Cav's Place

A lot of things could be said about the current economic crisis, but it’s quite obvious that credit, the concept of spending money you don’t have, was somewhere at the root of it. This makes me feel pretty bad for not writing about this much earlier, before the crisis hit, because I have been firmly against the “life on credit” concept for many years. Still, better late than never…

The first thing to be said against buying things on credit is that the interest works against you, so you end up paying significantly more. This should be enough to make everyone avoid doing so, because it only takes some planning and patience to deposit the money into an account before buying the item, therefore making the interest work for you and ending up actually paying less than the item costs. This means that, if you’d make monthly deposits instead of monthly payments, you could either have more money left for other things each month or be able to buy the next item sooner. Either way, you benefit, there’s no doubt about it.
But you’re not the only one who would benefit from such a behavior. If you’d pay less for an item, it means you could afford either more or more expensive items. Under the current system, that means higher income for the manufacturers, distributors and everyone else involved. However, we know that we’re already using far too many resources as it is, so using even more can’t be a good thing for the Earth, which means that buying more items wouldn’t be the right thing to do. The right thing to do would be spending more for an item, which you would be able to do without even noticing it, because the difference would be covered by the interest working for instead of against you. That way, the manufacturers would be able to afford improving the production and waste management processes in order to be able to help the Earth instead of harming it. And everyone would benefit from a healthier Earth.
The only ones who wouldn’t benefit from this would be the bankers… They certainly like the “life on credit” concept because it earns them a lot of money out of thin air, practically. That said, overturning this state of affairs would only be the right thing to do. Banks could then use the money they obtain from deposits in order to make (reasonably safe) investments, which would once again benefit everyone in the long run. Their profits would likely be much lower, especially since they’d need to pay some of them back to their own “investors”, namely the people who deposited their money there, in the form of interest, but I don’t see any problem there. Some people certainly earn unfairly large amounts of money under the current system, and bankers are obviously part of that class of people…

But if it’d be such a good thing for almost everybody, why aren’t people doing it? On one hand, because they’re simply too used to the current system. On the other, because thinking, planning and having patience aren’t exactly common abilities of humans. What’s more, wealthy individuals tend to also be influential, which means that bankers exercise a significant amount of influence over the authorities, which results in laws, regulations and recommendations which encourage this state of affairs, making the average person even less likely to find their way out of it.
Actually, it’s a vicious circle. Once a person buys one thing on credit, it’ll be extremely difficult from them to turn back. After all, they’ll likely need years to pay back that loan, by which time they’ll need (or at least want) to replace said item. At that point, they won’t have any money set aside for the new purchase, seeing as they couldn’t have paid back the loan for the first purchase and saved for the second one at the same time. That means they’ll need to buy the second item on credit as well, and the third, and the fourth, and… This particular mechanism benefits bankers a great deal, especially because people make that first important purchase while they’re very young, when most are even less likely to think through the implications. They don’t say “impulsiveness of youth” for nothing… Not that more, shall we say, experienced people would necessarily be any better when it comes to this, but there could be some difference.
Credit cards are also a part of the problem, quite obviously. They imply spending money you don’t have even when it comes to daily purchases, not only the major ones. Even if you pay everything back before the bank starts to charge any interest, there are still usually some fees associated with it. But, even without those fees, it’s the concept that’s the real problem. Credit cards simply get people used to the “life on credit” concept, making it easier for banks to entangle them in a larger web afterwards. And the fact that it seems to be so much easier to make purchases if you have a credit card, in some cases even being the only way, only proves what I said about bankers exercising a significant amount of influence over how things work.

