Blaming and extolling – labeling teachers as bad or good, high or low value, or what ever black or white categorization is currently in vogue, are reasoning errors for a reason. Wars and fights, too, come of faulty reasoning – not to mention much of this isn’t even legal.

Theses approaches are inexcusable substitutes for properly thought-out action.

 

All Kids are Entitled to an Education

 

Does anyone dispute that all children should have the right to learn properly? In order for this to happen, laws must be universal and strictly held to. Regional, or any other variation, is not allowed. It isn’t about testing, tenure, pay-checks, or any of the other red herrings commonly mistaken for cause.

It isn’t about groups or individuals, regions, or any other imaginary subdivision. Everyone in the educational system must learn and hold to the same rules.

The basic laws already exist and come ahead of all others. They are the very foundation of reasoning and consistent development of common sense.

 

Authority is Not a Person or a Group

 

These basic laws are the authority. No matter what level of responsibility any individual or group occupies in the system, all are responsible to – and are never above – them.

People who aren’t consistently taught about human and civil rights don’t understand them properly – and don’t know how to protect – much less teach others – about them. Think back to your own school days. Which teachers did you do best with? The ones who consistently treated everyone fairly and equitably? What about those who favored some over others or maintained other biased practices?

Can kids be expected to learn about and respect fundamental laws from educators and proponents who assume that declaring war, fighting, blaming and singling people out for attack are acceptable means?

Should we just assume that monetary reward and hiring and firing practices are solutions, rather than band-aids? Is the value of an education all about how much we earn later on? Turn the clock back a few hundred years. Was winding up financially well off on the labour of slaves any measure of quality? Anyone can become successful if they have the means to keep others working – or even thinking – for them. Remove the money. What’s left?

 

 

Rights are for Everyone

 

Discrimination is a huge and illegal barrier to effective learning – and quite a bit more. No one learns properly in a biased atmosphere, no matter which side of the line they are on.

Solid common sense relies on solid understanding of the rules. Without this understanding, what’s viewed as progress is no more than a series of patch jobs. The same old problems keep cropping up as the band-aids fall off. Even those who do manage to learn well don’t reach potential. And over time, the errors keep eroding progress until there are so many problems, the majority lose hope of ever straightening the mess out.

 

I shot an arrow into the air and where it lands, I know not where.

 

Standard Law of Gravity – what goes up must come down. We learn common sense by experience, to a point. But if we want a better educational – or any other kind of – system, we must maintain a steady and accurate aim. The primary goal is to repair the core issue – making the rules – and the value of the reasoning behind them – understandable to everyone.

Confidence comes of knowing what’s fair and equitable. Many of us gained much of our determination by struggling against firmly entrenched rights infringements. Doing it this way works, but there are far better alternatives. Teaching kids directly to protect their own and others rights eliminates time wasted on unreasonable distraction. The mind’s energy is freed from this unnecessary detour.

 

The real point – learning – receives the attention it deserves.

 

This kind of education is independent of situation, location, circumstances or subject. Standing up for and protecting the laws that protect us all – and doing it in full respect of them – must become second nature. These values need to be in place as the heart and brains of the system. And any laws – along with the mish-mash of reasoning errors currently making the rounds – that don’t back this goal must be eliminated or altered appropriately, ASAP.

Very few of us have had the opportunity to learn how to learn as well as we’re capable of, but there’s no time like the present to stop the battles and move forward.

https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html

 

 

 

 

 

It’s assumed that radical changes are needed to live within the resource boundaries of the planet. This idea reminds me of the saying attributed to Albert Einstein – “We can’t solve problems with the same thinking that led to them.”

 

Is the Idea of Radical Change a Show-stopper?

 

It’s not rocket science. Each of us need clean air, water, food and shelter. There’s nothing extreme about human needs – they simply need to be met. These days, the opportunity to be educated – to learn – it’s commonly thought of as need, as well. This is fine, as long as we don’t trap the idea of education into the confines of “educational system”. There are so many ways to learn outside of this venue, it almost goes without saying that what ever conventional education a person has, is just the beginning. No matter what or how we’ve learned previously, it’s what we figure out from this point forward that counts.

 

Energizing the Ideas

When there’s change, particularly if the change is interpreted as negative, over-reaction is common. And when change is desired, making it happen is viewed as a challenge, at best, to an unsurmountable problem, at worst. Figuring out how to deal with the need for electricity  is just one example where many take it for granted that resolving all the issues is a really big deal. It’s too often overlooked that change – or the need for it – is a learning opportunity. And it might not even be a case of having to learn – just applying what we already know more effectively … uh, understanding better.

