the luxuries and conveniences of contemporary life

Issue 9
"Although many people think that the luxuries and conveniences of contemporary life are entirely harmless, they in fact, prevent people from developing into truly strong and independent individuals."

Do modern luxuries serve to undermine our true strength and independence as individuals?
The speaker believes so, and I tend to agree. Consider the automobile, for example. Most
people consider the automobile a necessity rather than a luxury; yet it is for this very reason
that the automobile so aptly supports the speaker's point. To the extent that we depend on cars
as crutches, they prevent us from becoming truly independent and strong in character as
individuals.

Consider first the effect of the automobile on our independence as individuals. In some
respects the automobile serves to enhance such independence. For example, cars make it
possible for people in isolated and depressed areas without public transportation to become
more independent by pursing gainful employment outside their communities. And teenagers
discover that owning a car, or even borrowing one on occasion, affords them a needed sense
of independence from their parents.

However, cars have diminished our independence in a number of more significant respects.
We've grown dependent on our cars for commuting to work. We rely on them like crutches for
short trips to the corner store, and for carting our children to and from school. Moreover, the
car has become a means not only to our assorted physical destinations but also to the
attainment of our socioeconomic goals, insofar as the automobile has become a symbol of
status. In fact, in my observation many, if not most, working professionals willingly undermine
their financial security for the sake of being seen driving this year's new SUV or luxury sedan.
In short, we've become slaves to the automobile.

Consider next the overall impact of the automobile on our strength as individuals, by which I
mean strength of character, or mettle. I would be hard-pressed to list one way in which the
automobile enhances one's strength of character. Driving a powerful SUV might afford a
person a feeling and appearance of strength, or machismo. But this feeling has nothing to do
with a person's true character.

In contrast, there is a certain strength of character that comes with eschewing modern
conveniences such as cars, and with the knowledge that one is contributing to a cleaner and
quieter environment, a safer neighborhood, and arguably a more genteel society. Also,
alternative modes of transportation such as bicycling and walking are forms of exercise which
require and promote the virtue of self-discipline. Finally, in my observation people who have
forsaken the automobile spend more time at home, where they are more inclined to prepare
and even grow their own food, and to spend more time with their families. The former
enhances one's independence; the latter enhances the integrity of one's values and the
strength of one's family.

To sum up, the automobile helps illustrate that when a luxury becomes a necessity it can sap
our independence and strength as individuals. Perhaps our society is better off, on balance,
with such "luxuries"; after all, the automobile industry has created countless jobs, raised our

standard of living, and made the world more interesting. However, by becoming slaves to the
automobile we trade off a certain independence and inner strength.





Issue 10
"Most cultures encourage individuals to sacrifice a large part of their own personalities in order
to be like other people. Thus, most people are afraid to think or behave differently because
they do not want to be excluded."

The speaker claims that most cultures encourage conformity at the expense of individuality,
and as a result most people conform for fear of being excluded. While I find the second prong
of this dual claim well supported overall by empirical evidence, I take exception with the first
prong; aside from the cultures created by certain oppressive political regimes, no culture need
"encourage" its members to conform to prevailing ways of thought and behavior; in fact, all the
evidence shows that cultures attempt to do just the opposite.

As a threshold matter, it is necessary to distinguish between conformity that an oppressive
ruling state imposes on its own culture and conformity in a free democratic society. In the
former case, people are not only encouraged but actually coerced into suppressing individual
personality; and indeed these people are afraid to think and behave differently--but not for fear
of being excluded but rather for fear of punishment and persecution by the state. The modern
Communist and Fascist regimes are fitting examples. With respect to free democratic societies,
it might be tempting to dismiss the speaker's dual claim out of hand. After all, true democratic
states are predicated on individual freedoms---of choice, speech, expression, religion, and so
forth. Ostensibly, these freedoms serve to promote individuality, even non-conformity, in our
personas, our lifestyles, and our opinions and attitudes.

Yet, one look at any democratic society reveals a high degree of conformity among its
members. Every society has its own bundle of values, customs, and mores which most of its
members share. Admittedly, within any culture springs up various subcultures which try to
distinguish themselves by their own distinct values, customs, and mores. In the U.S., for
instance, African-Americans have developed a distinct dialect, known as Ebonics, and a
distinct body language and attitude which affords them a strong sub-cultural identity of their
own. Yet, the undeniable fact is that humans, given the actual freedom to either conform or not
conform, choose to think and behave in ways similar to most people in their social
group---however we define that group.