So what’s there to do? Seems quite simple, actually… Just plan your first purchase and be patient. Deposit your money into an account and wait until you’ll have enough to buy whatever it is you want to buy. Sure, it means you’ll need to wait a while before you’ll be able to buy that first item, but the constant benefits which result from this behavior far outweigh that small initial cost. It’s the start of a virtuous circle, a “life on debit”, if you will. Banks would then start working for you instead of having you work for them. And the benefits would work their way through the system from that point on, as I have outlined above.
The only major problem with this idea is housing. That’s far too expensive and people would need to spend most of their lives depositing money before they’ll be able to buy their own place. Of course, once you realize that they currently need to spend even more of their lives paying for their house or apartment, it doesn’t sound that bad anymore. Still, it means that people wouldn’t be able to have their own place for a long time, which doesn’t sound good. Solving this problem implies other measures, most of which will be the topic of another post… However, one obvious solution would be to drastically reduce the population, which is desperately needed anyway and which would result in a lot of empty homes and therefore low prices, or even the chance to move in for free. Another would be to have the parents deposit money for their children’s homes, starting even before their birth, so they’ll be able to afford the purchase when the child is, say, 20 years old.

In the end, many things seem simple if you just stop and think about them for a moment. But I keep saying that nobody except ourselves has ever “accused” humans of being intelligent.
A lot of solutions could be found if people would think, plan and be patient, and those solutions would benefit them as well as others and the world as a whole. But getting the average person to do that is constantly an uphill struggle… I just have to hope that someday it’ll stop being a losing battle as well…

I have recently read an article about this issue and it has been brought back to the forefront of my mind. Playing Neverwinter Nights these days, as I have mentioned before, only underlined the problem even more. It might be an old game, but it still counts as censorship when you pick the lock on the door of an occupied room in a brothel only to find a soldier and an “escort”, as those particular NPCs are called, standing in the middle of the room and talking. Somehow, I think the likelihood of that happening in any scenario that holds up to scrutiny is slim to none, and yet that’s exactly what you see in every such room that you break into.
This is certainly connected to the greater problem of censorship, which applies everywhere, but it does seem that there’s a specific unspoken agreement to keep sex away from games. I find that very weird, since it’s a very normal and natural act. Of course, humans aren’t exactly known for making sense…

I won’t do the same thing as the author of that article I mentioned earlier, namely comparing sex with violence, with the implied notion that violence is bad and it therefore makes no sense to allow that and not sex, which is usually not bad. The only possible comparison between the two is when sex meets violence, such as during rape. The author of that article says that “no sane person wants a game where the player can rape or commit sexual violence”, but I beg to differ. Since the player is allowed to steal, murder or, sometimes, even torture, why not be able to rape as well?
That might sound very offensive for some, but it’s not a matter of right or wrong, it’s just a matter of freedom. Games tend to give the player more and more choices, which can only be a good thing, so why not include these as well? What the player does with those choices is their own problem… It’s really stupid to try imposing “real world” laws on games, because they happen in a virtual world, they’re not “real” by definition! And if a few players, out of perhaps hundreds of millions, don’t understand that basic fact and try to reenact what they have seen in a game in the “real world”, again, it’s their problem, not the game’s!
You can’t force games to be “moral” by disallowing certain choices. Deciding which actions are rewarded and which are punished in the long run would be a far better method. Newer games are starting to include long-term consequences of certain actions, so this is where “morality” could come into play. However, this is a completely different issue and not the focus of this post. The connection between morality and the actual focus of this post is that sex shouldn’t be kept away from games simply because some people seem to find the very notion immoral.

Sex could very easily be linked to relationships in games. There certainly are some romantic relationships in some games, and that’s an aspect which could and should be developed even further. But if sex needs to be kept out of the picture, developing credible romantic relationships between characters becomes even more difficult than it already is. Imposing this apparent chastity makes the entire scenario feel quite weird because, you see, relationships do tend to include sex, so why not show it? It would make the experience more immersive and more realistic, not to mention that sex could play an important part in many plots. There could be a lot of things being said or noticed during or immediately after sex, or certain emotionally charged events could logically lead to sex. It’s very silly to cut away the sex and only show the rest, or even cut away the entire scene and find other means of developing the story and the characters, just because some people, which are hardly ever the gamers themselves, would be bothered by it.
Or I could take a more pragmatic view and say that characters in games tend to have certain needs. Since that makes perfect sense, I have a question: If a character might sometimes need to eat or sleep or, as it is in The Sims, socialize, why wouldn’t that same character also need a, shall we say, “release” now and then? Especially when we’re talking about potentially arousing situations… This could also apply to the scenes which take place shortly before or after very dangerous moments, since it is very natural to want to have sex at such times. Once again, it would simply make sense and make the experience even more complete, which can only be a good thing.