 

 

Home Power – Unhacked

Some think this kind of solution is radical. It isn’t. It’s quite possible to meet needs for electricity with a tiny system. There’s nothing special, extreme, or otherwise freaky, about it. Billions would be happy to have this much electricity. What’s needed is to stop mistaking wants for needs. Chasing after sustainable energy with wants as a bottom line is a dead-end. When attempting to reduce and re-balance use, a clear distinction between wants and needs must be kept front and center to maintain effective perspective and results.

 

The resources it would take to convert the typical western household, factory, school, grocery store, office building – or most other modern infrastructures – to renewable electricity, isn’t feasible. Conservation is the foundation of alternative energy. Building the roof before the footings isn’t just lousy math.

 

 

Development, Mind Power – and Reality

 

Once needs are put first, there’s something else to get into the picture. It’s not just about physical resources. If the brains poured into evolving such things as computers were directed to refrigeration, an affordable, sustainable fridge that runs on a nine volt battery for years, would be something we’d already take for granted.

 

It’s not difficult – or radical – to keep development within reasonable means and aimed at goals that would really make a difference. An incredible amount of thinking goes into robotics, medicine, fossil fuel based machinery, space exploration, marketing systems, and even entertainment. Redirecting the focus of technology to truly health-promoting and planet-respecting  doesn’t take any more mental energy and is bound get far better results than what we have right now.

 

Recognize that what’s assumed to be radical is just the same old story from an unfamiliar angle. Spotting the repetition eliminates over-reaction. The methods to best deal with most unexpected events, and even seemingly entrenched unwanted consequences, are already known. We’re too easily thrown by the details. To make sustainable progress reality, we need to reclaim the time wasted on missing the point and head directly to thinking about how to ensure basic human needs ahead of all else.

There’s nothing to hack – just a few things to remember.

 

A Good Life for All Within the Planet’s Means

 

 

As people devote more and more intelligence to specialties, how do the general “all-around” smarts come out at the end of the day? With the bulk of the effort concentrated on such thin slices of reality, the time – or energy – to gain and maintain awareness and competence in other areas can’t help but fall behind.

There are attempts to reduce the isolation. Universities are combining specialties to combat the silo effect, but it’s unlikely the net result will be enough to balance things out.

As the roads to knowledge continue to divide, the common pool of information we all count on to learn from is over-loaded. The basic skills people share with the rest of Earth’s creatures – the ones nature develops to allow survival unaided in the world – are somewhat flexible. The environment is subject to change, and it seems the capacity to adapt is built in. But we don’t get to choose which features change, or how long it takes – so far.

Luckily people have the special option of adding to basic competency without waiting for nature to morph us. We make use of this feature quite a bit. But substitution, rather than addition, has become typical. How many are there left who’ve learned well enough to maintain as nature designed? And we’re adding more layers to this dilemma. Concern is growing. Are some technologies – and attitudes – interfering with learning how to use the skills we count on to learn in the first place?

 

What Builds Brain Power?

Literacy lit a fire under ingenuity. This more effective way to share knowledge and improve understanding spread across the globe. But these days, it’s being crowded out in favor of scanning, viewing, listening – methods of information intake with quite different effects on the brain and learning. What the result will be isn’t clear, but it might be time to remind ourselves :

 

There’s nothing yet discovered nearly as complex as the human mind.

Only the barest beginning has been made in exploring this potential.

 

We hear all about advances in artificial intelligence. But where do we find out about effective ways to improve on our own? Incessant sensationalizing is usually featured with news of the clever machines – along with bashing human intelligence. And what’s left out of the up-sell?

 

Human minds are so different from machine imitations, there’s no way to compare.

People use their minds to invent and refine some really useful tools, but the real action is between our ears.

And … finding out how to do the absolute best with what we have must be moved to the top of the research pile.

 

De-specialize, Adapt … or Something More?

 

We learn continuously, even if we don’t much notice. But the call is to do it more consciously, since it has so many benefits. At the very least, it seems to be the equivalent of exercise. Use it or lose it, applies to more than just our muscles. Some work out by trying to keep up with all the specializing going on … but there must be easier options.

 

Maybe it isn’t so much the subdividing of learning we should be concerned with. It’s a huge universe. Just keeping up with investigating ourselves and the planet could take millions of thinkers. A way around specializing doesn’t seem possible, given what we know at the moment, anyway. So what can be done to make important information readily accessible and understandable for specialist and non specialist people alike?

