Trying to divide the french fries equally

Everyonce in a while I will hear a quote that really sticks with me for some reason or not.  Maybe it is the mindset I am in maybe its just a good quote. Whatever.  Back in high school, I remember hearing my history professor say “When asked who he liked facing more in war a single opponent or a coalition of different armies, Napoleon replied ‘a coalition because there is less coordination and more complications.”   

I think of this quote because when it comes to large complex issues such as global warming or social issues such as gay marriage or abortion, there is no clear cut solution or answer, rather a variety of opinions and fingers pointed in different directions on what the next step should be.

I think that Horst W. J. Rittel and Melvin M. Webber said it best in their article Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning, when they state “We have been learning to ask whether what we are doing is the right thing to do.  That is to say, we have been learning to ask questions about the outputs or actions and to pose problem statements in valuative framework.  We have been learning to see social process as the links tying open systems into large and interconnected networks of systems, such that outputs from one become inputs to others.  In that structural framework it has become less apparent where problem ceters lie and les apparent where and how we should intervene even if we do happen to know what aims we seek.”   Basically we think to much about the consequences of out solutions, over analyze what could go wrong and eventually end up not doing a thing.   

That last part was a cynical translation of what the two Berkley professors said, but not too far out of an opinion. I mean lets look at some examples.  Global warming.  It’s a big fuckin’ deal to many, a myth to others, and not a concern to the rest.  And to the people trying to slow, or even stop, global warming, there are many many many problems causing the Earthly phenomenon, yet what are the solutions? Don’t drive cars? Don’t burn gas? Stop manufacturing all products? Kill all the cows? Throw iron in the ocean?  These are all easier said than done.  For instance, we stop making drilling for oil, stop mining coal…and then what? The world economies come screeching to a holt due to the new transportation problems of not having any gasoline.  Solutions have implications, solving one problem and creating another. 

Lets look at some social issues to further this point.  Social inequality, something that couldn’t be more problematic to the citizens of the world.  Yet how do you solve it? Everyone donates 10,000 and it is equally distributed across the world? We heavily regulate financial markets and corporate responsibilities? These are too idealistic and won’t necessarily lead to results, moreover they are implicative.  By stating that these things are bad, we assign areas of blame for the problems we asses, and what is detrimental to me, might be beneficial to someone else.  It is all a matter of perspective. 

Social issues and environmental issues are multi dimensional and many different opinions can be said on how they should be handled.  And that could take a long time listening to everybody’s political vies and social responsibilities.  So I leave you with this….DO NOT LITTER!!!!! Its easy and relatively well agreed upon socially and culturally.  No one likes seeing a bunch of trash lying around on the streets.