I Hate Zoos

Barbaric and cruel, zoos are a throwback to our less-enlightened and imperialistic past. I really don't understand why we still have them. What benefit is there to having these animals imprisoned?

A chance to study animals

False. Why does this have to be done on our terms? Aren't the real scientists out there in the jungle like Dian Fossey? It seems to me that any information learned would be either limited to basic physiology or tainted by the unnatural environment.

Preservation

False. Again, why on our terms? Couldn't we preserve the animals on a giant reserve more suited to their natural habitat? Why do we have to put them on display for people to stare at them? It is shocking to me that the phrase "the first XXX born in captivity" is used as a positive achievement, rather than a mark of shame. We should not be proud that we can artificially recreate an environment well enough to fool the animals. (But then again, we seem pretty proud of our own artificial sweeteners and Coke Zero, so I guess that evens out.)

Education

False. Is it really educational, or just a chance to gawk at the strange creatures, and maybe pet an emu? With modern technology, our ability to educate ourselves has improved drastically, and I'm not just talking about the internet. The fantastic BBC series Planet Earth shows us what life in nature is really like. We have pictures, video, sound recordings. None of these were available to the Romans. If they wanted to explain an hippopotamus, they had to bring one to Rome. I would rather promote the art of taxidermy. One stuffed animal in every natural science museum would be less harmful than all the tortured animals in zoos.

I confess that I have fond memories of the zoos I visited as a kid. I loved seeing the animals, especially the giraffes. But even then it seemed somewhat wrong. Back in my childhood, zoos were much more like cages than they are today. But no matter how "natural" it is set up, it is still a cage. I can't think of a good argument to justify zoos, except our own bloated egos. It sickens me.

SeaWorld

On a similar note, SeaWorld is even worse. If you haven't seen the documentary The Cove, I highly recommend it. It is a very disturbing and depressing investigation into the dolphin slaughters that happen annually in Japan. However, I was angered by the misguided direction of the whole film.

Early on, the main protagonist Ric O'Barry (who trained dolphins for the TV show Flipper), says how much he regrets ever training the dolphins. He talks about his shame that there are SeaWorld amusement parks all over the world, basically because of him. The Japanese fishermen corral hundreds of dolphins to sell to the SeaWorld franchises for about $100,000 a piece. Any that don't sell are killed rather than released back into the wild.

The dolphin slaughter is a horrific tragedy, but here's where the movie went wrong. They spend the rest of the time trying to prove this was going on, and condemning Japan for allowing it. Like typical Americans, they attack the symptom and not the disease. These fishermen wouldn't be doing this if there weren't demand from SeaWorld. Why didn't the movie attack them? Why didn't they call for a boycott of dolphin shows? Is it easier to condemn a country than a corporation?

And when Dawn Brancheau was killed by a performing whale, the outcries were to release or kill the whale. SeaWorld did neither. They kept the whale in anticipation of resuming the shows when the furor has died down. How could people condemn the whale for behaving naturally, and not condemn the company for keeping it unnaturally? It all angers me so much.

If I'm lucky enough to have kids, they'll hate me for it. But I refuse to support the cruelty of zoos or SeaWorld.

Driving Test of Faith

On my way home yesterday, it occurred to me the enormous amount of trust we put in complete strangers every time we get into our cars. Numerous traffic laws are more like social contracts to behave a certain way. If everyone accepts the same basic method of driving, then the whole system runs smoothly. Just one person who decides to drive the wrong way on a road or ignore a streetlight can cause complete chaos.

There is also the amazing iconography and graphic design that we encounter on a constant basis. A yellow dashed-stripe means one thing, a white one means something else. All road signs which require a particular action or level of attention are the same color. It really is a pretty amazing system.

But, I digress.

What got me thinking about driving in the terms of trust was the action of one particular driver yesterday. He was a man in his late-40s, driving a nice but older red BMW. Let's call him Bert.

I'm on a large street headed East. There are three lanes for me (I'm in the far left), three headed the other way, and a wide left-turn lane between us. We had been waiting for a traffic light that was quite a ways ahead of us. It had just turned green, and as the compression wave of traffic expanded like the Slinky it is, we were just starting to move. Here comes Bert.