 

Maybe we take communication too much for granted but it’s central to clear thinking. Plain, direct and accurate terms would go a long way to improve cross-talk between specialties. To help the general audience stay in the loop, we have to insist those responsible for reporting, do it … responsibly.

 

Media Muck

 

It’s no secret that current news spreading habits have serious deficiencies … sensationalizing is just one unwelcome pain-in-the-brain to be rid of. Halting the endless spin-doctoring that’s choking our primary learning channels would be an awesome move forward. Imagine sitting down to a smooth, uncomplicated time-out to catch up with what’s really going on. Wouldn’t this be a refreshing change? It might even be healthier for us.

 

Sure, the mental equivalent of slogging through a swamp full of nonsense in hope of finding something of substance is exercise. But would anyone just exercise one leg or one arm? By the time we’ve dug through all the useless – and too often misleading – verbiage, there isn’t much energy left to go hunting for something worth bothering with. And the kind of thinking that needs the work-out the most doesn’t even get a warm-up!

 

Manipulative Reporting

 

The distinction between entertainment and reporting new information has become almost non-existent in every form of media. It’s time to demand it’s return. Reports don’t have to be boring, but do need to stick tight with reality. When most of the information is only included to create the immersive experience, there’s no room left for the news!

 

Junk-free access to information is just a start on improving communication and understanding. But as the trash disappears, under-served ways of thinking regain their share of the juice. And with this, more ideas for adding improvements come along. Once these settle in, even more ideas have the chance to appear. In time, pumping-up-the-mind moves towards a self-sustaining, balanced routine of aware, continuous learning.

 

It’s often said, What we can imagine, we can achieve. It might not be entirely the case, but with the potential we have just hanging around, fretting about limits could be a little premature.

 

Decoding the Most Complex Object in the Universe

 

Nature provides, but how it all comes about is still one of life’s biggest mysteries. And mind is a concept of widely – and frequently wildly – differing interpretations. Where nature and mind meet, we find the burning question – how do we evolve awareness and thinking?

Few answers, but would it be a surprise to find that improving on accurate understanding of reality is at least on the agenda? If survival and reproduction are basic biological imperatives, then mastery of figuring out what’s really going on would be a huge contributor to ensuring we continue as a species into the future.

 

It’s not hard to imagine that the better we are at reality checking, the fewer potentially lethal errors we’ll make. But there’s still so much we don’t know. The idea of there being a top end to having a solid handle on it all seems a little remote. There are signs of progress, though – and some obvious clues of what to pay attention to.

The spread of literacy sparked an upsurge in human curiosity. Inventiveness really took off. The most notable activity has been in the:

 

What You See Isn’t What You Get Department

 

People have come up with theories and tools that make what’s invisible – and beyond our capacity to hear, feel, smell, or taste, real to us in ways we wouldn’t have much hope of ever developing naturally – at least as far as we know at this point. But this kind of ingenuity – moving us from our concrete experience of ourselves, each other, and the world – to what exists but can only be understood indirectly, points to what needs more attention.

Objective thinking – our logical, critical, empirical and ethical ways of understanding reality have their subjecting thinking counterparts: curiosity, intuition, imagination and prediction. And these last four faculties are the most needed when attempting to discover what’s for real in the invisible world. How is it that subjective mind – and the highly useful thinking it generates – not only gets the least attention, what little it does get isn’t very supportive? In fact, at times, the attitudes of many out-and-out undermine it.

Ideas Whose Time Came Along

 

Back in the day, many inventors – and other alternative thinkers –  were viewed with suspicion. Theorists mostly kept their ideas to themselves and might not ever let them out of the bag unless they could come up with a workable way to demonstrate. Those who managed to come up with useful machines sometimes managed to convince the “right” people to pay attention. But who knows how many viable possibilities never saw the light of day?

No matter how doubting a person might be about intuitive and other subjective aspects of mind, it would be hard to imagine he or she wouldn’t appreciate the Geiger counter. It’s quite nice to be able to test for radioactivity and avoid death. And without the help of subjective mind, such a gadget would never have been conceived.

Airplanes out on air – something we only notice by touch, unless it’s blowing what’s visible or smell-able around. Diagnostic tools such as x-ray machines, CAT scanners are medical staples that make great use of what human senses just can’t pick up. Little things we so take for granted – radio, TV, computers, microwave ovens – all relied on using the other half of mind to explore what might be just out of reach of human energy detection.

