Frogs in a field

So, we recently discovered a new species of frog native to, apparently, Yankee Stadium. So,  yeah, go figure. However, I came to realize something: Cities aren't unnatural. Well, they are in the same way that things like prairie dog towns and beaver dams are unnatural. These things don't just happen, they are made to happen. It destroys one environment and creates a different one. The difference has, historically, been the lack of animals and plants (other than ourselves, our pets, and rats) that benefit from cities as a natural environment. This has been changing over time.

Between the falcons, coyote, foxes, sea gulls, pigeons, and other animals now beginning to thrive in urban and suburban settings there are robust wild communities beginning to grow in and around our modern cities in ways that we haven't seen before. And the important thing to note is that these things might not be as new as we seem to think, but simply more visible now that we aren't just shooting those wild animals we find.

I, personally, believe that we manage to keep our cities going for many years to come we will see more and more animals and plants unique and dependant upon our cities. I find the notion of cities being anti-nature to be, well, wrong. A different kind of of nature, to be sure. One that is currently less valuable from an ecological perspective, definitely. But that looks like it is changing, doesn't it? It looks to me like cities in the future could be as valuable to wildlife as forests are today, or not. The future will surprise us all, as it always does.

I'm just looking forward to the days that we incorporate living things into our architecture, where cities bustle with life in general and not just the business of humans living, and when the environmental impact of tearing buildings down are as important to consider as putting one up.

Naming things are hard

Names are crazy things. They are words that literally mean nothing until things exist. My name has no other meaning than me. The name of something that doesn't yet exist literally means nothing. Still, not all names are equal. There are a wide range of assumptions and such that go along with them. For example "Here is my friend, Michael" is very different from "Here is my friend, LaMichael".

Names are a good way to make a first impression, but it's also the sort of thing that strongly demonstrates the nature of words. Words mean what we make them mean, you name is the best example of this. A name refers to not just you, but all people who share that name. So, if your name is Mudd... well, your name is mud thinks to that guy helped John Wilkes Booth after he shot Lincoln. Still, you can use your reputation to change the very nature of your name.

No doubt names are a magnificent thing that no one ever seems to think about, but it doesn't change the fact that I suck when it comes to naming things myself. Help would be appreciated.

Natural isn't free.

I was involved in a discussion a little while ago, in it I was discussing how expensive some things are even though they are natural. Yes, it happens when no one is looking. No, that doesn't mean it is "free". The statement "There is nothing that is free" is true, even if you can get things free of charge. Everything requires an expenditure of time and resources. This applies most obviously to physical stuff, after all it's made of stuff which cannot be used for other things for as long as it continues to exist. Still, I would argue that this is most true for those things that are not physical, those things that exist because we say so. These things require constant work to make them exist, everything from companies to nations to social clubs. I would argue especially social clubs.

Back to my original topic, I believe that discrimination is fucking expensive. Not merely expensive, fucking expensive. It requires that every time you choose to interact with folks you check, and a distinct response for each outcome. Yeah, it's a natural thing because we cannot have one general response for everything. Having the same response for police that you do for infants is a horrible idea. So, yeah, but when we start making up arbitrary things to check for... like Jewishness or race.. then that's just heaping more work on everyone. And for what? Not only do you have to build twice the necessary number of water fountains, but you also have to check to make sure that the right people are using the right ones. Not only is it a pain in the ass, but every time you waste time making sure that they aren't using your arbitrary water fountain you aren't doing something more important. I have to say ogling hot chicks is far more important than making someone move to the back of a bus or ensuring that the right people are pinning the right stars on their clothing. At least there is a tiny chance of something valuable coming from the ogling.

Not only do you prevent the discriminated group from contributing, which is a huge cost, but then you are also expecting everyone else to also waste their time and effort to make sure that they don't contribute. No,  I understand it's important to maintain cohesion in the group. Monopoly of power is of vital importance for many polities. Culture and society is always threatening to tear itself apart, and while dsicrimination is an effective way to marginalize apparently destructive element, I can't help but think that there are better ways to handle it than to let us dick ourselves over.

But yeah, that's just me waxing poetic about a part of discrimination that I don't think I've ever heard anyone else talk about. Why? Quite frankly, I wish I knew.

I believe that executives should be paid.

I still believe that how they are paid needs to be reexamined. It has been demonstrated that there is a diminishing marginal utility to even money, among executives and politicians after a certain point paying them more can result in lower quality of work. In some Game Theory experiments this can be done with very simple tasks as well. Basically, I am worried that we are overpaying executives.

I do believe that some of our recent experiences with Green Energy in particular underscores this point. You have executives who land very large bonuses for bringing in huge amounts of government funding, and not really taking care of the meat of their business. These companies collapsed, well, spectacularly over the past six months or so. Similar companies who didn't get very large amounts of government funding and don't pay executives anywhere near as much are still operating. Why?

Well, I think it's a simple case of too much leading to problems. It's not really a case of greed when someone puts in a lot of work (albeit misguided work) and then gets paid a fraction of a percent, but rather one of a lack of strategic vision. Who keeps these things in line? The employees? They don't have any power. The shareholders? Not so long as they're betting on the outcome more than they are trying to contribute to the company. The government? So they can make a mess of his, too?

I do believe that this is a pretty significant flaw in the way our businesses operate at this time. Not a fatal flaw, mind you. I am just worried that a little problem, going beyond the efficiency wage (the notion that higher wages are more likely to attract higher quality labor) into the area of diseconomies of wage, is killing new and innovative industry for no good reason. This hurts everyone, even the executives who appear to benefit over the short run.

I just don't want a trend towards overpayment to kill of green energy and technology-oriented start ups like a handful of engineering mistakes killed off the air ships. It's taken almost a hundred years for investment to once again move into that technology, and some of it is bad ass as hell. I'm just, kinda sad when I think about how much we are missing out on because no one serious thought much about it for a hundred years.