Posts Tagged backwards thinking
“Safe” vs. “Dangerous” Environments
Posted by Joshua Bardwell in Burning Man on December 16th, 2009
There’s a school of thought in road design that goes something like this: designing “safe” roads and cars actually makes them more dangerous because drivers are encouraged not to pay attention. This article makes the point very eloquently.
Vanderbilt describes driving along a narrow, twisting road in Spain, where he navigated hairpin turns with few guardrails or warning signs over steep drop-offs. The result: “I drove as if my life depended on it.” But when he reached a four-lane highway with gentle curves, good visibility and little traffic, “I just about fell asleep and ran off the road … Lulled by safety, I’d acted more dangerously.”
I had an experience that reminded me of this today, while boarding the plane. I was reading a web page on my phone as I passed through the gate. I expected to enter the jetway, which is such a well-contained environment that I just kept reading. But because this was a regional shuttle jet, there was just a set of stairs down to a cordoned-off walkway. I had to stop reading and pay attention.
And of course, the whole thing made me think of Burning Man, which is the epitome of environments where you have to pay attention. “Safe” environments usually result in people to turning their attention inwards, which means that we not only fail to see our environment, we fail to see each other. This is one reason why I resist efforts to make the environment at burns safer. When the environment is known to be moderately dangerous, not only are people actually safer, they are more extroverted as well.
Drivers in traffic circles … communicate more with hand signals and eye contact. As Vanderbilt notes, when a traditional four-way intersection with lights was turned into a traffic square, “The responsibility for getting through the intersection was now up to the users, and they responded by communicating among themselves. The result was that the system was safer, even though the majority of users, polled in local surveys, felt that the system was more dangerous!”
Here are some related links:
- Popular Mechanics: Does High-Tech Higway Design Make Us Less Safe?
- Wired Magazine: Roads Gone Wild
Harvested Carrots
Posted by Joshua Bardwell in Food, Homesteading on November 6th, 2009

In late August, I planted a second crop of carrots, spinach, lettuce, and collards, all of which I think are crops that do well in the cold. Carrots, you can even leave in the ground over the winter. Natures own refrigerator!
This morning, I pulled a few. The little stubby one on the top/right is from one planter, and the longer, more “normal” looking ones are from a different planter. I’m not sure why the difference between them. I’ve actually only pulled one from the “stubby” planter, and a total of three from the “normal” planter, so maybe the “stubby” planter carrot is just a fluke.
Issa bites one and says, a little bemusedly, “Tastes… like a carrot.”
“What else would it taste like,” I ask. But I understand her reaction. Growing our own food is still new enough that it feels something like a victory when what comes out of the ground not only lives up to, but exceeds our expectations from store-bought food. It’s as if there’s this underlying assumption that only the Machine, or at the very least, some kind of esoteric guru, can produce food that’s any good. Us mere mortals can try it as a cute little hobby, but we’ll definitely fail.
Which is, of course, the exact opposite of reality. To plant these carrots, I literally dumped some seeds on the dirt of a planter and then made sure they had moist soil and sunshine. They did all the rest. No esoteric knowledge required. Which is not to say that some knowledge isn’t required to garden successfully, or that any batch of carrot seeds dumped on any patch of dirt will produce food. Just that plants want to grow and home-grown plants have the potential to far-exceed their store-bought counterparts. Even if the lack of expertise of the home gardener decreases the quality of their produce, the fact that it’s pulled fresh from the plant right before use often more than makes up the difference.
DJ AM Toxicology Test Results
Posted by Joshua Bardwell in Consensual Crimes, Government and Law on October 5th, 2009
Toronto Sun reports:
NEW YORK — DJ AM died accidentally from a lethal cocktail of prescription drugs and cocaine, the medical examiner’s office ruled Tuesday.
The toxicology report showed the 36-year-old had in his system cocaine, OxyContin, Hydrocodone or Vicodin, antianxiety drugs Xanax and Ativan, Klonopin which also controls anger, Benadryl, and Levamisole, a drug apparently used to cut cocaine.
Now, that’s a hell of a lot of drugs to have in your system at one time, I don’t care who you are, but the one that jumped out at me was the levamisole. I remembered reading about it a while back, but couldn’t remember why it was dangerous. From the AP:
The medication called levamisole … can be used in humans to treat colorectal cancer, but it severely weakens the body’s immune system, leaving patients vulnerable to fatal infections.
Scientific studies suggest levamisole might give cocaine a more intense high, possibly by increasing levels of dopamine, the brain’s “feel-good” neurotransmitters.
Interesting. Gives the user a yummy dopamine rush, but also makes them susceptible to fatal infections. According to the article, levamisole is supposedly being cut in before importation, so it’s hard for users, or even dealers, to know whether their stuff has been cut with it.
