Harebrained Schemes 8

Floods occur. Harvey is a striking example and offers a severe warning. Numerous homes were ruined – especially the lowest floor – and the cost of rebuilding will be enormous. More so, the lives lost or changed make the situation far worse. The problem cannot be solved, but it can be ameliorated. As houses are rebuilt, and existing houses repaired, it is ridiculous to suggest raising them – especially houses that preexisted the disaster – because foundations, pipes, electrical connections are still in place and they would be difficult to move.

The obvious answer is to lower the ground around them. Every house should have a deep moat with the area around it cleared of earth. The earth, itself, could be used elsewhere, or even nearby, for the building of dams and dikes. It would be a valuable commodity, and any trees existing on it could be sold for their wood. In addition, the clearing of the land would provide jobs for those put out of work by the flood. And it would provide a place to store rescue alligators.

Don't cry when nature serves you water. Make ice cubes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I recently suggested the building of robotic companions to keep the lonely entertained. The more I think about it, however, the more it occurs to me that this may not be enough. The robots I proposed would speak back, and even it their views corresponded to your own, that might be a distraction for you.

Better, or at least in addition, work should begin on the design and construction of robotic service animals. They need not have artificial intelligence so they likely would present less of a challenge. The animals would attend to all your needs and desires – at least as far as animals can. Lap or non-lap settings could be included in the plans, as well as controls that determined if stomach rubs were required. The animals would be of whatever species you wished, and whatever age you required. They'd be able to bring in the newspaper and, with intelligence options, they could read it to you.

If you turned on their sound systems they could be used as guard animals, protecting your house. If so programed, they would bite and otherwise maim intruders. Bullet-proof construction would protect them from vicious villains exercising their second amendment rights. The animals would be “loving” to the degree you found satisfactory. And they should allow you in places reserved for those with service animal – although they would not be of interest to live and dirty pets. No feeding would be needed.

And their breath would not smell.

They would accompany you if you chose to go for a walk, but walks at all sorts of bizarre hours wouldn't be necessary. Nor would cleaning up after them.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A final concern that requires attention is global warming. Whether you attribute it to natural causes or believe that human activity is involved, there is ample evidence both of its existence and its effects. Although there are numerous proposals as to how to minimize those effects, and even to limit its progress, the phenomenon remains.

Fear of warming exists, but perhaps global warming has features that can be harnessed and used to advantage. Perhaps it's not a problem but an opportunity. If there is excess heat or winds it would be helpful if we could recycle that excess into energy using some kind of converter. There are certainly many inventors who could come up with such an apparatus.

The energy so provided could be used to power air conditioners, cleanup services, or other projects in need of juice. We might even be able to make money out of it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I'll try to be more realistic next time.

September 4, 2017

Various Thoughts XV

I have no bucket list. There's nothing I want to do that is not part of my ordinary life. I don't mean there is nothing left, only that there is nothing that I find missing from my life that needs to be done before I die. I'm satisfied with what I do and what I have. All I want for my remaining time (may it be long) is to continue living the way I have been up until now. I am rich. According to Ben Zoma, the rich man is "The one who is satisfied with what he has…" I'm satisfied. What I did yesterday I'll do today. I don't need to see Bali Bali.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

One of the biggest areas of contention in our time is income inequality. There are certainly many who are happy living off handouts, or engaging in projects that yield illegal gains. They're a minority, though, and I won't consider them in this effort. And the issue of the power of the rich – especially the multinational corporations – must be considered as well.

Most people blame the inequality on the rich, without considering why they're rich. They would end incentives to progress. And there is no consideration of how their resources affect others. Perhaps they pay low salaries, but maybe not. Still there are inequalities, justified or not. What can we do? And should we do it?

Perhaps the most striking example of the discontent it has caused was the “Occupy Wall Street Movement” and its numerous spin-offs. The protesters railed against the 1% without ever defining them. Some were involved in business, but many are sports stars and entertainment figures. In fact the latter groups may be the majority. I don't know (I don't have the expertise) but I'm suspicious. They're people we love and admire and who admonish us about whom to elect. And the politicians themselves of course – especially former presidents and others who command obscene speaking fees or otherwise benefit from their influence. In all likelihood the majority of people who make up the 1% aren't those we imagine them to be.

But those issues are misleading. The protest organizers' actual goal is activity rather than achievement – the appearance of accomplishing rather than any actual accomplishment. They're interested in ideology and bragging rights. When confronting the 1% they paint them as evil capitalists who oppress everyone else and who should pay for all of the projects advocated by the leaders of the dissent. And when it serves their purposes, they move on and draw their followers into another crusade.

Notwithstanding the induced antics of the insurgents, however, there is a problem of increasing income inequalities that should be addressed. The problem is a difficult one because it not only involves workers and management, but also stockholders, consumers, those in other countries, economists, advertising firms, and a variety of others. And it involves patent rights, lawsuits by consumers, development of products and services, marketing, as well as numerous other functions. We have laws against usury, laws limiting the amount which credit card companies can charge, Medicare and similar agencies that limit the income of their target groups. And bureaucracies that control prices. Is it possible to limit profits and salaries of executives in some of our companies? And if there were limitations on what could go to stockholders there would be more money available for workers' salaries. Extensive bookkeeping and auditing would be necessary to ensure calculations according to standards established for those industries, but it would allow some diminution of the inequality while allowing reasonably high salaries for a firm's directors.

Similarly, the power and influence of multinational firms should be limited by preventing their representatives them from interactions with public officials – especially those in other countries. Perhaps we're too forgiving of the mergers of large firms when we investigate the economic consequences of a merger and display less interest in the political.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A final thought. Cleaning up after a flood or other natural disaster is enormously expensive. Where possible, we might consider ending flood and other insurance if people have collected on it twice. Clearly that couldn't apply to cities or other relatively high population centers.

It makes sense, however, when considering areas at high risk of flood, fire, and wind damage. An area subject to the payment of insurance claims, as well as the cost of repairing infrastructure damage, will be a recurring drain on the resources of taxpayers with the sense to live in safer places. It would require relocation of people from homes established by their ancestors, but perhaps the funds saved could be used to build new towns that are safer than the old. The saving of citizens' lives is even more important than the money.

We might even lower other entitlements to cover expenses. They've piled up over the years but perhaps they were instituted to get votes, and we'd be better off without them. Savings there could also be used for relocation efforts, and even to fund job training so the entitlements would be less necessary.

But our first priority should be to get our citizens out of harm's way. We've gotten better at predicting disasters. Preventing them and protecting Americans would be more desirable, and it might be economically advantageous.

September 5, 2017