Drawing of Lots

“We ranged through, no food could we get,
Confined there for a long time, nothing for to eat,
Till we cast lots to see who should die,
Which made our ship’s crew for sorrow to cry.

The lots were drawn, one man was to die,
For his wife and poor children most bitterly did cry,
To kill him says the captain, or take away his breath,
But to starve with hunger is a deplorable death.

Then his messmates they killed him and cut off his head,
And all the ship’s crew from the body did feed,
And at eight different times lots amongst them were drawn,

For to keep them from starving that’s the way they went on.”

The future is uncertain as darkness obscures the path of salvation. A general has blindly marched his army into the killing fields where death is unavoidable. Now the decision of who shall survive if any waits. All the sorrow and regret of leadership will not change the slaughter that is to befall. The destructive economy is finally at the door and even the most promising future will not be spared on the sword of indifference. Almost twenty five years of contributions to society and the environment is now a victim of circumstances. I now must decide how to dismantle the most talented staff of individuals I have ever assembled. Tell me if I should cut off my right or left arm, is an eye more important than a leg. Any action carries the present risk of bleeding to death. How do you choose which of your children should die by the sword? I have shared my life with all of them. I have watched their families grow, I have watched them marry, I have comforted them when they have grieved loss, I have been their teacher and they have been mine. I have asked them to climb mountains and they did. How can I possibly choose? Whatever happens I shall forever be scarred by the senselessness of it all and the guilt that my judgments brought us to this point? Logic has lost reason in the carnage; all I can think of is the drawing of lots.

Since the time of the bible in the book of Proverbs: "The lot causeth contentions to cease, and parteth between the mighty." Drawing of lots is a lottery in which participants blindly choose objects (such as stones, straws, coins, or dice) in order to make a random decision. It is won by luck, akin to tossing a coin. The Hebrew bible makes a number of references to lots. Although the masses were forbidden by Jewish law to cast lots for divination – which was the prerogative of the priests, God's authorities on earth were allowed to use lottery devices to guide judgments. Thus the chief priest carried sacred stones inside his breastplate, through which he sensed divine intentions. The stones gave God's answer, determined when the 'Yes' or the 'No' stone was drawn out. King David consulted this oracular medium before going into battle: when the 'Yes' stone appeared, forecasting his victory over the Philistines, he set off on the warpath.

“Although the early fathers of the Christian church were vigorously opposed to divination by lots, sometimes excommunicating those who practiced it, this did not stop the Church itself using this method for decision-making. Some devout Christians continued to use lottery when faced with some of life's most difficult decisions. Whether or not divine intervention is invoked as the mechanism through which the casting of lots leads to decisions, the method has been recognized for millennia as a way of ensuring fairness in deciding difficult matters. In the past, the results of drawing lots were considered to reflect divine guidance. Today the results are more likely to be regarded as reflecting the play of chance. Lotteries to decide which citizens shall risk their lives in defense of their countries have been accepted as a fair, democratic solution to a problem of difficult choices. Lots for the 1917 military draft in the United States were drawn in public, in the presence of the President and other dignitaries, by a blindfolded Secretary of State.”

In the knowledge that human judgments are fallible, drawing of lots is also used to test the validity of opinions. There remains considerable ambivalence about casting lots as a risk-limiting and democratic device for dealing with uncertainty. Some clues to the reasons for this can be discerned in the condemnation of lottery by religious authorities as 'unlawful,' 'sinister,' 'invoking demons and evil spirits,' 'usurpation of God's prerogative'. In fact, the history of lottery for divination is the history of the surrender of decision-making to the control of authorities.

At this moment is time I can no longer see God’s hand guiding what is right. I can’t find divine intervention coming for salvation. I am left alone and cold with a deep bitterness that my dreams will die with the sword. I am left with only the possibility of drawing lots. I can see no good which will come from this; there is no personal growth to be achieved. There is no justice in rewarding those outside our company that have not made the same personal sacrifices for the good of society. I am watching this new economy consuming the pure of heart, the well intentioned, the idealist, the humanist, only to leave the greedy, the cheap, the heartless, and the cruel to guide our destiny. Because I chose no to comprise our ethics, values, inspirations; to not generate revenue at any cost, to invest freely in the causes that will make this world heal itself, I am left with the blood of the innocent on my hands.