Bert is coming the opposite direction, and he needs to turn left. He glides into the left-turn lane and begins his turn. Right into the existing traffic! There wasn't a space there he was trying to beat; the traffic wasn't stopped so he could create a gap; he just turned. The car ahead of me (let's call him Ernie) had to slam on his breaks to keep from hitting Bert head-on. Bert stopped too-- in the middle of our lane!

By this time, the wave is in full motion. The other two lanes are about up to speed, all of them trying to make that light up ahead. Oblivious Bert just waits there, blocking a full lane, until enough cars see the situation and stop long enough to let him through. Of course, neither Ernie nor I (Can I be Grover?) nor anyone behind us make the light that was only about 20 yards away.

Now, you may be thinking, "So what? That sounds just like a typical asshole driver to me." You're right. But what was Bert's mindset when he made that bonehead move? He *knew* that there was nowhere for him to go, but he went anyway. He probably thought that Ernie wouldn't want to wreck his car, prolong his commute, and ruin his day by running into Bert. You could say he forced Ernie to stop, but to me, it was an act of faith. He believed that he knew what would happen.

After realizing his error, Bert also could have backed up the three feet necessary to accommodate our lane. He could have waited in the left-turn lane for the traffic to pass or even stop, and then make his turn. But again, Bert had faith. He knew that if he stayed his course, eventually others would accommodate him. And he was right! That's pretty amazing, actually.

So, back to what I was saying at the beginning. If *everyone* drove this way, it would be anarchy. Have you ever visited a country where they don't have (or obey) lanes on a road? It isn't pretty. But if just one person out of hundreds does it, the ripple is quickly absorbed by the stream.

You could take from this example that there's always going to be an arrogant jerk on the road with no consideration for other drivers. Or, it could be that all of us are actually quite considerate, and from time to time we are asked to prove it.

As someone who is ashamed of my own occasional bouts of road rage, I think I'll choose the latter.

Give Me That Penny!

This isn't the post I meant to make today, but those can wait (and already have). This just happened today.

I was trying to be a good son on the way over to visit my folks. I stopped by Subway to pick up some lunch for us. When everything was assembled and ready to go, the total came to $11.26. Unfortunately, I didn't have a penny.

Hoping to not get a pocketful of change, I handed over a $20 bill and a quarter and said, "Can I borrow a penny?" The guy said sure, rang it up, then handed me my change... $8.99! Then, he said, "Now you have a penny," and took one out of my change! WHAT!? I was so dumbstruck that I couldn't speak. He saw the obvious confusion on my face and tried to explain his transaction, how I was "paying back" the penny I "borrowed." I just shook my head and left, the whole time knowing I'd just been shorted, but not exactly able to reason out why.

(Edit: $11.26 from $20.25 leaves $8.99. He gave me correct change, then took a penny for no reason.)

By the time I got to my car, I was actually mad enough to go back in and demand my penny back. Fortunately for the dude behind the counter, but unfortunately for the entertainment value of this blog, I did not. I just didn't think I'd be able to convince the cashier of his error.

As I drove home, I kept dwelling on it. I wasn't sure what made me more angry: that the kid just didn't "get" why I wanted to borrow a penny, or my inability to correct him after the transaction.

I know a lot of people would just blow it off, reasoning that "it was only a penny." But those people don't know me very well. I still get genuinely excited when I find pennies on the sidewalk. (By the way, I don't go in for any of that heads/tails nonsense. A penny's a penny!) I always look at the date and the mint. I hoard them miserly until I roll and deposit my change. Pennies rule.

I have demanded correct change for a penny before, so that didn't deter me. It was my own innumeracy that kept me from arguing about it. For shame on me!

The Future of Traffic Law Enforcement

For a couple of years now, Houston has had "red light cameras" that take pictures of cars running red lights. Based on the license plate number, the driver is then mailed a citation and expected to pay the fine. I don't know how prevalent or numerous these devices are in other cities (and I really don't feel like doing any research), but I find the concept fascinating.

Obviously, a lot of people don't favor them. I suppose they believe that if an actual police officer didn't catch them in the act, then they should be allowed to get away with it. That's a very interesting ethical position to take: if I wasn't caught, then it wasn't wrong, basically. I could go on for paragraphs on just this aspect alone, but I won't.

