Adapting to Differences

Today in class we had to think about some scenarios and what we should do if we encountered them. In one of them, we had to create a set of rules to the use of a refrigerator in the office. When we were deciding on the rules, we were asked what to do if there were vegans or orthodox Jews in the office, and they couldn't accept having meat and non-meat products on the same fridge.

That got me thinking. Do we have to make changes to accommodate people with any sorts of belief? I mean, I don't mind if someone at his or hers on house owns two fridges, each in a different kitchen, it doesn't have anything to do with me. But in this same example, should someone who runs a company spend extra money to buy another fridge just because of that? I mean, if there are many workers, and there would be a need to multiple fridges anyway, then I don't see a reason not to comply and have different rules to each of them. However if just one would suffice, then buying two would mean we are just taking the problem off the people who have these special needs and putting it on the ones who have to make the decision and decide the expenses. I reckon it's somewhat similar to what David Cameron said in a video presented a few seminars ago; maybe, by trying to be understanding of other cultures, we end up doing or accepting things that hurt ourselves.

Of course, I'm not saying that going out of our way to do something that conforms to other cultures is wrong. It's a good thing to do. What I'm questioning is if we need to do so.

The answer to that probably varies depending on the situation. Is it viable to do so?How significant is the quantity of people with the different custom in question? And are there types of differences that we should try harder to provide support to than others? For example, in the case of buying another fridge to make either vegans and orthodox Jews happy; I think I would be more inclined to accept such a request from Jews than from vegans, after all, religion is something that's usually inherited, while being a vegan is a personal choice, so a vegan would normally be much more used to people who don't follow the same ways as himself.

It's good to try and make everybody comfortable, but it's not always possible. 

Don't Think Before You Speak

While I never had any problems asking favours from friends, I have always been restricted when it involves others. For example, if any friend of mine would offer me to introduce me one of his/hers friends to help me out with something, I have never really been comfortable accepting it. Likewise, I never liked when someone asked me to get someone I know to do something.

The reason for that, is just that I tend to think that by doing any of such things, I will bother that person. I mean, of course that if you don't want to do a favour you are asked, you can always just deny, but there is also the possibility that you are just too polite to do so. What I mean is, by over thinking, I end up finding reasons not to rely on others. But the thing is, many times those 'others' want to be relied upon, and will actually be glad to talk with someone. And when they actually are annoyed, they will probably either just tell you directly, ignore you or make some excuse; and in these cases, there's no real problem involved, is there*?

Next month I'm travelling to Japan on my own and today I decided to speak with some Japanese people I don't really know on Facebook. Not only it was really entertaining talking to them, they actually offered to guide me around in Tokyo.**

*Simulation:

-Hey, can you...

-No

-Ok.

No harm done.

**Music I got to know today talking to the above-mentioned people.

The Power of Nationalism

While I have never felt much nationalist myself, I do believe in it's power. History has shown how some nationalist ideologies have helped countries grow. When people identify themselves as a group and realize that by doing something for the group they are possibly improving their own lives, they can work together, thus achieving much more.

So even though I wrote 'The Power of Nationalism', what it really is, is the power of people united under one (set of) reason(s), but in a more specific way. Such power is shown in the size of present day United States, which used the Manifest Destiny as pretext/motivation for the expansion; the rise of Soviet Union under communist beliefs; the rise of Germany post WW1, from a impoverished nation to being a threat to other European nations.

You might be thinking that these were terrible examples: death of Native Americans, wars with Mexico; mass killings in the USSR; well, don't even have to say anything about the Nazi regime I guess. But the thing is, this sort of unity among members of a group can cause great changes, and albeit any great empire throughout history has committed many atrocities, they all have also brought many technological advances, which, as we have seen in one of the first seminars, has improved the life of people all around the world, including in third world countries; people in those countries may have absurdly difficult lives when in comparison to people in developed countries, but when we think about how inequality has been constant throughout human history, things aren't truly worst now than they have ever been.

Further than that, nationalism may be a step towards an sentiment of unity that transcends nations; the EU is an example of how a war-torn continent is able to bring itself together and strive for new levels of cooperation that may lead to a brighter future.

On prisons and a little about misinformation

Prisoners are a problem in possibly every country, and when their number grow, the consequences become more evident. It's a subject that was touched upon in class, and in Brazil, there are many news about overcrowded prisons, so I decided to write about it.

What is to be done with people who have been convicted of a crime and deemed dangerous to society in some way? The simplest answer would be to incarcerate; someone who is imprisoned is not able to commit further crimes, at least until released, and we hope that being confined was enough of a punishment as to incentive a felon to not commit further crimes.