Let’s face it, most of what we’re taught only considers the objective. The rest is limited to what’s regarded as proven – and widely taken advantage of for objective purposes. To go any further than this, we’re pretty much on our own. But even with all the evidence available, the subjective side of understanding reality can still rile up resistance from those who write intuitive thinking off as impossible, or worse.

Making the Most of What We Have Upstairs

 

The firing up of thinking capacity that reading seems to have triggered, has speeded progress. It’s possible that some of this savvy has at least somewhat altered human intelligence in heritable ways. Unfortunately, epigenetics is just at it’s beginning – only time will tell. But think of the potential if subjective mind were better understood and developed, even if nothing that could be passed on came of it. What kinds non – genetic evolving over generations might this might encourage?

What we can’t detect by biological means is the usual in our environment – and perhaps well outside of it. And this situation is reflected by the workings of our own minds. Learning to understand the kind of thinking best suited to deal with this reality rates at least equal time with the more conventional ways of inquiring and sussing things out. What’s yet to be detected between our own ears matters. It isn’t as though intuitive intelligence hasn’t demonstrated it’s incredible usefulness in concrete terms. Minds were meant to evolve – and the invisible possibilities here are begging for our notice.

 

“We have been fighting the gender pay gap for decades, we have tried everything,” Ms. Traustadóttir says. She says the most important principle behind the new law is to ensure equal pay for work of equal value.

 

 

 

The pay equity gap has resisted change for forty years – along with other even more serious consequences of discrimination – everywhere you care to look. Sexism is blamed again and again, but the problem seems impossible to resolve. The saying, ” Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results isn’t sensible, ” comes to mind. What also comes to mind is that isms – you know, ageism, sexism, racism … – have been accepted as causes of unfair practices and attitudes.

 

Is this habit of categorizing blocking information? What could be missing? Many are targeted with pre-judgment – sweeping generalizations about groups of people without regard for facts or consideration for human rights. I also notice that each group has long fought to gain parity with those who’s rights are better respected  – but still haven’t reached the goal. Maybe the isms, and the blame that goes with them aren’t causes. Maybe they are symptoms. And every single discriminatory one of them follow a similar pattern – people are reduced to objects of contempt, one way or another. Whether considered only deserving of low pay, not being hired at all, not fit to associate with, or a target to be taken advantage of, the source of the ignorance fits this profile:

 

Narcissistic viewpoint regards other people as property, belongings. Similarity and agreement are highly valued and more likely to be rewarded – and jealously controlled. Those viewed as being different or in disagreement are discounted, used, rejected, abandoned or driven off or attacked.

 

We’re born stuck in our own context – and as we grow up we learn that other people count as much as we do. We’re taught about human rights, rules, and various civic laws intended to protect us all from unfair and inequitable treatment. But some narcissistic habits manage to hang on. And some of these habits are so common they still seem acceptable to large majorities.

 

As people learn beyond society’s habits, the discriminatory discrepancies are recognized as interference with rights. The ones who catch on manage to show others, but can’t get across to everyone. Part of the reason for this could simply be mistaking the symptoms for the cause. But until the real cause is identified correctly, continued tough going can be expected. Punishment won’t eliminate it. No matter how stiff the band-aid applied to the symptoms, a full cure won’t be easily discover-able or reachable.

 

I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be penalties for breaking human rights and employment laws. But for effective – and permanent – solutions, the real cause has to be dealt with and the education caught up. The voluntary measures should have worked and clearly haven’t – and not just in Iceland. And it’s sure not just about pay equity. Discrimination never seems to sleep, and the reverse reaction to it is too often as biased – and even narcissistic – as the prejudice that triggered it.

 

Iceland’s latest attempt starts top down – and only takes one group into account. But for the rest of us, there are opportunities to contribute. It doesn’t really matter the category when hanging out in the locker-room, the back-room, or the board room. If the talk is narcissistic, it’s time for a change. Rights and fair treatment are for everyone. Shift to this view-point, rather than holding tight to ineffective, categorized groups and labels. No one deserves to be discriminated against. Every single voice counts equally in the need to make upholding the laws typical – and resorting to punishment as a control a thing of the past. One unanimous very well-informed group could be just the solution we’re searching for. Get the superficial patching up out of the way. Better answers are waiting just below the surface.

 

 

 

You’ve seen the signs: Women’s Parking Only. The biggest complaint is it’s discriminatory. And yes, we get the point. But we might miss this one: over-categorization – taking it way too far – which often distracts from much more important information. In this case, the laws intended to protect people from harm need to be enforced. Creating special parking to control crime doesn’t work. It’s the equivalent of putting a band-aid on a broken leg. And along with the distraction over-categorizing leads to, we have another source – over-generalization.