But traffic law, for the most part, is pretty cut and dried, black and white. The light was red; you entered the intersection; you get a ticket. So the use of computers and automated cameras makes a lot of sense here. I'm sure there are plenty who still fight the tickets, but they're fighting against solid evidence and can really only make appeals based on "just cause."

Believe it or not (surprising even to me), I really like this concept and think it should (and will) be expanded. I've often seen digital speed limit signs equipped with radar to show you how fast you're really going. They're always temporary, I guess just to remind drivers that the police do know what you're doing. But why couldn't these signs have cameras as well? It doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to set up a system for stop signs as well. I think this is an inventive use of modern technology. Fifty years ago, it would have been impossible, but now you could have an automated post measure your speed (radar), take your picture (digitally, no film), time and date stamp it (computer), and send it to a central police hub (wireless Internet). That's impressive.

Will this happen? I think so. In the next five years, probably not. Ten? Probably.

But this idea can be taken even further, which is what I really like thinking about. How many cars today are equipped with rear-view video cameras? Some even have little radar sensors to tell you when you are nearing an object. And these aren't super luxury or concept car features; these were on the Ford Focus I drove a few months ago.

So, why not have driver-controlled cameras to report the bad/illegal behavior of other drivers? How many times have you seen someone driving recklessly on the freeway, too fast, weaving in and out of cars, and wished that they got caught. "Why isn't there ever a cop when you need one?"

But if you could report him yourself? Just move a joystick and take a snap, which is instantly transmitted to the police, maybe even including your geo-tracked location. This is all possible now. Sure, there are some kinks to work out. You'd have to make sure it isn't too dangerous/distracting to take the picture. There would have to be officers whose job would be to sift the reports to separate the wheat from the chaff, but that wouldn't be too hard. If you get five reports from five different vehicles in the same area at the same time, I think you should look into it. I think it might even cut down on road rage, in a passive-aggressive way. Don't like the guy tailgating you? Just take a picture and report him. He pays a fine and you feel good about yourself. That's much better than slamming on your breaks and risking gunfire.

In small tribal communities, they don't have police. That doesn't mean they don't have crime or wrong-doers, but just that it isn't the job of one person to correct it. The community as a whole upholds the group ethic. If someone steals, rapes, or murders, everyone knows it. That person is most often shunned and/or kicked out of the community. As a community gets larger and wealthier, it can afford to have people whose job is more specific or abstract. Perhaps, as our society gets larger and communication gets so much easier, it will become more like the smaller communities. If we all police ourselves/each other for traffic violations, it frees the actual police to do the specialized work they are trained to do. If people knew that by cutting ahead in a long line of cars at an off-ramp they would get a dozen pictures sent and have to pay a fine, maybe they'd be more hesitant to do it.

It all sounds very Orwellian, and that fascinates me as well. The oppression in 1984 came from the government, of course, but it was enforced by the people. Big Brother wasn't so much the camera as the person looking through the lens.

Anyway, I think it's coming. Probably not in ten years, but in twenty? Thirty? Who knows.

My Trip, Part I: Random Thoughts

Last weekend I took a trip out to California to visit friends and play games. It was a good trip, overall. I had fun and it was nice to get away from work for a while. I'll talk about the games in a separate post. This one will just cover some random experiences from the trip.

Thrifting - One of my favorite little hobbies is going to thrift stores. It's something I've done all my life without really thinking about it, but lately it's become more of a full-fledged hobby. Since I was flying into LAX and driving out to the hotel where I would meet my friends, I made a Google map that highlighted thrift stores along the way.

I had visited a couple of them the last time I was out, and knew they would provide some sort of bounty. I mainly seek out vintage Hawaiian shirts and board games. Both for personal use, but the latter also for resale on eBay. This is how I fund my new game purchases. I'm happy to say I found some of each this time. I got two groovy shirts and five games: Trumpet, Outdoor Adventure, Beyond Balderdash, Raj, and Napoleon in Europe.

One of the stores I visited is my all-time favorite. They have a literal wall of games. Dozens of them of all shapes, sizes, and types. I'm often tempted to pick up several just to play once with my friends and then either toss or re-donate back to the store. I mean, MTV's Remote Control Home Edition? How cool is that?