Nor is there much empirical evidence of any cultural agenda, either overt or covert, to
encourage conformity in thought and behavior among the members of any culture. To the
contrary, the predominant message in most cultures is that people should cultivate their
individuality. Consider, for example, the enduring and nearly ubiquitous icon of the ragged
individualist, who charts his or her own course, bucks the trend, and achieves notoriety
through individual creativity, imagination, invention, or entrepreneurship. Even our systems of
higher education seem to encourage individualism by promoting and cultivating critical and
independent thought among its students.

Yet, all the support for forging one's one unique persona, career, lifestyle, opinions, and
even belief system, turns out to be hype. In the final analysis, most people choose to conform.
And understandably so; after all, it is human nature to distrust, and even shun, others who are

too different from us. Thus to embrace rugged individualism is to risk becoming an outcast, the
natural consequence of which is to lLmit one's socioeconomic and career opportunities. This
prospect suffices to quell our yearning to be different; thus the speaker is correct that most of
us resign ourselves to conformity for fear of being left behind by our peers. Admittedly, few
cultures are without rugged individualists----the exceptional artists, inventors, explorers, social
reformers, and entrepreneurs who embrace their autonomy of thought and behavior, then test
their limits. And paradoxically, it is the achievements of these notable non-conformists that are
responsible for most cultural evolution and progress. Yet such notables are few and far
between in what is otherwise a world of insecure, even fearful, cultural conformists.

To sum up, the speaker is correct that most people choose to conform rather than behave
and think in ways that run contrary to their culture's norms, and that fear of being exduded lies
at the heart of this choice. Yet, no culture need encourage conformity; most humans recognize
that there is safety of numbers, and as a result freely choose conformity over the risks, and
potential rewards, of non-conformity.





Issue 11
"There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility
to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws."

According to this statement, each person has a duty to not only obey just laws but also disobey
unjust ones. In my view this statement is too extreme, in two respects. First, it wrongly
categorizes any law as either just or unjust; and secondly, it recommends an ineffective and
potentially harmful means of legal reform.

First, whether a law is just or unjust is rarely a straightforward issue. The fairness of any law
depends on one's personal value system. This is especially true when it comes to personal
freedoms. Consider, for example, the controversial issue of abortion. Individuals with particular
religious beliefs tend to view laws allowing mothers an abortion choice as unjust, while
individuals with other value systems might view such laws as just.

The fairness of a law also depends on one's personal interest, or stake, in the legal issue at
hand. After all, in a democratic society the chief function of laws is to strike a balance among
competing interests. Consider, for example, a law that regulates the toxic effluents a certain
factory can emit into a nearby river. Such laws are designed chiefly to protect public health. But
complying with the regulation might be costly for the company; the factory might be forced to
lay off employees or shut down altogether, or increase the price of its products to compensate
for the cost of compliance. At stake are the respective interests of the company's owners,
employees, and customers, as well as the opposing interests of the region's residents whose
health and safety are impacted. In short, the fairness of the law is subjective, depending
largely on how one's personal interests are affected by it.

The second fundamental problem with the statement is that disobeying unjust laws often has
the opposite affect of what was intended or hoped for. Most anyone would argue, for instance,
that our federal system of income taxation is unfair in one respect or another. Yet the end result
of widespread disobedience, in this case tax evasion, is to perpetuate the system. Free-riders
only compel the government to maintain tax rates at high levels in order to ensure adequate
revenue for the various programs in its budget.

Yet another fundamental problem with the statement is that by justifying a violation of one
sort of law we find ourselves on a slippery slope toward sanctioning all types of illegal behavior,
including egregious criminal conduct. Returning to the abortion example mentioned above, a
person strongly opposed to the freedom-of-choice position might maintain that the illegal
blocking of access to an abortion clinic amounts to justifiable disobedience. However, it is a
precariously short leap from this sort of civil disobedience to physical confrontations with clinic
workers, then to the infliction of property damage, then to the bombing of the clinic and
potential murder.