 

We aren’t trees – we can move.

Sure. Some can afford to call a moving van, pack it all up and truck off to Happy Land just like that! Takes money, though. But what does this have to do with categories?

 

 

The Third World … an Imaginary Category

 

 

We all have the same right to live where we choose, but we don’t get to pick where we’re born. And chances are very good we don’t get to decide if the powers-that-be contribute to war or other grossly discriminatory action – and put innocent people in harm’s way. Some have a great need to move, but can’t without a lot of help.

 

But what would help the most? The money and effort poured into militarism would go a long, long way to repair, restore, and otherwise make sustainable, habitable and arable, areas of the planet devastated by war – and it’s fall-out – in the first place. People wouldn’t be forced to move nearly so often – maybe not at all. But the calls to end war do nothing. Those who won’t consider and end to war are too numerous.  Education is still lacking. We have to look else where to help with useful change, for now.

 

War fall-out reaches far and wide from the original targets. As people who do find a way to move, along with those who choose to immigrate, spread out around the globe, more over-categorization shows up in the wake.

 

Discrimination:

Age

Gender

Income

Appearance

Ability

… and so on …

Are you asking why this last list is over-categorizing?

 

It’s just another bunch of labels – pre-judged pigeon-holes to stuff folks into. Time to turn it around.

 

One People Living on One World

Discriminating against one discriminates against all – UN Tolerance Day Learning to identify – and quit – discriminating, is what’s needed. And forgetting about categories is something we all can do to get rid of discrimination faster. Our rights are all the same. It doesn’t matter who or where we are, whether we’re coming, going, or staying put. We need to support each other, not divide up. Let go of the previously decided ideas – let more possibilities in. It’s a big world, a huge neighborhood, and an incredible amount of human potential.

Well, the dictionary doesn’t help much:

 

Self Esteem:

1: A confidence and satisfaction in oneself

2: Self conceit

 

I hear the most about low self esteem – those who don’t think themselves good enough. Good enough doesn’t tell us much either. I can’t imagine trying to assess my own self esteem this way, but I’ve heard and read of it plainly intended as something meaningful – as something I should be able to interpret and use a standard. But good enough compared to what or who? And what do comparisons have to do with it?

Another common definition is the sense of how capable one is. OK, confidence counts, but a can-do or a can-learn attitude doesn’t guarantee that a person has good enough self esteem. There’s some talk of liking – or even loving – ourselves, respecting ourselves, knowing where we fit in. But none of this hits the nail on the head, either.

 

Value, Worth … or Respect?

 

Even the word esteem might not be the greatest choice. It implies value. And this idea carries a simplistic, superficial quality that seems more appropriate for property. People certainly aren’t property!

We hold many things in high esteem – gold is called precious due to it’s high monetary value. Sometimes people are tagged as precious, too. And sometimes this is just a bit too, too.

High self esteem fits the dictionary description of self conceit fairly close. This attitude is we run up against idealizing, aggrandizing, entitlement.

But we’re stuck with the inadequate words for the time being, at least, so I’ll try to make the best of it. Esteeming people might be viewed as recognizing each and every one of us has our own potential. While potential isn’t equal or identical for each, the opportunity for growth within it is.

 

Potential Plus

 

But I began with self esteem, didn’t I? Hmmm … the word self leaves something to be desired, too. Esteem only considered in the self-context just doesn’t work very well. What ever my views of my own potential, I can’t seem to get away from the idea that to keep my assessment of my own potential in perspective, I have to be aware of everyone else.

Those who have solid self esteem, although they tend to work toward their goals on their own, are found to work with ideas and activities that help others reach their own potential in some way or another. It isn’t just about themselves.

There are just too many examples of those who have all the appearance of success, but obviously hit the heights at the expense of others. Respect for people’s potential is low or even missing altogether. Interference with, rather than support of, others progress is typical. The idea that real self-esteem needs to be co-operative with other esteem to hold it’s own stands out.

 

Context and Balance

 

This is getting windy, so I’ll attempt to pare it down some:

Balanced Esteem – respect for and understanding of, one’s own potential in the context of respect for, and understanding of, everyone’s potential.

And maybe, rather than going along with the popular drive to be successful, discovering more about, and setting off in directions more in keeping with, our individual possibilities, even if they aren’t typical, might be the most balanced esteem promoting goal.