"Yet ah! why should they know their fate,
Since sorrow never comes too late,
And happiness too swiftly flies?
Thought would destroy their paradise.
No more; where ignorance is bliss,
'Tis folly to be wise."

Thomas Gray

"Fate rules the affairs of mankind with no recognizable order."

Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

Tragedy of the Commons

“Relationships of trust depend on our willingness to look not only to our own interests, but also the interests of others.”

Peter Farquharson

Observations of human behavior indicate that a fundamental universal law appears to regulate societal aspirations when it comes to most elemental values. It is difficult to discern if society is capable of reaching past these self imposed limitations in order to achieve a greater good. In simple terms, individuals for the most part will follow the path of least resistance and choose the lowest common denominator when making decisions. The term Lowest Common Denominator is used figuratively to refer to the "lowest"—least useful, least advanced, or similar member of a class which is common to things that relate to members of that class. The source of this human tendency is likely a combination of both genetics and environment, or what is referred to as “nature or nurture”. Donald Hebb is said to have once answered a journalist's question of "which, nature or nurture, contributes more to personality?" by asking in response, "which contributes more to the area of a rectangle, its length or its width?" Unfortunately the public’s predilection to the lowest common denominator regardless of the catalyst is an ominous indicator of the future decline of our society. After considerable thought, I have determined that much of my personal negativity concerning humanity and its inability to act collectively to solve serious social issues, has its origins in this basic human tendency.

As of recently, I have been fascinated with the concept of “The Tragedy of the Commons” which is an influential article written by Garrett Hardin and first published in the journal Science in 1968. “The article describes a dilemma in which multiple individuals acting independently in their own self-interest can ultimately destroy a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long term interest for this to happen. Central to Hardin's article is a metaphor of herders sharing a common parcel of land (the commons), on which they are all entitled to let their cows graze. In Hardin's view, it is in each herder's interest to put as many cows as possible onto the land, even if the commons are damaged as a result. The herder receives all of the benefits from the additional cows, while the damage to the commons is shared by the entire group. If all herders make this individually rational decision, however, the commons are destroyed and all herders suffer.

The metaphor illustrates the argument that free access and unrestricted demand for a finite resource ultimately dooms the resource through over-exploitation. This occurs because the benefits of exploitation accrue to individuals or groups, each of whom is motivated to maximize use of the resource to the point in which they become reliant on it, while the costs of the exploitation are borne by all those to whom the resource is available (which may be a wider class of individuals than those who are exploiting it). This, in turn, causes demand for the resource to increase, which causes the problem to snowball to the point that the resource is exhausted. The rate at which exhaustion of the resource is realized depends primarily on three factors: the number of users wanting to consume the commons, the consumptiveness of their uses, and the relative robustness of the commons.”

Inherent is this discussion is the individual’s inability of see a collective outcome which achieves a higher social benefit over the marginal self interests of the easy decision. The characteristic behaviors of self interest, narcissism, cynicism and vanity are thus spread throughout contemporary society as a method to promote consumerism. Such attitudes are perhaps not the most pleasant or productive phenomena but they may still open up interesting avenues for discussion, particularly with regards to the issue of self-interest and pursuit of happiness in individual relationships. Are these attitudes deviant reactions or safety valves that stop individuals from collectively confronting the real issues that affect their lives? Are they part of a generalized malaise that has infected western culture? Either way we have achieved a society with the greatest personal wealth in the history of mankind and yet happiness seems so elusive to majority of us.

We can explore the concept of self interest in more detail in order to understands it’s destructive impact on individual achievement or the lack there of. There is little need to investigate at any length the doctrine of individual happiness and self-interest as advanced by Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Hutcheson, and Bentham. They believed in general that the criteria of human action were pleasure and pain; that human wants were insatiable; that for the most part every­one sought his own happiness above everything else; that work was not pleasurable; and that no one would work except as a necessity. They questioned the ability of material wealth to bring happiness.

