Is electrified lucrativity worth it?

Reflecting today on the amount of time I spend dealing with my computer and my phone... absurd amounts as many of you know.

I have started to become increasingly sensitive to it - not wanting my phone to touch my ear or other parts of my body (only using my headpiece) and not liking my computer to be on my lap.
But I still spends way too much time using them for logistics, jobs, personal organization, etc. I've created a sort of sick dependency which I perpetuate.

I can feel the computer sucking energy out of me, draining my eyeballs and covering me radiation.

I rarely make lists on paper like I used to, or write people letters, or have an address book or calendar, take notes in notebooks, etc.

Zo recently mentioned that soon we'll have electronic books - the idea seemed unreal, books on a screen just takes away so much from the experience. But who wins at night as work has piled up and online-social networking is back=logged?

Also - hate to admit it, but a lot of my interaction is electronic because I keep moving and travelling and building a global support network rather than local - talking to my sister via videochat while I'm in Vietnam and she's in Brazil.

Hopefully soon there'll be a movement - the disconnected travel movement - which I will join. As of now it really doesn't make much of a difference where you are if you're interacting electronically - you can skype for free, video, calls, etc etc. Takes away some of the fun of "going away."

I have also spent more money on my computer than on any other one thing except for the car (that I totaled in 4 days, making $1200 mind you)

This all perpetuates dependence, and also adds a different kind of risk - rather than losing an addressbook, piece of paper, what if I lost my phone with it's 900 contacts?
(most are backed-up now).

I used to memorize phone numbers, and the only phone numbers I remember now are ones I memorized ten years ago. i don't remember much anymore - it's all backed up on a little external harddrive.

When I didn't have a cell phone (started by sharing one in 2004) and didn't have a laptop (2002), everything was non-virtual, and I didn't work consistent jobs.

Now I've set myself up so that my income is directly related to how much time I spend on the phone or computer - I am waaay too accessible. My lucrativity has become electrified.

But I'll admit, I partially like being accessible - for the late night phonecalls of recipes, or Zero 7 concerts, or ...etc

Yet one of the reasons that I have my job right now is because of that accessibility - my boss needs someone who will always answer their cell phone and always call him when he gets an important email.

So, I'm good at using electronics, good at making money using them, get paid a fair amount to use them, but they suck lifeforce out of me. Interesting trade-off.

So - contemplating disconnection.

Contradictions in Travel: adventure/environment/externalities

The word I've been searching for has yet to be found, but describes the state of holding 2 or more contradicting thoughts at the same time about a certain thing.

Travel is such an activity/concept for me and has been throughout my life - most recently coming into focus a bit more as I increasingly (yes, due to the fact that I'm in Texas) meet people who haven't left their city.

Side story: When I lived in Arkansas, working at the Heifer World Headquarters, the secretary I became friends with desperately wanted to leave the state but:

• She didn't know anyone who was interested in traveling with her
• She didn't know anyone outside of the state thus had noone to visit
  
• She didn't think she had enough money saved up
• She wasn't quite confident enough to go on a trip by herself
  

Although my first reaction was "Come visit me!" - I was trying to help her think of other options which wouldn't potentially put her in some danger through travelling with people

Misled in school

So, after 4 years - or maybe it was three - studying international development and social change, and now starting to become more and more active and ask more and more questions - I keep coming across contradicting examples for certain "theories" i learned.
Unfortunately, I never had examples to begin with, so I can contradict these examples
with case studies showing the otherside.

A recent example...

While in Vietnam, I went to the board dinner of the Asia Pacific Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption and Production - at a nice little vietnamese restaurant where, as I soon realized was usual, the waitresses all wear traditional long robes of beautiful silk, without patterns.
I was intrigued by the fact that when working, everyone wore these elegant traditional garm, but when not working, they wore jeans and high-heels and t-shirts!

So at this dinner I sat next to a very well educated Sri Lankan man who has been working in international development for decades.

I mentioned something regarding the problem with professionals being trained in Sri Lankan Universities and then leaving the country to work elsewhere for better wages and how it's an intellectual drain on the country and benefits "developed" countries. I had learned this in my Tales From The Far Side International Development Class.

ON THE CONTRARY: He said that they want their people to go and work and move abroad because they don't have enough jobs for the people they are training - and if you send them abroad - they will send incredible amounts of money back home!

We had quite insufficiently explored this - and without case studies!

Market Value for Conservation....

Despite the fact that the cheapest energy available at any given time is conservation - in other words, reducing your demand, which after the initial investment means that energy is FREE, energy conservation isn't talked about.

It's not SEXY.

There's hardly a good market for it - because the only thing you can sell is green technologies which, require people to have a budget, and a little bit of initial investment.

How do you create the market for conservation? Get people to start thinking in the right mid-term or long-term framework rather than the immediate.
In the immediate, cents per kilowat hour looks better than $1000 window upgrade - it's the PAYBACK period which people don't understand.

You don't hear people saying "Today I want to go and buy some Conservation of Energy.... so how do we frame it and create the right simple incentives?

1. Perhaps if the investment was over time - a payment plan which was only slightly higher than their normal payment plan. And told them that FOR THE SAME COMFORTS... pay THE SAME COST for 3 years - then the comfort is FREE.

2. Perhaps a very easy to fill-in sheet, which calculates for them based on their situation, what their energy savings will be each year. The first year they will have the initial investment.... The second year they save X.. the third year they save X.. and it can mark when they have saved what they invested...