In sum, because the inherent function of our laws is to balance competing interests,
reasonable people with different priorities will always disagree about the fairness of specific
laws. Accordingly, radical action such as resistance or disobedience is rarely justified merely
by one's subjective viewpoint or personal interests. And in any event, disobedience is never
justifiable when the legal rights or safety of innocent people are jeopardized as a result.





Issue 12
"Anyone can make things bigger and more complex. What requires real effort and courage is
to move in the opposite direction---in other words, to make things as simple as possible."

Whether making things simple requires greater effort and courage than making them bigger
and more complex depends on the sort of effort and courage. Indisputably, the many complex
technological marvels that are part-and-parcel of our Lives today are the result of the
extraordinary cumulative efforts of our engineers, entrepreneurs, and others. And, such
achievements always call for the courage to risk failing in a large way. Yet, humans seem
naturally driven to make things bigger and more complex; thus refraining from doing so, or
reversing this natural process, takes considerable effort and courage of a different sort, as
discussed below.

The statement brings immediately to mind the ever-growing and increasingly complex digital
world. Today's high-tech firms seem compelled to boldly go to whatever effort is required to
devise increasingly complex products, for the ostensible purpose of staying ahead of their
competitors. Yet, the sort of effort and courage to which the statement refers is a different
one--bred of vision, imagination, and a willingness to forego near term profits for the prospect
of making lasting contributions. Surely, a number of entrepreneurs and engineers today are
mustering that courage, and are making the effort to create far simpler, yet more elegant,
technologies and applications, which will truly make our lives simpler in sharp contrast to
what computer technology has delivered to us so far.

Lending even more credence to the statement is the so-called "big government"
phenomenon. Human societies have a natural tendency to create unwieldy bureaucracies, a
fitting example of which is the U.S. tax-law system. The Intemal Revenue Code and its
accompanying Treasury Regulations have grown so voluminous and complex that many
certified accountants and tax attorneys admit that they cannot begin to understand it all.
Admittedly, this system has grown only through considerable effort on the part of all three
branches of the federal government, not to mention the efforts of many special interest groups.
Yet, therein lies the statement's credibility. It requires great effort and courage on the part of a
legislator to risk alienating special interest groups, thereby risking reelection prospects, by

standing on principle for a simpler tax system that is less costly to administer and better serves
the interests of most taxpayers.

Adding further credibility to the statement is the tendency of most people to complicate their
personal lives--a tendency that seems especially strong in today's age of technology and
consumerism. The greater our mobility, the greater our number of destinations each day; the
more time-saving gadgets we use, the more activities we try to pack into our day; and with
readier access to information we try to assimilate more of it each day. I am hard-pressed to
think of one person who has ever exclaimed to me how much effort and courage it has taken to
complicate his or her life in these respects. In contrast, a certain self-restraint and courage of
conviction are both required to eschew modern conveniences, to simplify one'sdaily schedule,
and to establish and adhere to a simple plan for the use of one's time and money.

In sum, whether we are building computer networks, government agencies, or personal
lifestyles, great effort and courage are required to make things simple, or to keep them that
way. Moreover, because humans na~traUy tend to make things big and complex, it arguably
requires more effort and courage to move in the opposite direction. In the final analysis,
making things simple---or keeping them that way--takes a brand of effort born of reflection and
restraint rather than sheer exertion, and a courage character and conviction rather than
unbridled ambition.





Issue 13
"Most people would agree that buildings represent a valuable record of any society's past, but
controversy arises when old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be
better used for modern purposes. In such situations, modern development should be given
precedence over the preservation of historic buildings so that contemporary needs can be
served."

The speaker asserts that wherever a practical, utilitarian need for new buildings arises this
need should take precedence over our conflicting interest in preserving historic buildings as a
record of our past. In my view, however, which interest should take precedence should be
determined on a case-by-case basis--and should account not only for practical and historic
considerations but also aesthetic ones.

