ethical dilemma

I have an ethical dilemma which will sound at first terrible, then like not a big deal, then really truly horrible again as I walk through my explanation of it.

Terrible: I am all about taking things that don't belong to me.

But, not actually a big deal: What I mean to say is that I compulsively grab extra napkins, utensils, packs of sugar, samples, pencils, mints - anything I can get for no cost. It's kind of bad, but everyone does it to some extent...and after all, those sugar packets at Wawa are there for the customer, right? Is there a line between acceptable and unacceptable consumption of free products? My behavior certainly isn't extreme enough to catch the attention of an employee. Also, as a utility-maximizing individual I obviously don't want to spend money on that which is freely available to me, as I could easily use it on other items which I would enjoy having.

I have two problems with this which make it really, truly horrible:

1. If I have learned anything from high school and college, it's that Garrett Hardin is probably the most influential article-namer ever and that ecology somehow relates to every subject there is. People love talking about the "Tragedy of the Commons" - the idea that people exploit a limited resource (land...or plastic...or sugar) because they don't own it and don't get to a) reap the benefits of leftovers or b) observe just how much is being consumed. Knowing this, I experience a lot of cognitive dissonance because I know that everyone faces the same incentives as I do and only education can get people to stop over-consuming, barring a total restructuring of free giveaways (eg keeping napkins behind the counter and making people ask for them). So that's the purely cognitive reason I feel bad.
2. I don't think that I'm just a physical being who exists for a while and then ceases to exist. I think humans have a responsibility to maintain their health, help those around them and work to leave their environment better than it was when they found it. We have thoughts and emotions for a reason and we have guilty consciences for a purpose - because there's something that we ought to do and we feel bad when we don't. Collectively, we're the stewards of this planet - so my little part, whether it's recycling or just not wasting material that doesn't (or does...) belong to me, is kind of a big deal. How can I hold others to this standard if I myself don't show that I value it through my actions?

So would it solve my problem if I just paid for these things? Wouldn't that also be wasteful? Shouldn't I stop using sugar in my coffee altogether if I'm really worried about waste?

Yes and no. No, because sugar can and should be enjoyed if it's properly obtained. Paying for it gives more information to grocery stores or other providers and helps markets determine the actual demand and the price that it should sell at in order to be sold in sustainable amounts. I'm not sure if it matters whether Wawa buys it or I do - but Wawa isn't making a profit from it so we can assume that I would probably have a higher willingness to pay, since I actually care whether I get it or not. If everyone just bought their own sugar (I don't think this shift would have a large effect), then perhaps the prices on all goods at Wawa would fall to better reflect their operating costs and this could reduce inefficiency. Similarly sugar prices could rise just a little bit when sold straight to consumers which would probably benefit everyone.

But yes, I should pay for these things, because I could significantly cut back on my waste if I suddenly had an incentive not to use plastic bags for my groceries or not to get a plastic fork at a restaurant - because suddenly, I wouldn't be willing to take them. I have bags and forks at home! So being forced to pay for these things would probably be good all around. [Let me clarify: I'm not saying free mints are a bad thing and that they ruin the market for after-dinner mints. But there are clearly some products which are available for free which don't need to be used at all (grocery store bags, for example) and there are some products which could be consumed at more reasonable levels if they had a cost attached to them (like sugar packets or online movies or what have you).]

Is this blog post going to significantly affect any markets or the well-being of the planet? Definitely not. Will it alter my behavior? Maybe. I can't estimate the magnitude of effects these actions have, but I can say that I'll be living a more fulfilling life by honoring God and thinking a minute about how to honor both his creation and his commands of stewardship.

head vs. heart

I'm going to continue to quote lyrics to make my points for me. See Death Cab for Cutie's Crooked Teeth:

I'm a war of head versus heart,

and it's always this way.

My head is weak, my heart always speaks

before I know what it will say.

I love this song. I used to think that this directly applied to me, like Ben Gibbard was singing to my soul. I enjoy being a very rational person but of course I have emotions and sometimes I felt like I was just following those instead of my logic. I felt like there were two opposing sides to me: Spock and Kirk, Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff, Economics and English, and probably most significantly: student and Christian.

But religion isn't all about emotions just like it isn't all about singing songs or making cookies. The real struggle is between the natural self and the supernatural - my nature is to act based on a combination of my changing mood and my logic (which is essentially focused on maximizing utility). That is a terrible natural state to be in! My mood can go haywire at the mention of one word and my logic is really dumb considering the fact that I value my personal utility/comfort/health/pleasure like 10 times higher than anyone else's utility. If I stop listening to my natural self and start listening to something that's more wise than my wisdom and more understanding than my limited scope of emotions - then that's when we're getting somewhere. I'm not just talking about the goodness of my heart, because let's face it, that's pretty self-centered. I'm talking about the Holy Spirit.