The pursuit of self-interest has been the basis of economic theory since Adam Smith in his “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” (1776) emphasized the force of vanity in motivating human action. However he believed that self interest made men strive for more than they need simply to secure the approval of their fellows. It assumes nature uses these characteristics of man to inspire him to labor. In the end man produces useful things for the benefit of others. Smith was consistent in sponsoring the principle that nature can and will direct the selfish actions of men toward the social good. An all-pervading force somehow correlates all the individual pursuits of self-interest into patterns that are socially beneficial.

I disagree with the basic premise that self interest results in beneficial social patterns. The principal of the “Guiding Hand” in economic theory suggests that open markets will self regulate providing a social boundary. This naïve concept of invisible market forces has been discredited in our most recent economic meltdown where self interest in the form of greed, narcissism, cynicism and vanity has exhibited no self regulation. In fact governmental deregulation fuelled the excess as limits to amount of financial leverage were relaxed. The whole idea that self-interest is a powerful motivating factor in individuals exerting additional effort is overly generous as a human condition. To the contrary individual self interest is likely to take the path of minimal investment or the lowest common denominator, unless you subscribe to Sigmund Freud theory that all self interest is motivated by sex. I’m inclined to believe that more than the economic premise.

Society is confined more by personal experiences establishing the foundation for self interest than anything else. In the discussion of “nature verse nurture” where we debate if genetics or life experiences have at greater influence on personal behaviors, I think it is clear that experience is the winner. Look at how often personal experiences reflect our current relationships. There is a strong tendency to settle for the easy answer rather than seeking a higher ideal. I was amazed in a recent survey where couples who were married over twenty years were asked if they could do it all over again would they marry their same spouse. Over 45% of the women indicated they would have not married the same person. Almost half of the respondents were sufficiently dissatisfied with their personal relationships that given another chance they opted to trade their husband in. What does that tell us about self interest as a motivating factor in higher achievement or personal gain? Seventy five percent of men interestingly enough would remarry their spouse; however I not would attribute this to increased satisfaction or self interested achievement but rather excessive compliancy and overt laziness. Men are generally much less apt to analysis interpersonal relationships as long as their basis needs of food, shelter, sports and sex are met, again a condition of laziness. Think about this statement on individual expectations when it comes our self-interest and personal relationships. We are willing to settle for less than to work for more. As a general rule we are willing to accept our parent’s societal position rather than achieving a higher status, unless it is given to us with little effort or discomfort. This tendency can best be seen in middle aged women where the fear of being alone will drive them to poorly conceived and mediocre decisions which would never have been acceptable earlier in life, highly reluctant of risking a better future against the laws of probability.

This not to say that women are the only ones that settle, I think we all do by and large, including myself. How often have we overlooked critical flaws in our relationships in order not to rock the boat, compliancy is easy. We all can list the characteristics we will ignore. The excessive signs of alcoholism, the propensity for gambling, the emotion abuse, the lack of financial responsibility, the underachievement in the workplace, the limited investment of emotions are all indications that society will pursue self-interests only to the degree that is requires little from us. We make these decisions by choosing the lesser of two evils instead of challenging ourselves that there is a better option not yet explored.

How many employees opt to play solitaire while on the clock instead of investing spare time into personal achievement? We choose not to improve our abilities but rather justify our actions because we are under compensated and under appreciated. Yet, the concept of self-interest continues to permeate most organizations. For example, the organized appeal to the ‘selfish gene’, advancing their self-interest and wanting to ‘be themselves’ at work.
As am employer I am fully cognizant of the enormous amount of time wasted by individuals while surfing the internet, paying personal bills and mindless chatter with boyfriends, spouses and relatives. It is difficult to appreciate that if all that wasted energy was harnessed into productive work or creative innovation, what that would mean to the profitability of the organization. Eventually that success would raise individual standards as the company became more capable of rewarding their employees. Given the most difficult economy in 80 years and a frantic call to arms for increase efficiency and vigilance, I have seen little change in behavior. The pervasive opinion of doing just enough to get by continues to dominate the workforce culture. I’m sure that my employees would just retort that I’m in fact pursuing my own self-interest in making them more productive so that I have to work less. If that was truly the case I’m capable of making three times the income and significantly less stress as an independent consultant instead of chief executive.

