Category: Graphs & Graphics

For those who require a graphical representation of concepts.

Dredging Children

Duncan

Right now there are 43 million working women in the United States. While the feminization of the workplace is good news for women seeking to establish a career, it has created a significant shift in our understanding of family and gender roles. The traditional expectations placed on women to raise children and tend the home have eroded, and while this has granted freedom to women, the fact is that child rearing is a necessary part of life. With more women choosing to make their careers a priority, the task of raising children is now falling on a relatively new and untested mother: the child care system.

There are about 20 million children between the ages of 0 and 4 in the United States, and around 13 million of them are enrolled in regular child care. There are 819,000 daycare facilities nationwide, varying from nannies and small neighborhood operations to large-scale facilities. Enrollment may be expensive, costing up to $16,000 per year (depending on the location and level of care). In total, the United States will spend about $70 billion on child care in 2013, which averages to $5,384 per child. This may not seem like an extraordinary amount of money, but with nearly 30% of families headed by only one parent, and the median annual income for single mothers being a mere $32,000, child care can become a serious expense.

Many parents note that, apart from affordability, there are availability issues that often require them to place their children on waitlists. Although the child care industry continues to grow, it’s failing to meet the demand. This puts parents in difficult situations, sometimes forcing them to choose between working and caring for their children. Because of this, many parents are forced to use unregulated child care, which has resulted in some alarming stories of neglect, abuse and even death. In a recent interview, The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn summed up the state of child care this way, “We have this awful situation where the daycare we have isn’t good enough, and yet it’s also too expensive for many families to afford.”

In a somewhat ironic turn of events, women are increasingly finding themselves turning to child care as a career. A vast majority of child care workers, upward of 95%, are female. With 1.5 million women professionally caring for children, perhaps the migration of women into the workplace is less of a liberating endeavor than initially thought.

A possible solution to these issues could be to replace child care facilities with child care factories. Fully automated, open all hours and built to meet standardized health and safety requirements, the child care factory uses modern industrial machinery to streamline the process of caring for young humans. Although mechanization may be a nemesis of job creation, it’s worth noting that the influx of 43 million women into the labor force did not collapse the job market.

The above image is an example of the general layout of a child care factory. Parents enter the lot in their vehicle, drive around to the rear of the building and place their children in the drop-off window. After doing so, the parent receives a receipt later used to obtain the child. Once placed in the window, the children are then stripped, tagged and cataloged into inventory while gleefully tumbling along a conveyor belt before plummeting a short distance into a large ball pit. The children, or items, then spend the duration of their visit blissfully suspended in the pit while a mixture of classical music and educational material plays from speakers overhead.

While in the pit, cameras capture the events while the items’ vital signs are monitored by the tags they received upon entry. If an item exhibits an abnormal heartbeat, breathing rate or other signs of medical crisis, they would immediately be removed from the pit, and the appropriate parties would be notified, whether that be the parents, paramedics or supervising factory staff. Also, if a parent was inclined to check the status of their child, they could monitor the factory’s inventory on the company’s website or call an automated answering service, which would politely guide them through a series of unnessecary options.

The side view above shows some of the inner workings of the factory, including the ball-sanitation pump, which continuously removes and sterilizes the plastic balls before returning them to the pit. Also visible is the dredging claw and pneumatic cylinder. The claw is comprised of a pleasant, robust material as to avoid damaging children as they are gently snared in its soothing hooks.

The items also receive nourishment from the nutritious coating that is continuously applied to the balls after cleaning. This solution provides the perfect balance of vitamins, minerals, fat and protien that a growing child requires. And since children can’t help but attempt to put everything in their mouths, they actually feed themselves.

When a parent is ready to pick up their child, they simply drive through the pickup window and scan their receipt. The item is then located using tag and a portion of the claw extends to dredge them from the pit. The item is then placed on a conveyor belt and sanitized before appearing at the pickup window along with its clothing. The parent then places the child in the vehicle and continues about their business.

Industrialization has proven to increase safety in areas such as food production and product assembly, so it seems feasible to entrust our offspring to its lifeless, metallic arms. After all, we never leave prized possessions with strangers.

Concerning Keys: Part II

Duncan

In part I we learned a little about the origin of the modern QWERTY keyboard layout, as well as some alternatives. However, there is much more to modern keyboards, specifically personal computer keyboards, than the arrangement of the 26 letters of the alphabet. Let’s explore the rest of the keys and functions and consider how the standard design might be improved.

Despite the general contentment toward standard keyboards, there have been revisions over the years. Space is limited on laptop computers, which has resulted in many condensed layouts that remove the lesser used keys. Some desktop models have extra keys along the top or side which can be used to quickly access the Internet browser, volume control and other common functions. High end gaming keyboards add glowing lights and special keys tailored to meet the needs of gamers, distracting them from the realization that they spent the entire day alone in a dark room pretending to be an Elvish sorceress. Google’s Chromebooks use a layout that features, among more common changes, an interesting adjustment: the replacement of Caps Lock with a Search key. However innovative and helpful these ideas may seem, they are insignificant compared to the advancement in computer processing power.