In determining whether to raze an older building, planners should of course consider the
community's current and anticipated utilitarian needs. For example, if an additional hospital is
needed to adequately serve the health-care needs of a fast-growing community, this
compelling interest might very well outweigh any interest in preserving a historic building that
sits on the proposed site. Or if additional parking is needed to ensure the economic survival of
a city's downtown district, this interest might take precedence over the historic value of an old
structure that stands in the way of a parking structure. On the other hand, if the need is mainly
for more office space, in some cases an architecturally appropriate add-on or annex to an
older building might serve just as well as razing the old building to make way for a new one. Of
course, an expensive retrofit might not be worthwhile if no amount of retrofitting would meet
the need.

Competing with a community's utilitarian needs is an interest preserving the historical record.
Again, the weight of this interest should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps an

older building uniquely represents a bygone era, or once played a central role in the city's
history as a municipal structure. Or perhaps the building once served as the home of a
founding family or other significant historical figure, or as the location of an important historical
event. Any of these scenarios might justify saving the building at the expense of the practical
needs of the community. On the other hand, if several older buildings represent the same
historical era just as effectively, or if the building's history is an unremarkable one, then the
historic value of the building might pale in comparison to the value of a new structure that
meets a compelling practical need.

Also competing with a community's utilitarian needs is the aesthetic and architectural value
of the building itself--apart from historical events with which it might be associated. A building
might be one of only a few that represents a certain architectural style. Or it might be especially
beautiful, perhaps as a result of the craftsmanship and materials employed in its
construction--which might be cost-prohibitive to replicate today. Even retrofitting the building to
accommodate current needs might undermine its aesthetic as well as historic value, by
altering its appearance and architectural integrity. Of course it is difficult to quantify aesthetic
value and weigh it against utilitarian considerations. Yet planners should strive to account for
aesthetic value nonetheless.

In sum, whether to raze an older building in order to construct a new one should never be
determined indiscriminately. Instead, planners should make such decisions on a case-by-case
basis, weighing the community's practical needs against the building's historic and aesthetic
value.





Issue 14
"Students should memorize facts only after they have studied the ideas, trends, and concepts
that help explain those facts. Students who have learned only facts have learned very little."

The speaker makes a threshold claim that students who learn only facts learn very little, then
condudes that students should always learn about concepts, ideas, and trends before they
memorize facts. While I wholeheartedly agree with the threshold claim, the condusion unfairly
generalizes about the learning process. In fact, following the speaker's advice would actually
impede the learning of concepts and ideas, as well as impeding the development of insightful
and useful new ones.

Turning first to the speaker's threshold daim, I strongly agree that ifwe learn only facts we
learn very little. Consider the task of memorizing the periodic table of dements, which any
student can memorize without any knowledge of chemistry, or that the table relates to
chemistry. Rote memorization of the table amounts to a bit of mental exercise-an opportunity to
practice memorization techniques and perhaps learn some new ones. Otherwise, the student
has learned very little about chemical dements, or about anything for that matter.

As for the speaker's ultimate claim, I concede that postponing the memorization of facts until
after one leams ideas and concepts holds certain advantages. With a conceptual framework
already in place a student is better able to understand the meaning of a fact, and to appreciate
its significance. As a result, the student is more likely to memorize the fact to begin with, and
less likely to forget it as time passes. Moreover, in my observation students whose first goal is
to memorize facts tend to stop there--for whatever reason. It seems that by focusing on facts

first students risk equating the learning process with the assimilation of trivia; in turn, students
risk learning nothing of much use in solving real world problems.

Conceding that students must learn ideas and concepts, as well as facts relating to them, in
order to learning anything meaningful, I nevertheless disagree that the former should always
precede the latter--for three reasons. In the first place, I see know reason why memorizing a
fact cannot precede learning about its meaning and significance--as long as the student does
not stop at rote memorization. Consider once again our hypothetical chemistry student. The
speaker might advise this student to first learn about the historical trends leading to the
discovery of the elements, or to learn about the concepts of altering chemical compounds to
achieve certain reactions--before studying the periodic table. Having no familiarity with the
basic vocabulary of chemistry, which includes the informarion in the periodic table, this student
would come away from the first two lessons bewildered and confused in other words, having
learned little.