I’m aware that many of those who desire to keep sex out of games consider that most gamers are under the age of 18 but, as that article points out, the average gamer is no longer a minor. Not that it’d matter if they were, since sex is a part of the life of people under 18 just as well and, instead of wasting their time and breath trying to stop a perfectly natural and, if done right, beneficial behavior, those who claim to be concerned by this issue should put their efforts into providing teenagers with some real sexual education for a change. That would imply teaching them how to do it right, how to find the optimal balance between pleasure and safety, between the physical and the emotional… Actually, many adults could greatly benefit from such education as well, since there’s no fairy godmother to whack each of us over the head with a wand the moment we turn 18 and magically grant us all the knowledge and experience we had completely lacked until that moment, as most laws appear to assume. And including sex in games could actually be a means of offering such education, to minors and adults alike.

There could be a lot of very valid reasons to include more actual sex scenes in games, but I really don’t think they need to be listed. In the end, the best justification for desiring to see more sex scenes in games is that you don’t need to justify such a desire because sex is just a part of life and, unless something goes wrong, a good one at that. Actually, it’s far more a part of life than many, if not most, behaviors which are usually found in games… And if, whether they’re aware of it or not, many people play games to get away from the bad things in life, the good ones should be emphasized as much as possible.

Whenever I happen to glance through an offer or just browse through an on-line shop, I am painfully reminded of how little choice there is. It matters little whether we’re talking about tyranny of the majority or the manufacturers impose this themselves, the result is the same. I’m talking about the fact that the vast majority of electronics are black. For me that’s a huge problem because I can’t stand black, so my options are severely limited, but the greater issue is that there’s no choice for anyone. It seems nothing has changed since Henry Ford‘s famous “so long as it is black”…
It actually seems quite strange… A lot of brands do care about the design of their products and try to make them stand out in one way or another, yet they overlook what likely is the design element that’s easiest to change, namely the color. Cheaper models are regular black and expensive models are shiny black, like that’s all there is, no other paint is available. And that shiny black doesn’t even have the advantage of making dirt less noticeable anymore, since it’s actually easier to stain than bright white, any touch leaving obvious fingerprints on the product.

Trying to think about it objectively, Henry Ford’s statement does make sense when it comes to cheap products. Painting all of them the same way certainly reduces production costs, and if black paint dries faster then it seems like the best choice. Consumers who look for very cheap products will be happy that they save a little more money, and when the price is your main concern you don’t complain too much about the design. So, yes, it might be understandable when it comes to budget products, but not for anything else!
On the other hand, if the manufacturers resort to black simply because it seems to be what most people want, it’s certainly not right. Most people are not all people, so you can’t take away the choice. Not to mention that, if you do that, it tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. When the vast majority of products are black, it makes sense that most people are going to buy black products, don’t you think? Inertia and herd mentality also come into play, people saying they want black items simply because that’s what seems to be “cool” and that’s how the really nice products are anyway.

Either way, you can’t justify this flood of black for anything other than budget products. I’m saying budget products because I like this system which is being used recently to classify certain products into budget (or value), mainstream, performance and enthusiast categories. It seems far better than the old one, which only used three categories, so I’ll use it to explain what I’d like to see when it comes to anything that doesn’t fit into the budget category.
Mainstream products should at least allow for some limited amount of choice when it comes to color. Two options are of course the minimum, but there should be three whenever possible. The choices should be as different as possible, the most obvious example being black, white and some “crazy” color like bright pink. That should give people some small amount of control over their immediate environment without significant costs for the manufacturers.
Performance products, on the other hand, should offer people significantly more choice. There could be more colors or the same three color choices could be combined with two or three different design models, allowing people to mix and match and giving them even more control. The different designs could imply some noticeable costs, so it might not be that easy to implement, but the larger color palette shouldn’t be much of a problem, especially considering that performance products are not cheap to begin with, so any difference would be hardly noticeable.
As for enthusiast products, the amount of available options could be even greater. This is not mandatory, as the number of options I said should be available for performance products is enough to offer the consumer a reasonable amount of control, but people who are interested in such products do tend to want the very best in all aspects, so it certainly couldn’t hurt. Costs shouldn’t be much of a problem either, since the impact would be very small when you consider the price of most enthusiast products.

