Group items tagged

Until very recently, technology had a clear, if boring, purpose: by taking care of the Little Things, it enabled us, its human masters, to focus on the Big Things. "Unless there are slaves to do the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture and contemplation become almost impossible," proclaimed that noted connoisseur of contemplation Oscar Wilde. Fortunately, he added a charming clarification: "Human slavery is wrong, insecure and demoralizing. On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, the future of the world depends." ...Alas, most designers, following Wilde, think of technologies as nothing more than mechanical slaves that must maximize efficiency. But some are realizing that technologies don't have to be just trivial problem-solvers: they can also be subversive troublemakers, making us question our habits and received ideas. Recently, designers in Germany built devices - "transformational products," they call them - that engage users in "conversations without words." My favorite is a caterpillar-shaped extension cord. If any of the devices plugged into it are left in standby mode, the "caterpillar" starts twisting as if it were in pain. Does it do what normal extension cords do? Yes. But it also awakens users to the fact that the cord is simply the endpoint of a complex socio-technical system with its own politics and ethics. Before, designers have tried to conceal that system. In the future, designers will be obliged to make it visible. While devices-as-problem-solvers seek to avoid friction, devices-as-troublemakers seek to create an "aesthetic of friction" that engages users in new ways. Will such extra seconds of thought - nay, contemplation - slow down civilization? They well might. But who said that stopping to catch a breath on our way to the abyss is not a sensible strategy?

But the "last chance" for a 4-year-old to quit his screeching, lest he get a timeout? There are usually another seven or eight chances still to go, in a string of flaccid ultimatums: "Now this is your last chance." "This is really your last chance." "I'm giving you just one more chance. I'm not kidding." Of course you are, and your kids know it. They're not idiots. But they're also not adults, so why this whole school of thought that they should be treated as if they are, long before they can perform such basic tasks of civilization as driving, say, or decanting? Why all the choices - "What would you like to wear?"- and all the negotiating and the painstakingly calibrated diplomacy? They're toddlers, not Pakistan. I understand that you want them to adore you. But having them fear you is surely the saner strategy, not just for you and for them but for the rest of us and the future of the republic. Above all I'm confounded by the boundless fretting, as if ushering kids into adulthood were some newfangled sorcery dependent on a slew of child-rearing books and a bevy of child-rearing blogs.

"The government safety net was created to keep Americans from abject poverty, but the poorest households no longer receive a majority of government benefits. A secondary mission has gradually become primary: maintaining the middle class from childhood through retirement. The share of benefits flowing to the least affluent households, the bottom fifth, has declined from 54 percent in 1979 to 36 percent in 2007, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis published last year."

'A few drugs - such as beta-blockers, statins and glycogen control medications - have proved very effective at managing hypertension, heart disease, diabetes and strokes. Most insurance plans charge something for them. Why not make drugs like these free? Not for everyone, but just the groups for whom they are provably effective. In traditional economics, such a policy creates waste. The basic principle is moral hazard: consumers overuse goods that are subsidized. But people don't always follow a cost-benefit logic. The problem is basic human psychology. Heart disease is silent, with few noticeable symptoms. You feel fine most of the time, so it's all too easy to justify skipping the statin. The problem here is the exact opposite of moral hazard. People are not overusing ineffective drugs; they are underusing highly effective ones. This is a quandary that ... call "behavioral hazard." We've found that co-payments do not resolve behavioral hazard. They make it worse. They reduce the use of a drug that is already underused. My proposal is targeted: Take drugs that are shown to be of very high benefit to some people, and make those drugs free for them. All co-pays should depend on measured medical value; high co-pays should be reserved for drugs and medical services that have little proven value. Why not focus instead on the behaviors - eating unhealthy foods or shunning exercise - that created the conditions we must now treat with drugs? [This]has some merit. But [it] fails the "perfect as the enemy of the good" test.

This Australian theological student discusses the dependence of early (and contemporary) Christians on prior or current ideas that come from outside the Christian and biblical tradition.

After 4 years, Matt Gross is handing in his Frugal Traveler badge, but he forever remains an eager, untiring traveler - and, depending on your point of view, a frugal one.

'The recent historic open letter signed by 138 leading Muslim scholars ... from around the world - "A Common Word Between Us and You" - identifies some core common ground between Christianity and Islam, as well as Judaism. 'What is common between us lies in something absolutely central to both [and Judaism]: love of God and love of neighbor. 'The future of the world depends on our ability as Christians and Muslims to live together in peace. If we fail to make every effort to make peace and come together in harmony you correctly remind us that "our eternal souls" are at stake as well. 'We are persuaded that our next step should be for our leaders at every level to meet together and begin the earnest work of determining how God would have us fulfill the requirement that we love God and one another.'

Given time, American Muslims, like all other religious minorities before them, will adjust their legal and theological traditions, if necessary, to accord with American values. America's exceptionalism has always been its ability to transform itself - economically, culturally and religiously. In the 20th century, we thrived by promoting a Judeo-Christian ethic, respecting differences and accentuating commonalities among Jews, Catholics and Protestants. Today, we need an Abrahamic ethic that welcomes Islam into the religious tapestry of American life. Anti-Shariah legislation fosters a hostile environment that will stymie the growth of America's tolerant strand of Islam. The continuation of America's pluralistic religious tradition depends on the ability to distinguish between punishing groups that support terror and blaming terrorist activities on a faith that represents roughly a quarter of the world's population.

I am a legally blind octogenarian. I have wonderful adult children who often help me, but I can never accept their help gracefully. It is a terrible thing to be a burden. They say I am not, but I know better.

I am a legally blind octogenarian. I have wonderful adult children who often help me, but I can never accept their help gracefully. It is a terrible thing to be a burden. They say I am not, but I know better.