When I start listening to him I start making really good decisions because I stop caring about appearing consistent or perfect to other people and I don't have to debate which side of me I should give more weight to. Obviously I still use reasoning and I let compassion motivate me but I should never have to decide between a "rational choice" and an "emotional choice," listening to my head OR to my heart. God can use both of them to show me what to do and in the end they shouldn't have to conflict - listening to the Spirit might not lead me to something that I want to do but it will always lead me to something that I know both in my head AND in my heart is good because it aligns with the nature of God - which is pure goodness.

If you're curious - this is what made me start thinking about this:

1 Corinthians 2:10b-16

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. ¹¹ For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. ¹² What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. ¹³This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. ¹⁴ The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. ¹⁵ The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, ¹⁶ for,

“Who has known the mind of the Lord
so as to instruct him?”

But we have the mind of Christ.

paradoxes

I love a good paradox. In Comedy, Tragedy and Religion (yeah that's a class here; be jelly), we're learning about how comedy always comes out of tragedy: humor is just another way to look at an incongruity in life and can only be found after a misfortune. So really, being silly or humorous is having the ability to turn a bad situation good. I'm okay with that assessment...it makes sense, then, that a similar sense of humor is so important in a friend! But it's an odd thought - I would naturally think that comedy comes exclusively out of good situations and tragedy of bad.

There are some really interesting mathematical or logical paradoxes out there, including one of my favorite statistics exercises: the Monty Hall problem (read on your own if you're unfamiliar; this blog ain't no stats textbook).

There are some paradoxes that make total sense on an emotional level and zero sense on a rational level, which can often be found in lyrics that are ridiculous but still resonate with you. As you should know I've recently been listening to a lot of Third Eye Blind, and I have it on good authority (the interwebs) that one of their best concert songs is Motorcycle Drive By. It sounds pretty cool and there's some good raw emotion (both sad and somewhat angry/happy?). But more interestingly, the lyrics remind me of one of my favorite songs by Something Corporate. Compare:

Chorus in I Woke Up in a Car:

Well I woke up in a car

I traced away the fog

so I could see the Mississippi on her knees

I've never been so lost

I've never felt so much at home

please write my folks and throw away my keys

Chorus in Motorcycle Drive By:

And there's this burning

like there's always been

I've never been so alone

and I've, I've never been so alive

Okay, so maybe this isn't a study of great lyrics; they're both rather whiny and adolescent punk songs about not being in love which were each popular ages ago (2002/1997) and reference both NYC and driving. Regardless, it's an interesting sentiment. Why should being alone make you alive or feeling lost make you feel at home? Obviously the point is that it's when you're forced to fend for yourself that you truly grow up, whether you want to or not. It's a kind of sad realization but it's necessary and that's what the songs say (not just with their words but with their tones).

At this point I probably sound just as melodramatic as Andrew McMahon, so let me continue. I don't think it's necessary to go and live life on your own and not have relationships - but I also don't think it's a good idea to become entirely codependent on someone as the protagonists previously were (on parents and on this girl), letting yourself or your happiness be defined by them. That's really where paradoxes get intriguing to me. We have to invest in relationships but we can't lose the will to live when they eventually fail us. How can you say you're really invested if you're anticipating an end? This is one of the many reasons that having a relationship with God matters - he never lets go and he doesn't change or get a new boyfriend who takes up all his time or suddenly decide that your friendship isn't mature/fun/easy/good enough. Rooting yourself in a relationship with him enables you to invest in relationships without having to worry about getting burned - because those other relationships can't define you.

This bears emphasizing: faith that God exists and faith that he'll provide for me don't define me either. The series of decisions that I make to listen to his voice, learn about his character, follow his commands, mimic his love and spend time with him every day - these are what define me. These are what make a relationship: not just a commitment or a proclamation of faith but innumerable actions and attitude adjustments, some conscious and some not. Theology can be tricky but, as with all paradoxes, studying it yields truth rather than easy answers, which is fitting for a world full of difficult questions.

concerts

I'm one of those really awkward people who for the most part avoids concerts because I have to stand or dance or jump and I basically just feel like I have to appear cool all the time because for some reason I assume that everyone is looking at me and can tell that I don't know how to have fun.

That said, I think that live music is really cool and so I generally have to weigh the pros and cons of my expected experience in order to pick the option (between going and not going) that will maximize my utility. Yes, some people actually think like this. No, I don't think it's entirely healthy. Anyway, for the most part I have really positive memories associated with the concerts I've attended with the exception of a really weird free rap concert at Lake Matoaka. My all-time favorite concert has to be Something Corporate's reunion tour, which came as the culmination of listening to nothing but SoCo and Maroon 5 for three months. I obviously knew every single song and almost every single word and Andrew McMahon is basically just amazing.

This experience has led me to believe that if I listen to enough of a band I will never be disappointed by their concerts. I don't think that this is true to real life (see: Owl City, come on Adam Young you're just awkward). But in any case I'm listening to as much Third Eye Blind as I can for the next week and a half in preparation for Charter Day. Considering the fact that almost all of their songs are kind of secretly about drugs I'm not sure if this is a good plan or not, but I figure I'll at least consider my $15 well-spent and will attempt to circumvent any cognitive dissonance or yearning to win back my opportunity cost of having a Saturday night in.