As illustrated above, there is little societal benefit in individuals acting in their own self-interest and possibility even less in terms of personal achievement in relationships. Is there any way to challenge the self-interest which pervades contemporary organizations and individual relationships? Are we destine to a radical return to ‘objectivism’ and the luxurious wallowing in self-interest? Even I have fallen into the deep self interest of cynicism to which I find is intensifying daily. I have no answers or solutions to correct my own failed self interests and am even less able to consider anyone else. I guess I should heed the advice of an old friend whose motto was “f…k it”.

“If you limit your choices only to what seems possible or reasonable, you disconnect yourself from what you truly want, and all that is left is a compromise.”

Robert Fritz

Sometimes the Bar Eats You

“Sometimes you eat the bar, and sometimes, well, he eats you.”

The Stranger... The Big Lebowski (1998)

Then are moments in time when the Unstoppable Force collides with the Immoveable Object and natural laws of the universal are reconfirmed. Laws of probability dictate that one shall yield and the other shall prevail. In the end, the unstoppable force was no match for the immoveable object, better known as the federal government. Years of travel knowledge, guile, swiftness and insider contacts could not budge the Immoveable Object.

The confrontation began January 15th when I discovered my passport was missing and was scheduled to travel to Toronto on January 28th. In a complete panic I quickly assembled all the proper documentation, photos, forms and fees running to the nearest Post Office to submit for expedited passport replacement service. Under this expedited service, I was guaranteed to receive my replacement passport within 10 days for a governmental imposed “you are an idiot to wait so long” fee of $175.

The first clue of my impending disaster was arriving at the Post Office to find it closed while celebrating Martin Luther King’s holiday. Understanding that this would delay departure of my application until January 16th, I quickly surmised that a governmental promise of 10 days and an absolute deadline of 12 days was going to be a problem. I vowed to arrive at the Post Office first thing in the morning to ensure my application was first in the express bin to the New Orleans processing center. The contradiction of New Orleans and expedited service imposed a level of concern to the process, but I stood fast in my faith that the benevolent protector and provider would deliver on its promise.

The following day on the way to the Post Office, my car blows a hose just one day after spending $750 to replace my radiator. I guess my auto repair shop discovered my credit score after quoting me a repair number and decided to up the ante with a second round of repairs. Not overly concerned I applied the principal of executive privilege and called my office manager to retrieve me and my pending application. Leaving the smoking heap of my car on a side street downtown I climbed into Mary’s vehicle for the overdue appointment with stewards of snail mail.

To no one’s surprise one day after the holiday, the line of customers that snaked outside the door lead to the gatekeepers, who sole function was to witness my signature on the application and to collect ransom for restoration of my freedom. Standing in line you begin to realize how the art of personal dehumanization has been perfected. It’s revealing how the system assumes you know this vague and confusing system of acquainted transportation of communications. How each individual is punished for the smallest of procedural missteps, such as not filling out a line on the back of a form thereby regulating them in to public to obediently complete the task and unceremoniously move to the back of this oversized conga line.

Optimism of quickly completing this task fades as I realize new impending passport rules has created a flood of applications from the elderly and drug addicts who are now required to show a passport before they enter Mexico to buy cheap drugs and velvet paintings. The whole scene reminds my of some sort of basic therapy for severe head injury patients who are being provided life skills before they are released back into the general public. I expect to see Jack Nicholson’s character in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest to run past in a white gown with his ass hanging out.

Sixteen passport applications later I arrive at the front of the counter to sign my name. The man behind the counter takes my money and gives me a number to call if I need information on my application’s approval statue. Walking out of the Post Office, Mary is standing on the Post Office steps. With a look of astonishment she says “You are not going to believe this, but my car just died and won’t start. I think you’re cursed?”

Yeah she was probably right, but my passport application is now in the capable hands of the trustworthy government officials. I smile at Mary and say “Call the office and get some other lucky employee to come and get the two of us. If we keep this up, I’ll have the entire staff out here with us and all their cars scattered across town disabled.”