Now, let’s consider when something like this happens with a legal good. Remember the melamine in baby-food imported from China? What about diethylene glycol in toothpaste? What about good old yummy lead paint? With legal goods, a regulatory or overseeing body detects the tainted product, blocks the importation, and notifies consumers which products should be avoided. The supplier could smuggle the product in, but that would dramatically increase the price, and anyway, everybody knows their stuff is tainted, so nobody would want it. In most cases, the supplier chooses to remove the offending toxin because importing stuff legally is much cheaper and easier than importing stuff illegally.
On the black market, of course, different forces apply. A black-market supply chain is necessarily long, convoluted, and opaque. There’s no way to tell where the stuff you’re getting came from. There’s no way to tell if it’s tainted, and if you do find out that it’s tainted there’s no way to tell whether any other batch is any better. Given how expensive, risky, and difficult-to-acquire prohibition makes drugs, you’re more likely to take your chances even if you do know the stuff is tainted. Given these conditions, producers can hardly be held accountable for cutting their products with toxic chemicals. There is a strong motivation to use adulterants, even if they have medium or long-term health effects.
As usual, The Man takes the wrong message home from this situation:
The tainted cocaine has received only limited attention in the U.S., though federal authorities are monitoring its use, said Paul Knierim, a DEA spokesman in Washington.
“I think the message is the same: Don’t use cocaine, it’s a dangerous drug,” Knierim said.
Well, actually, it sounds to me like levamisole is the dangerous drug. Nobody looked at the Chinese baby food, tooth paste, or lead-painted toys and concluded that baby food, tooth paste, and toys were dangerous. What makes cocaine particularly dangerous is the system of prohibition that encourages producers to taint it and prevents regulatory bodies from quickly detecting the contamination, containing it, and notifying the public.
Drug-related Hypocrisy (Or Not)
Posted by Joshua Bardwell in Consensual Crimes on July 6th, 2009
Someone, somewhere wrote:
I believe that informed adults should be allowed to inflict whatever suffering they wish on themselves. But we are not entitled to harm other people. I know people who drink fair-trade tea and coffee, shop locally and take cocaine at parties. They are revolting hypocrites. Every year cocaine causes some 20,000 deaths in Colombia and displaces several hundred thousand people from their homes.
I’d like to address the “revolting hypocrites” charge. Lemme ask you, if I drink fair-trade tea, but not coffee, am I a hypocrite? What about tea, coffee, but not chocolate? Where’s the line between “doing nothing” and “completely acting out your ideal in every aspect of your behavior” where I stop being a hypocrite? You can’t charge someone with being a hypocrite because they do some things, but not enough to suit you.
I see this a lot when people want to cut down someone else who’s trying to achieve some ideal. Somebody starts eating vegetarian most of the time, but every once in a while they eat meat. “Hypocrite. You say you care about the animals, but look at you.” Somebody buys a fuel efficient car because they want to reduce petroleum consumption, and the nay-sayers respond, “Big deal. You’re still killing the environment with all the other industrial processes that support your life.”
Tell you what: why don’t I just kill myself, and then I won’t do any harm to anybody anywhere. At least you won’t be able to accuse me of being a hypocrite anymore. The fact is that doing something is usually better than doing nothing, or at least not worse. Just because I don’t act out a given ideal 100% of the time doesn’t make me a hypocrite. It makes me a human, operating in complex and interconnected web of causalities.
Okay, you might say, the hypocrisy is because of the severe consequences of “cocaine”. If you claim to care enough to buy fair-trade coffee, shouldn’t you care about Colombian kids getting their arms cut off? But pointing that question at the drug consumer carries with it a moral judgment that consuming cocaine is wrong. Why aren’t we asking the prohibitionists, “If you care so much about life, why don’t you end prohibition?” The fact is that the prohibitionists can end almost all of the criminal enterprise around drug production and trafficking by ending prohibition. You don’t see kids getting their arms chopped off over tobacco or Prozac, do you?
Assume, if you will, that the choice to legally consume cocaine and the choice to prohibit it are morally balanced and you have to choose one of them based on the outcome. Assuming that you believe that taking cocaine is inherently harmful, the choice to take cocaine in the absence of a prohibition-induced criminal context harms only the consumer. The choice to prohibit cocaine induces the creation of a criminal market that harms, among others, innocent Colombians. Which choice is morally superior? Harming yourself or harming others?
Diplomat Tactical Clothing
Posted by Joshua Bardwell in Government and Law on June 19th, 2009
What comes to your mind when you hear the word, “diplomat”? Tactful negotiation? What clothes does a diplomat wear? A suit? Let me ask you: does this person look like a diplomat to you?
