Object Synthesis

I always find it fascinating to read about the incentives that drive people to do one thing or another and more importantly the final consequences of such actions.  Pretty much like a chain of dependencies that lead to a goal.  It is usually more amusing when the goal is unexpected.

For instance in this article about the adjustment of China’s one child policy in the Washington Post stated a very interesting result.  Basically it says that China’s government, fearing that the population is trending towards having less people of working age to support the growing numbers of elderly are relaxing the one child per couple policy.  However more affluent, urban couples are actually resistant to having more than one child.

The reasons given are very interesting though.  Couples cite financial burden, experiences as being an only child themselves and also a touch of selfishness.  One fellow was quoted, “Ours is the first generation with higher living standards,” he said. “We do not want to make too many sacrifices.”

I cannot say that no one else in the world has these feelings either but I find it very interesting as a certain segment of China’s society start having such thoughts.  And also what does it mean to the segments of China’s society that do not have the same attitude?

There are few things outside of the sciences that one can count on with a great amount of confidence.  One of them is that people will always try to satisfy their own wants.  That being said it is merely a matter of fact to determine what incentives will drive people in one direction or another.

Some people have talked about how taxing carbon dioxide emissions will stifle business and growth.  In a very parallel argument, some people have also talked about how high oil prices will stifle business and growth.

I would agree to a certain extent.  But I would tend to believe that if the rules of the game were laid out in an equal fashion (ie – everyone has to play by the same rules) then we will find that people will find ways of thriving in the new environment.

As an extreme analogy, imagine forest fires that destroy giant swaths of land.  There is great loss but sooner or later the forest grows back, sometimes with even greater biodiversity and amazing lifeforms.  Some of those lifeforms might never have had a chance to make it if the environment didn’t change.

I think one of the reasons why some people are very resistant to these ideas is that it involves change, or basically rocking the boat.  Honestly in looking at how the current trends are moving I have to say that I don’t like the direction that it’s moving in.

I don’t even need to talk about the climate.  I’m just looking at how traffic is getting worse.  Do people really like sitting stuck on the highway?  Yes I’d much rather ride a train or bus to work.  But if no one wants to alter the rules to the game, it still is more cost and time effective to drive my car to work.

Go ahead, raise taxes on gasoline so that alternatives can spring up and thrive in the new environment.  Tax carbon dioxide so that people can figure out more ingenious ways to play with the new rules.  Once again, people are ingenious and amazing.  And I am confident that people can adapt to the new environment given rules applied equally across the board.

While I really don’t like thinking for too long on things that have happened in the past I tend to think that it is a collective short term memory that does seem to be prevalent in society.  This short term memory tends to skew one’s perspective for just about everything.

For instance, does gas seem cheap now compared to $4/gal gas?  Right now (I just got gas for $2.61/gal) it seems okay.  But what about comparing it against gas at the turn of the century?  I recall it being around $1.50/gal.

Also, because of the high prices of gas, some campaign ideas of the 2008 US presidential election were tossed out like drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and having a gas tax holiday for a few months.

And there were all the campaign promises made by President Obama.

It is not that I don’t understand that the unexpected happens and that everyone has to adapt to the present situation.  But I think that there should be a certain attitude and methodology that is to be approached given various circumstances.  Namely, anyone who is really sure about something better be able to back it up and be held accountable for their predictions.

Otherwise, perhaps a more open-minded attitude would be welcome taking into account various scenarios.  But another thing that bugs me is that it is really attractive to follow and support the guy who is confident in their answers.  The cocky guy who seems to know it all.

I really think that is a recipe for disaster since most people aren’t right about all things all the time.  Why aren’t people attracted to the honest person who admits that they might not know everything but is open to adapt and consider various situations?