Debit or Credit? - This part bothered me a bit. I've been reading several financial books lately and working really hard to live completely debt free. I'm in good shape, actually, but it has been work since most of my life I have been a pretty carefree spender. Anyway, at the rental car place I wanted to pay with my debit card. They told me they would have to put a $400 deposit on it. At the hotel when I paid with my debit card, they told me they would charge the full amount of the room up front. Lastly, when filling up the tank of the rental before returning it, the gas pump display told me I got a $0.45 (What happened to the "cents" key?) charge for using debit.

All these little things felt like I was being conspired against for not using credit. I understand that with credit, the funds are coming from the seemingly limitless funds of the bank, whereas debit comes from the unknown depths of my personal account. I get that. But what if I had wanted to write a check for any of these purchases? Would that not have been allowed? (Probably not, since I was from out of town.) And what about the Visa logo on my debit card? Doesn't that guarantee the transaction just as much? And what exactly is the difference if I were to use my debit card as a credit card?

Line Ethics - I have traveled quite a bit casually thanks to the passes I used to get from my sister. I know the drill when it comes to getting through the security lines. Now they've divided them up between the Casual Traveler line and the Expert Traveler line. I have no problem identifying myself as an Expert, and I zip right through. However, when I was leaving LAX a family of six decided they just wanted to be in the shorter line. Grandma, two parents, and three kids in their teens held up the line for 10 minutes. They had trouble walking through the metal detector. They had trouble putting all their gear on the conveyor. Oh, I have to take off my belt? How many times do we have to walk through? Oh, I have to take off my shoes?

Additionally frustrating was the fact that none of the security guards seemed to mind that these people clearly did not belong in the "Expert Traveler" line. I suppose it was too late to kick them out of the line, but what's the point of having the separate lines if they don't mean anything?

Beer Ethics - Okay, last little bit because I see I'm rambling as usual. At the airport on my way out, I stopped to get a $10 turkey sandwich from a stall and a couple of beers at the bar. When I got the tab, the bartender had only charged me for one. So I called him over and pointed out his error without thinking much about it. But the guy on the stool next to me says, "Man, that's cool." Huh? "That's cool that you told him about the mistake." The bartender, too, seemed overly grateful to me. It bothers me that doing the right thing was seen as a praiseworthy act. Are we really that selfish and bad that most people wouldn't have corrected him?

Water Cooler Ethics

I drink a lot of water at work. I have a nice big Saint Arnold pint glass that I fill several times a day. Now, because I am visiting the water cooler frequently, it stands to reason that my chance of having to be the one to replace the bottle is increased. I accept that. I don't really mind replacing the bottle at all. But what really bugs me, and what prompted this rant post, is how often I have to replace the bottle before I can get my water.

That may seem insignificant, but in reality it is fairly meaningful. You see, when I have to replace it before, that means that the last person to get water finished off the bottle. This also means that they chose not to replace it, and preferred to force whoever came after them (me) to do it. And since they are far from the scene when the crime is discovered, they get away with it in anonymous impunity.

Now, you may think, "Perhaps they didn't notice the bottle was empty." This sounds like an honest defense, but actually it is nearly impossible. When I find the empty bottle, it is bone dry. The previous drinker drew every last drop out of that bottle. There is simply no way they didn't know they had emptied it.

Why is this a big deal? In the larger scheme of things, it really isn't. I don't mind changing the water bottle, and I do it without complaint (well, except for this blog). The big deal comes from how this reflects on the character of the person or persons I work with. This is the essence of ethics, really. How one deals with seemingly trivial choices reflects how they would deal with more significant ones.

In this case, it shows to me someone who is more selfish than selfless. This person is willing to take (water) but not willing to give (replace the bottle). The fact that this is a closed community (everyone using the water cooler works in the same building for the same company) makes it worse. I can somewhat understand not wanting to "give" to a complete stranger, but this person is screwing over his/her co-workers. Is this a product of our age? Is it a characteristic of software companies? Is it just one person? Who knows.

The real test will come if I'm ever in line for water and the person in front of me leaves it empty. Then I will have met the culprit! I suspect that this would never happen, however. I believe societal pressure (i.e. a witness) would override the usual selfishness and force the person to change the bottle. We shall see.