A week passes when I decide to have Mary contact the New Orleans processing center to find out the status of my application. As is the process with the government, they will not talk to Mary, but need to talk me directly. Now there is a foolproof security measure? “Who am I talking to?” a voice inquires from the phone. “Mr. Blue” I confirm, clearing this critical security issue. I wonder if I could get my dog to bark in a certain way whether it would clear this security checkpoint. In broken English acquired in the two days since she got off the boat from Asia, she says “Mistra Bleuz, You passport mailed tomorrow.”

In a rush of appreciation and guilt that I ever questioned our democratic system, I profusely thank the agency for their understanding and commitment towards service. It was like all the dread and anxiety was unwarranted. A small voice in the back of my mind whispered “She said mailed?” My application fee included the most expensive overnight; first delivery express mail money could buy. I dismissed the red flag as a misunderstanding by the operator which would be cleared up in her next English language class later tonight.

Four days later, while traveling in Philadelphia, I realized that there has been no messages or calls of exaltation at having completed the obstacle course and thus receiving the prized passport, so I ask Mary once again to call the New Orleans processing center. This time she must have figured out how to add enough baritone to her voice to clear the security checkpoint. In a decidedly sheepish voice she said “You’re not going to like this!” At the moment I knew I was screwed. “Let me guess, the Asian refugee we talked to was wrong? How could take possibly happen?” I thought of the recent cell phone commercial “You know what Daddy got? Daddy got hosed!”

In most circumstances I would be able to postpone a meeting to buy some time to correct the problem, but as Murphy would have it, “No way in Hell!” The meeting in Toronto is a historic summit of forty experts from around the world convening to establish an occupational skills analysis of a new emerging profession. The summit is being funded by the Canadian government which includes hiring an internationally recognized authority in occupational analysis to facilitate the workshop. The event planners have been working for almost a year preparing the background documents and organizing the venue, which is going to be held in one of the most prestigious hotels in Toronto. The event will begin will with an extravagant cocktail party in the presidential suite of the hotel which is where the chairman of the summit will stay.

If you haven’t guessed by now, I am the chairman of the summit………….. “You know what Daddy got? Daddy got hosed!” I was fortunate to spend my two days in Philadelphia with a couple of Canadians from Toronto who lifted my spirits by telling how lax the process was, even after the deadline has passed. I even listened to the news reports and heard how accommodating the officials were, letting passengers through customs with a warning. “Don’t worry all you need is a driver’s license and a copy of the passport. Not a problem, eh!

Today was the Day of Judgment; could the unstoppable force defeat the immoveable object? With the eager anticipation of a child running down the stairs for Christmas, I dashed to the counter with my story and limited documentation. I smiled and politely explained the situation. Like a bug hitting the windshield at highway speeds, my day was over. The rest is somewhat a blur. I seem to recall saying “You don’t understand you mindless ape, if I’m not traveling to Toronto today; I have no need of f---cking rescheduling on another one of your f---cking flights.” The last thing I remember for sure was being escorted off of airport property by the security guards. Needless to say this is going to cost me a few dozen cavity searches, before the system decides I’ve been reformed and rehabilitated.

The best part is that I have a total of five days to complete the passport application process before my flight to Australia. I’m sure the lead story coverage on the five o’clock news program featuring me will help the processors in New Orleans get the message, that a crazed psycho is planning a trip to the Big Easy if a passport does shown up in a day or two.

As I peer over the smoking wreckage of today, I recognize that in my entire professional career that I have never had a belly flog from the high dive that even comes close to this one. Do not assume that statement means that my professional career is void of miscalculations, misunderstandings, mistakes, bad judgments and total lapses of mental functioning. Quite the contrary I’m a walking poster boy for stupid dog tricks. What makes this belly flop so monumental is that it exceeds by far all the other stupid actions of a generally mistake prone career. As I search to find meaning in the events of the day, attempting to extract wisdom, I am at a complete loss. Someone needs to paint the picture for me, show me the great spiritual purpose, and mentor me in understanding the cosmic forces at work, because all I’m coming up with is “Sometimes you eat the bar, and sometimes, well, he eats you, eh!”

“Failure is simply the opportunity to begin again, this time more intelligently.”
Henry Ford