In the second place, the speaker misunderstands the process by which we learn ideas and
concepts, and by which we develop new ones. Consider, for example, how economics
students learn about the relationship between supply and demand, and the resulting concept
of market equilibrium, and of surplus and shortage. Learning about the dynamics of supply and
demand involves (1) entertaining a theory, and perhaps even formulating a new one, (2)
testing hypothetical scenarios against the theory, and (3) examining real-world facts for the
purpose of confirming, refuting, modifying, or qualifying the theory. But which step should
come first? The speaker would have us follow steps 1 through 3 in that order. Yet, theories,
concepts, and ideas rarely materialize out of thin air; they generally emerge from empirical
observations--i.e., facts. Thus the speaker's notion about how we should learn concepts and
ideas gets the learning process backwards.

In the third place, strict adherence to the speaker's advice would surely lead to illconceived
ideas, concepts, and theories. Why? An idea or concept conjured up without the benefit of data
amounts to little more than the conjurer's hopes and desires. Accordingly, conjurers will tend to
seek out facts that support their prejudices and opinions, and overlook or avoid facts that
refute them. One telling example involves theories about the center of the universe.
Understandably, we ego-driven humans would prefer that the universe revolve around us.
Early theories presumed so for this reason, and facts that ran contrary to this ego-driven
theory were ignored, while observers of these facts were scorned and even vilified. In short,
students who strictly follow the speaker's prescription are unlikely to contribute significantly to
the advancement of knowledge.

To sum up, in a vacuum facts are meaningless, and only by filling that vacuum with ideas
and concepts can students learn, by gaining useful perspectives and insights about facts. Yet,
since facts are the very stuff from which ideas, concepts, and trends spring, without some facts
students cannot learn much of anything. In the final analysis, then, students should learn facts
right along with concepts, ideas, and trends.





Issue 15
"Unfortunately, the media tend to highlight what is sensational at the moment. Society would
be better served if the media reported or focused more fully on events and trends that will
ultimately have the most long-term significance."

The speaker asserts that rather than merely highlighting certain sensational events the
media should provide complete coverage of more important events. While the speaker's
assertion has merit from a normative standpoint, in the final analysis I find this assertion
indefensible.

Upon first impression the speaker's claim seems quite compelling, for two reasons. First,
without the benefit of a complete, unfiltered, and balanced account of current events, it is
impossible to develop an informed and intelligent opinion about important social and political
issues and, in turn, to contribute meaningfully to our democratic society, which relies on broad
participation in an ongoing debate about such issues to steer a proper course. The end result
of our being a largely uninformed people is that we relegate the most important decisions to a
handful of legislators, jurists, and executives who may or may not know what is best for us.

Second, by focusing on the "sensational"--by which I take the speaker to mean
comparatively shocking, entertaining, and titillating events which easily catch one's
attention-the media appeal to our emotions and baser instincts, rather than to our intellect and
reason. Any observant person could list many examples aptly illustrating the trend in this
direction--from trashy talk shows and local news broadcasts to The National Enquixer and
People Magazine. This trend dearly serves to undermine a society's collective sensibilities and
renders a society's members more vulnerable to demagoguery; thus we should all abhor and
resist the trend.

However, for several reasons I find the media's current trend toward highlights and the
sensational to be justifiable. First, the world is becoming an increasingly eventful place; thus
with each passing year it becomes a more onerous task for the media to attempt full news
coverage. Second, we are becoming an increasingly busy society. The average U.S. worker
spends nearly 60 hours per week at work now; and in most families both spouses work.
Compare this startlingly busy pace to the pace a generation ago, when one bread-winner
worked just over 40 hours per week. We have far less time today for news, so highlights must
suffice. Third, the media does in fact provide full coverage of important events; anyone can find
such coverage beyond their newspaper's front page, on daily PBS news programs, and on the
Internet. I would wholeheartedly agree with the speaker if the sensational highlights were all
the media were willing or permitted to provide; this scenario would be tantamount to thought
control on a mass scale and would serve to undermine our free society. However, I am aware
of no evidence of any trend in this direction. To the contrary, in my observation the media are
informing us more fully than ever before; we just need to seek out that information.

On balance, then, the speaker's claim is not defensible. In the final analysis the media
serves its proper function by merely providing what we in a free society demand. Thus any
argument about how the media should or should not behave--regardless of its merits from a
normative standpoint begs the question.