I’m just asking for some choices, which seems like a rather simple request… Actually, what I said above could be a second step, the first being making sure that manufacturers at least have a fair number of products of different colors in their offer. So, in the beginning, they could still release each product in a single color, but make sure that not all (or even most) of their products are the same color. That seems very simple and could be quite useful for a time, as long as they’d alternate said colors and not have a few product families entirely in one color.

You could say that I’m just blowing a pet peeve way out of proportion, but I think this is a real problem. Yes, it is a personal issue because I’d like to still be able to choose items based on performance and reliability without having black or any dark or “crazy” colors in my room, but the lack of choice is always a big problem for all. That’s because the lack of choice makes people think even less when they’re thinking far too little as it is. Of course, those in positions of authority tend to like the others much better when their brains are turned off, which just shows how things fit together…
It really doesn’t seem like I’m asking for too much… And that’s quite an event, because I’m usually asking for major changes in order to solve very serious problems, so it would be nice if somebody would take note of the fact that I was more than reasonable this time and only wrote about changes which could easily happen…

April Fools’ Day… What does having a day during which people are encouraged to lie and make fun of each other say about our society? As if humans wouldn’t be lying and having fun at others’ expense the rest of the time as well…
Just take a moment to think about it. We are celebrating lies; celebrating playing tricks on others! People are being told to be dishonest and manipulative because it’s fun and “cool”! News could be fake, people you trust could put you in weird situations… I don’t care how it started or long it has been going on, it’s just wrong and shouldn’t happen anymore!

Yes, people have every right to do anything they want, including being dishonest and manipulative, but only as long as all those involved know and approve of what’s going on. A group of friends could spend the day trying to play tricks on each other if they want to, that won’t be a problem, but what is a problem is that it’s not “fun” if the other is aware of what’s going on, is it? The whole point seems to be to find people who really believe that what you say is real and who would be the most affected by it… But, you see, it stops being fun as soon as somebody gets hurt. And since the whole point seems to be to hurt others in some way, including embarrassing, angering or saddening them, it simply should not happen.
What’s more, when it goes past the individual level and you start seeing respected news sources publishing fake stories, the potential for hurting people becomes extremely high, especially when such news often take advantage of people’s desires and hopes, telling them that something they have been wishing for has just happened. How do you think those who initially believe such announcements feel once they are told they were just a joke?

I have to ask, is it fun when you get depressed? Do you enjoy feeling used, or cheated, or taken for a fool? If not, then why do it to others? Why take part in this farce? Why would it be different if it’s this one day instead of any other? Is “tradition” enough to turn off your reasoning? Are you just a sheep following the herd?
Actually, the vast majority of people would have to answer “yes” to those last two questions, if they were willing to be honest for a change… Which leads us to a major problem of our society, but that’s not the topic of this post. Here, I’m just trying to show how wrong having such a day is. The fact that people care far more about how things are and were than about how they should be, about right and wrong, is another issue for another time.

I choose to “celebrate” this April Fools’ Day by fighting for truth, honesty and trustworthiness. Not expecting anyone to agree with me, but hardly anybody ever does and that never stopped me before.
Try to be honest and dependable every day of the year… Far too few are those things any day of the year…

Last year I was saying that I’d have felt better if Earth Hour would have happened a day later, because I was doing it the “hardcore” way, turning off and unplugging everything in my room, and that’d have meant missing the first 30 minutes of an important match and I’d have been able to say I really gave something up for the cause. This year it works out just like that, turning everything off meaning I’ll lose the first half of a crucial match for our national team.
I’m turning everything off because the lights in my room are off the vast majority of the time anyway, so it wouldn’t really mean anything otherwise. After all, since we’re talking about one hour per year, you should do something really special to make it count. Turning off the lights when they’re not really needed and not leaving electronics in stand-by is something we should all do every day…

And that’s the real point of this post. Sure, it might be “cool” to turn off your lights for one hour and claim you’re helping the environment, but it’s hardly relevant. A year has 8760 (or 8784) hours, so how you act during the other 8759 (or 8783) is what truly matters.
You see these suggestions everywhere, which means that, just as it is with pretty much everything when it comes to the environment, everybody who cares already knows and anybody who doesn’t, won’t. But I guess a little reminder can’t really hurt. It could perhaps annoy, but when did that ever stop me from doing anything?

