|
Another random tale from a desk in corporate Canada.
Economy may, in fact, be getting better right at this very moment. This morning, I've had to do something I haven't done in a while -- set up a new client! Normally I deal with U.S. clients for various reasons, but this one was based in Canada. Going through the mundane but necessary red tape procedures, I noticed something funny in the form: under the Country field, there was no Canada. No joke. System glitch? I restarted the app and looked again. Nothing. Maybe I missed it, it's early morning after all. I scroll through the list, carefully. A...B...C.. ..D? There's definitely no Canada. Bottom of the list perhaps? I scroll quickly, EFGHIJKLMNOP... hold on a moment. Ontario? REALLY? I check the list -- Alberta, BC, Ontario, Quebec, and those other ones I hear exist, they're all there. My surprise/confusion quickly turns to amusement. See, U.S. states normally have a separate box, which is obviously hard-coded to suck, since they didn't extend Canadian provinces to it. I imagine that by itself, it's inappropriate to put Canada in the list as a single country without specifying provinces. A clever and cheap workaround, if you ignore the now-butchered "Country" heading. Cutting corners to stay competitive, I like it.
See, globalization is a scary thing for companies. Now you're competing against the whole world as opposed to just your country or area. Cutting corners pretty much everywhere has kind of become a necessity, as sad as that is. Cost-Benefit analysis has turned into some monster with a much more significant focus on the former. I'm told we have people in India whose sole job is to send out e-mails advising us on the status of our systems. They do this by reading the output the system gives them then copying it into an e-mail. Any rational person would think that this should be automated.. but pulling devs to work on this is more expensive than just hiring someone to do it. Except all of this adds up. A direct consequence? "Legacy" systems: Huge, quirky systems that stay with companies for decades (aeons in the computer world) because they're too expensive to overhaul/replace. These are pretty standard almost everywhere I've been, to various degrees.
But this is such a short-sighted view. Eventually all of these cost-savings add up to .. more expenses? What? That doesn't sound right..? Think. Think of all the time wasted on inefficient systems, the maintenance and upkeep required. Something recently printed in one Canadian newspaper:
Branch rationalization, outsourcing non-core functions and replacing inflexible legacy systems would help shed from 20 per cent to 25 per cent of total costs, a level that is both feasible and necessary [to compete on the global scale].
Now we dug ourselves a hole and it will be expensive to dig out.
Being short-sighted is dangerous; it becomes apparent in situations like this where the effect is felt only a few decades after the fact. What about where it's delayed a few human lifetimes or so? Like the environment deali-o. I guess I can understand where all the environmentalists are coming from now, but I don't really care since I won't be around by the time anything serious happens. How can I force myself (let alone others) to care about stuff that will not affect me or anyone I know? Brb gonna spill some oil into the local lake to enhance my quality of life at the expense of others' in the future. But hey, I'll never meet them. This view is too tempting for me, and I don't really know how to change it.
+ Show Spoiler +And once again, I have absolutely no clue why I wrote this. The smallest things . . .
|
I guess it just comes down to whether or not you care about humanity. You happen to not care. You only care about yourself and the ones you love. Many people are like that. I personally dont understand how you can not care about humans as a whole and our survival on this planet.
|
On July 22 2009 04:18 Mastermind wrote:
I guess it just comes down to whether or not you care about humanity. You happen to not care. You only care about yourself and the ones you love. Many people are like that. I personally dont understand how you can not care about humans as a whole and our survival on this planet.
People have a hard time comprehending the vast time scales the environment works on. We can barely comprehend our own lifetimes let alone thousands of years in the future when this planet might be a desert wasteland.
Honestly, I care about the future, I'd like to see humanity keep living it up for a while. However, I'm not exactly doing all I can to better the planet - I just recycle when I can and take the bus. How many people actually dedicate their lives to the environment? Most people are still trying to find a way to put food on the table every day.
I therefore draw my irrational conclusion that humanity is doomed. The good news is that it probably won't happen in our lifetimes.
|
On July 22 2009 04:18 Mastermind wrote:
I guess it just comes down to whether or not you care about humanity. You happen to not care. You only care about yourself and the ones you love. Many people are like that. I personally dont understand how you can not care about humans as a whole and our survival on this planet.
there's not a particularly compelling reason to care, whether humanity survives the next 500 years or the next 10,000 years doesn't affect the individual at all. we won't even know, quite ironic actually. we could do everything to save the environment (for example) and then after we die a giant asteroid could destroy the Earth.
that btw isn't a reason not to try to preserve the environment, just an illustration of the possible futility of our actions anyway
|
@jonnyp, sure that's one way to look at it. Whatever actions we can do as insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Sure we can try our best, then whoops a comet hits us straight in the face and the earth explodes. Keep in mind, that this is a silly argument -- let's extend it to our personal well-being: what's the point of, say, keeping your body healthy when you can slip and fall and instadie anytime.
Actually that's not an accurate comparison, since our environment-saving attempt results won't be felt/known by the individual.. but still
On July 22 2009 04:18 Mastermind wrote:
I guess it just comes down to whether or not you care about humanity. You happen to not care. You only care about yourself and the ones you love. Many people are like that. I personally dont understand how you can not care about humans as a whole and our survival on this planet.
Could you elaborate? I mean ... well, my (and I imagine, others' ) "personal universe" really consists of two things: (1) the people around me, and (2) myself. The people some centuries into the future are external to that. I'm having trouble justifying making personal sacrifices for essentially nothing (to me or anyone I know/will know). So I'm wondering whether those that are passionate about this (you, perhaps?) can elaborate on their point of view a little.
|
i was just pointing out that there isn't a guarantee humanity will survive even if we do keep the environment in perfect balance. so sacrificing myself to help keep the environment in perfect order in order to ensure (though it's still not assured by a long shot) the survival of people who don't even exist and possibly might not ever exist doesn't make much sense to me.
like anyone else i will recycle if it's convenient, i recycle most all my pop can's/bottles and other small things. however, im not going to go seriously out of my way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