Problem solved, right? Just take everyone of them and throw them in jail...What about the cost of all that? The cost to construct and maintain prisons, prisoner's food and clothes, the salaries of prison guards, their equipment, usage of utilities such as electricity and water. In California, for example, the cost to incarcerate an inmate is $47,102.00[1].

It's a lot of money, but as long as it brings benefits to the people, it might be worth it. So let's think about the benefits. We arrest criminals, they spend some time in prison with nothing to do but think about what they've done and repent... or at least become afraid of being incarcerated again and live a clean life afterwards. The criminal rate goes down, and normal citizens enjoy their safety.

That's how it's supposed to work, however if we try and think in the point of view of a employer, it's simple to see that there's at least one basic flaw with all this. Who's going to hire someone who has committed a crime grave enough to warrant his imprisonment and hasn't done any sort of work or study for many years? And what is someone who can't get a job to do?

Prisoners must be trained and given an opportunity to work before being released. In many countries, including Australia, penal labour has been instituted. It's a good way to lessen the cost of incarceration, make the inmates able to work, own money by themselves and even help the victims and their families. It's not without problems, of course. There is, for example, concern with the prisoners being paid less than an average worker would; as a result, the prisoner doesn't receive as much as he or she should, the average workers suffer from unfair competition, and the employers benefit from the low cost labour[2].

Although it's already practised in many places, penal labour is something I wanted to talk about because in social networks, or at least Brazilian social networks, it's really easy to see people enraged about the costs of prisoners and demanding that their rights be cut, many times utilising false arguments[3]. This sort of misinformation is not uncommon, and if one of the problems caused by the easy access to information I thought about when writing my last post.

[1]http://www.lao.ca.gov/PolicyAreas/CJ/6_cj_inmatecost, California Legislative Analyst Office, retrieved 15 January 2014.

[2]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-12/union-says-prisoners-working-at-nt-salt-mine-27like-slave-labo/4952642, ABC news, retrieved 15 January 2014.

[3]http://www.correiobraziliense.com.br/app/noticia/brasil/2010/04/22/interna_brasil,187866/index.shtml, Correio Braziliense, retrieved 15 January 2014.

This reference is in Portuguese, so I'll translate the part which I find most important.

“The pension helps the dependent of inmates who used to contribute to Social Security at the time of the arrest and the maximum value is of R$798.30.”

“In messages spread on the internet about the reclusion pension, it's informed that an inmate may receive up to R$4,000.00.”

Globalization and the Expansion of the World

       In our last seminar, we were shown a really interesting video titled (link below). This video in it's entirety is very interesting and is a fun way to learn a bit about globalization. Anyhow, this post isn't about this video itself, but just a thought that occurred to me while watching it.
       "(...)an individual's access to diverse cultural experience has never been greater." is a phrase said in that video. It's not really something that hard to see, but it made me think of a Japanese game I have played some years ago, it's English name is "The World Ends With You".

       The protagonist of the game is an anti-social boy and throughout the game, as he interacts with others to overcome hardships, he comes to realize that the one responsible for the small, suffocating world he used to live in is none other than himself; that as the only things that exist in the world to you, are the things that you know of, the size of the world depends on your experiences; he comes to realize that “The World Ends With You".

       As I remembered that game while watching the video, I couldn't help but think of how the new technologies that have shortened distances made the world smaller, and in turn, this smaller world has permitted the expansion of our own individual worlds. This line of thought gave me a feeling of happiness and pride in what humankind has achieved.

       However, this shortening of distances and easier access to information, sometimes affect people in ways that, to me, are negative. While it increases the amount of knowledge that we have, sometimes it increases even more the amount of knowledge we think we have. That is because, the internet gives us access to nigh infinite knowledge, but that's it. Access. And many people, including myself, sometimes fail to realize how little we actually take advantage of that accessibility, and end up thinking they know more than they actually do.

       
       For instance, one year ago I used to think that all over the world, any country that was similar to Brazil economically had the same problems, poorer countries had these problems in a bigger scale, and the richer it got, the lesser they would become.

       But it is not that simple. I have recently travelled to some Asian countries, and was surprised how much safer it felt to walk the narrow, twisted little streets of these places with absurd social disparity (and apparently no traffic rules) than to walk in any scooter-free side walk of a well lit avenue in my home city.

       Is there any conclusions to take out of this? Well, no. At least not for now, I can't really think of anything to conclude out of this, besides I don't really think a conclusion is necessary here.

Sorry for exceeding the instructed number of words, and for posting so late!

Mentioned video:
http://youtu.be/5SnR-e0S6Ic