3. The point needs to be SAVING MONEY - not BEING GREEN. They can feel good about using less energy if they want.... for the environment, their children, national security, their personal security.

4. low-interest loans for energy-saving technology or incentives are most likely the most effective.

So what are the companies who make energy-saving products doing?

we create self-fulfilling phrophecies..

It is my understanding that the process works thus:

1. We predict what our "demand" will be
2. We build power plants, roads, schools, etc to MEET that demand
3. We thus fulfill the demand - by creating the demand

It seems quite backwards...

for example - on Cape Cod - they have a 10-year projected energy demand... so they are talking about what power plants, wind farms and such, will be needed to MEET that demand.

INSTEAD.....

How about decided what demand you WANT there to be?
Then you can figure out a strategy of how to reduce your energy demand over time.... through conservation measures, which will reduce the cost of the energy because new power plants and new development's WON'T be needed.

So decide that in 5 years, you want Cape Cod to be using X amount of energy....
which means you don't need more powerplants...
which means the energy costs will go up -
which will make conservation more affordable
which will spur energy conservation innovation....

If we keep predicting Unsustainable growth and consumption patterns - we will keep creating them... with a FALSE idea that we are REACTING to society.... though in fact, we are CREATING the demands in the first place through the market.

We could instead, realize we are in the decision-making position, and be PROACTIVE!

The downfalls of professional conferences....

After years of conferences - attending, helping put them on, and presenting at.... I have yet to be impressed!
Four key downfalls (of env conferences):
1. good information, bad presenting
2. one-way info flow in conference structure
3. professionals representing the stakeholders
4.Conference doesn't walk it's own talk

There is often a myriad of good information, though scattered in focus, but the structure of the conference along with a huge discrepancy in presenting skills enfolds mixed results, often less desirable and quite unfortunate in terms of the amount of energy everyone has put in. Hours and days of planning, researching, honing down on the right slides, and most of it slips away through bad organization and skills.
There should be, as with most things, a certificate for presenting - which you can try out for - in such a way that all presenting skills are honored despite comedic or other styles as long as the information is presented clearly - and if you don't get the certification, classes or workshops are available.
Secondly - the organization of the conference. It baffles me how, with the extent of knowledge in existence, conferences are organized with one-way information flows, which assume there is one positions possible for each person - that of the learner and that of the teacher. This disregards the fact that we can all learn from each other - and that more brains together have more productive results. The structure of the conference does not enable growth, further learning which is fostered by engagement and interaction.
How many people in this world truly learn by being "talked at" ? And how many learn better when there is discussion,..... when there is real-life examples.....
Thirdly - Why do conference have "professionals" who are out of touch with the people they are speaking on behalf of? For example, at the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development.... we have NGOs representing farmers...... I don't remember there being any farmers..... any workers.... any peasants... any teachers.... - the people we are talking about in the abstract - we don't give them a voice themselves - but we use theories and sometimes real life examples, - the professionals speak for them without EXPERIENCE being them.
Fourthly, at all the environmental conferences, with the small exception of some run by students who are truly trying to be aware, the conference within itself is unsustainable!. At the conference on Sustainable production and consumption for example, in Vietnam, it took place at an expensive 5 star hotel.... with meat, dairy, bottled water, excessive use of paper, lack of recycling facilities, constant lighting, and more! It didn't even take into consideration finding a hotel that was interested in sustainable development, and having the conference there - most liekly for free - in exchange for the knoweldge from all of the professionals - a WORKSHOP by all the conference participants creating a SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION PLAN OF ACTION!



why not have a conference of people in countries that are living sustainably? a regional conference... free conference.. They can talk about what they are doing - a community of real representatives not professionals... (We only have cross-shared learning between the rich people).... BOTTOM UP. Do they need us to facilitate ?Should we provide the cost?

A walking dollar abroad....

I don't want to buy things, in that I don't need things, i prefer experiences. If certain things can enhance my experience then perhaps I might be inclined to, but as experience is within, that would be quite rare.
In general, overconsumption is one of the largest plagues in modern times - a distraction from ourselves, our connectedness, along with a misuse of our spent energy (often doing something we don't like) - while depleting the earth's resources and often through unequal strategies and practices.

My Chilean friend, whom I met wandering around Vietnam by myself and looking at various intrigues along the streets.... a fellow young traveler, gorgeous, open-minded, and exciting. He said we should spend money here because the people are so poor.

In many senses, I agree - as it is a redistribution of the wealth - they work harder and for less, and we reap the benefits in our world, as the exploitation often returns back to the power source whether through governments or corporations or the IMF. I don't mean we reap the benefits only in that we get to buy some cheap things abroad.

Is it thus my duty and responsibility as a being in this world who's position automatically enables me to so easily reap the energy of those in different positions... born or granted?
Perhaps instead, I can focus my energy dual-fold - giving back, but not through the purchase and consumption of said goods which burden me with "things" but through spending my energy working to decrease the inequalities, and changing in any way possible the root cause - the energy system of the world - of give and take and power.

Perhaps then, I can give them money - however, that in the larger sense promotes laziness and dependency - a reward for doing something positive in their lives - change - or an incentive to make positive changes would make more sense.

The balance is hard to find - how do I properly give energy back that I have been given without a cost? Do I give them my time... my smiles... my positivity.... my listening... will they value that?