If you're also thinking about going, here's my advice: just listen to Motorcycle Driveby five times and you'll be convinced that they're a good band, obviously memorize Semi-Charmed Life and Jumper so you don't feel uncultured, and don't pay attention to the lyrics in Slow Motion or you'll be kind of weirded out.

winter break

Today I got a postcard from my friend in Taiwan. I know she reads my blog so instead of responding to her via postcard/facebook, let me just say now: I miss you, I hope you have great stories about adjusting to Taiwanese culture, and I'll see you soon! Unfortunately my break doesn't have any interesting stories...in fact, I can pretty quickly give you a detailed account of my entire break!

• Returned home, slept, ate, watched Lost
• Went to Maggie's grad party!
• An entire week of sleeping, eating and watching a variety of things including the Mission Impossibles (1-4) and Friends...and more Lost
• Christmas!
• Used new kitchen torch to slightly burn delicacies
• Rediscovered my gameboy, defeated Brock using only Charmander, felt victorious
• Went to New York to half-sleep, eat and watch the ball drop
• Went to Corinne's house and hung out, volunteered, met the cutest 3-4 year old kids ever, read, decorated a detailed gingerbread house, etc.
• Came home, slept, ate, watched Lost and Portlandia and reintroduced reading to my life

Also, I've actually been reading and praying and hanging out with my family, so even though I've been bumming around...it's slightly productive bumming.

In summary, I like break but I miss school - a typical W&M sentiment, I assume. :)

the oscars

Oscar season is finally about to be upon us. This is a big deal to me, not because I really care whose dress Anne Hathaway is wearing or because I really need to know which movies the entertainment industry deems the best of the year - it's a big deal because it's always been a big deal. Like normal families and sports, my family gravitates toward entertainment news. We read Entertainment Weekly, we disagree with Ann Hornaday's always negative reviews in the Post, we watch trailers when they come out and you'd better believe that we watch every bit of bonus material on every DVD that comes our way. I don't mean that I care if someone's engaged or pregnant or supposedly cheating - but I do care if one of my favorite directors is in the talks to produce an adaptation of some book!

It probably started with Lord of the Rings, so let's travel back to 2001. We didn't have cable, Cartoon Network, etc. so we grew up on classics - some Bugs Bunny, Veggie Tales, sure, but also Star Wars, The African Queen, The Court Jester. We had this big book of movie reviews, and if something got 3-4 stars my mom would consider getting the VHS at a used book store (if it got less than 3 stars, then fat chance ever seeing that movie!). We accumulated hundreds of VHS tapes over the years.

But then in 2001 we saw Lord of the Rings. We were obviously obsessed. It was the first DVD we ever got (Christmas 2002) and after seeing the extended edition and watching hours of "making of" material of all three movies, it would be foolish of you to think that we agreed with the Academy's decisions to snub the first two of their deserved accolades (because purportedly, best sound editing does not equal best picture). So for the 2004 Academy Awards, my family was ready for some payoff, and we were quite pleased with the results (11/11 wins for Return of the King). Ever since then, I have been emotionally invested in the Oscars beyond reason - even when I hadn't seen any of the nominated films, I had definite opinions about who should have won. Of course, if a movie I've seen produces a Best Actor win, I feel some sort of victory (it's like I picked the best performance to watch!).

So now I do my best to see the best movies of the year so that I can make my predictions and then feel fantastic when my picks win and angry when they don't. It's kind of silly, but it's what I do. Two weeks to nominations!!

nyc

I'm at the point in my life where everywhere is a potential future home. I am constantly weighing the pros and cons of an apartment, a brick house, a picket fence, a suburb, a commute, a city, a small town - wherever I am, I am making up a new rule for my life. Some of the rules I have drafted:

• For the majority of my life, eggs need to be less than 5 minutes away from me (including bundling up and traveling to the store and shopping and paying - I need to be back to my kitchen within 5 minutes). I find it so inconvenient when I am baking and then in the middle of mixing realize I'm out of an ingredient! So this technically rules in both cities and farms.
• At some point I would like to live in a brick building (that is not a dorm).
• If I own a house it is going to get a silly color somewhere on the outside. Brown houses are so boring! Why not have a blue roof?
• I need to live at least a year in a place where I can travel completely car-free to everywhere I need to go.

Anyway, I was thinking about some of these things when I was in New York for New Year's Eve, and I think I've concluded that I like visiting the city but I don't want to live there. I would, however, still like to live in a slightly less busy/touristy/hectic city for a while.

But more importantly, I was in New York for NYE! I made some new friends, ate some classic NY food, saw fireworks, balloons and the ball drop, stayed up all night - oh yeah and spent the late morning sleeping/freezing on the chilly floor of the Port Authority Bus Terminal, and I can now personally attest to the fact that it is the busiest bus station in the world. Nbd. I did not see JB but I almost saw Hugh Jackman? Also I am even more convinced that I will never finish the SA's little instructions for life at W&M, because there is no way I will ever be able to pull off an all-nighter, seeing as my body almost literally shuts down after like 23 hours awake. Also I will never have the patience or time (or interest) to become a sixth man.