Don’t leave the lights on in a room nobody’s in, or even in a room somebody is in when they’re not really needed. Also, since LED lighting is not quite powerful enough yet and very expensive either way, switch to CFLs and don’t install more than needed. In order to use them most efficiently, keep in mind that CFLs tend to need up to five minutes to reach their maximum brightness, that they don’t work well outdoors, in too hot or humid spaces or when fully enclosed, and that their lifespan is severely shortened if they are switched on and off too quickly, needing up to ten minutes to “settle” in one state or the other. Also, don’t sacrifice quality for price. The cheaper models tend to be less bright, last less and contain more mercury than the more expensive ones, and mercury is the main problem when it comes to CFLs. While true that they contain extremely small amounts of it, you should still be very careful not to break one, and know how to clean up properly in case it happens. Also, while dumping them in the landfill will release less mercury into the environment than their lower power consumption saved during their lifespan, it should still be avoided. Certain companies collect used CFLs for proper disposal, large stores are even required to do so in some places, so you should make use of those services.
Turn off the TV, radio and any other appliances when you’re no longer using them. Turning off such a device implies actually walking up to it and pressing the button, not putting it in stand-by from the remote. Even better, you should unplug such devices, therefore also avoiding any power losses which might occur even when the device is turned off. Alternatively, you could plug them into power strips which can be turned off, or perhaps “smart” ones, which turn themselves off. That way you can avoid unnecessary power use without needing to unplug everything each time. Also, when it comes to computers, you might need to leave the computer constantly on for one reason or another, but there’s no need to leave the monitor, speakers or other peripherals on while you’re not actually using them. Keep in mind that some UPSs keep charging even when they’re turned off, so those must be unplugged whenever you don’t want that to happen. The same applies to chargers and power converters of any kind, such as those for laptops or mobile phones.
Don’t use appliances which require electricity if you can do something without them. For example, hang your clothes out to dry instead of using a dryer, and definitely fight against any regulations which some cities are enacting in order to forbid people from doing so! Also, don’t use electricity for cooking or heating when other means are available. The efficiency of such devices is pretty awful, meaning that, considering how most electricity is generated today, you’d most likely be better off using more traditional methods of cooking and heating, by burning natural gas. That’s not a good thing to do, but unless you get all of your power from completely “green” sources, it’s better that way, for now. And still on this topic, keep in mind that cooling devices, such as refrigerators and air conditioners, require the most power. Keep them in the best possible condition and learn ways to use them more efficiently. I for one strongly advise against using air conditioners unless the temperatures are truly extreme, and even then you should help them in any way possible, such as making sure all windows are closed and covered in such a way as to repel as much of the heat as possible.
But perhaps the most important thing to do, if we’re to change anything, is to make your purchases speak for you. Be informed and look for the most efficient appliances and components. Also, don’t buy things that are significantly more powerful than you need. If you can’t find something that offers you the features you need without using up unreasonable amounts of electricity, complain about it, refuse to buy the “hungry” version and demand a more efficient one. If enough people would let their purchases speak for them in such a way, manufacturers would be forced to adapt and create more and more efficient products, which can only be a good thing for us all, not to mention the planet as a whole.

As for this Earth Hour, stay inside, with the lights and as many devices and appliances as possible turned off. If you go out, the city or the places you’ll go to will most likely need to provide lights, meaning you didn’t accomplish much of anything. Instead, if you stay in and enjoy the darkness and, hopefully, the silence, the experience could be very beneficial. Alternatively, for those who have partners, it would be the perfect moment to have sex, possibly under candlelight, away from distractions and without being in a hurry. Very few things, if any, could be better than that, so enjoy this Earth Hour and, if possible, make it your hour as well…