In 1993, Intel released the revolutionary Pentium processor. This technological wonder oscillated at a blistering 60 MHz, which means that it could perform 60 million calculations per second. 20 years later, Intel’s i7-3690x features 6 cores, each of which operate at 3.33 GHz, making it about 333 times faster than the first Pentium, even though its name isn’t as inspiring. Despite these incredible internal advancements, computer interface design has largely remained stagnant. If we ever expect to swipe floating transparent controls, like Tony Stark, we’re going to have to move a little quicker.

It could be argued that the recent popularization of touchscreens in mobile devices is an interface advancement, but both touchscreens and holograms, while visually stimulating, share a weakness that prevents them from replacing the keyboard. The problem is that touchscreen and hologram controls are visual, not tactile. This forces the user to look at the interface in order to interact with it. This may not seem like a serious issue, but the speed and accuracy with which a user can use the machine largely depends on the ability to simultaneously input commands while receiving information. If the user’s attention is focused the interface, then the user isn’t observing the results of their commands. Also, the gestures used in touchscreens and holograms, while intuitive and impressive, require far more time and effort than striking a key. So instead of waiting around for a new technology to solve our problems, let’s work with what we have and make the keyboard as effective as possible.

In order to determine the most efficient use of space on the keyboard, we must know a few things. First, how many keys are necessary, second, what functions they should perform, and third, how they should be arranged. Once we understand the needs of users, we can use the principles of part I to construct an optimal layout.

Although a standard computer keyboard has only 104 keys, the number of possible functions is actually much higher because modifier keys, such as Shift, Control, Alt and the Windows key, can be used to alter the function of other keys. Technically, every key on the keyboard could be used as a modifier, which means that the total number of functions would the factorial of the total number of keys divided by the factorial of the number of keys minus the length of the key combination.

N = K! / (K – L)!

So if we’re only hitting only one key at a time, the answer is obvious.

104! / (104 – 1)! = 104

Now let’s see how many two-key combinations we can make.

104! / (104 – 2)! = 10,712

So the the number of permutations using only two keys is an astounding 10,712. This means that users can access 10,712 unique functions by moving only two fingers. If we used all of the keys to perform one command, the total number of key combinations would be a far larger number.

104! / (104 – 104)! = 1.0299 * 10 ^ 166

Now we obviously aren’t going to use all 104 keys to perform one function, and it’s also unlikely that we would use every key as a modifier, but even with only the standard modifier keys, we still have 2,304 distinct five-key combinations. However, of the 104 keys found on a standard keyboard, about 82 are used consistently (66 if the numeric pad is omitted). Of those 82 keys, only 57 are accessible without moving at a hand away from the letter keys, and a mere 40 can be used without straying from the default typing position.

It’s also important to note that many of the keys are duplicated, including the number and arrow keys, Insert, Delete, Home and End. The total number of redundant functions on a standard keyboard is an alarming 28. This reveals how inconsequential the addition of a Search key would be, which brings us to the second issue: the function of keys.

The function of most keys is actually quite different from their title. This is because the computer keyboard was designed many years ago, and it was intended for purposes quite different from those of today. The 12 numbered function keys along the top of the keyboard, for example, were created to perform special commands in a outside of the normal range in a command line interface. Although desktop computers still include them, they serve almost no purpose in modern computing. Another example of a residual key is Break/Pause, which originated with telegraphs as a way of interrupting the circuit.

Some keyboards have removed or renamed these dated keys, but still fail to make changes of significance. This is largely because of the versatility that a keyboard offers, since the function of keys can be defined by software. In other words, keys can do different things depending on which program the user is running, so their name is not important.

So now we know that 104 keys is far more than necessary. We also know that many keys are neglected vestiges and that their labels are inaccurate and, therefore, irrelevant. As far as the arrangement of the keys is concerned, this is a more complex task, since analyzing letter patterns in typing is much easier than determining how frequently, and for what purposes, users employ computer-specific keys. This is because computers have far more uses than a typewriter and each of those uses has its own optimal layout. This makes it impossible to construct a solution that perfectly caters to every users needs. However, it’s undeniable that a more efficient keyboard design in general would increase the efficiency and comfort of nearly all computer users, so let’s take a look at an alternative that takes these discoveries into consideration.

The most significant change to notice is that the function keys, numeric pad, arrow keys and other outer keys have been removed and now exist as alternate functions on the more accessible keys. This is because it’s much easier to simply use a modifier key than to move a hand to another area of the keyboard. The optimized QWUIO layout features fewer keys, only 49 in total, but more modifiers, with 14. Notice that none of these 14 keys are labeled with a specific function. This is because labeling can restrict the utility or confuse the user, since their function will vary based on the user’s needs. And as far as lock keys are concerned, there really isn’t any reason need for them, since a modifier could be locked or unlocked by simply pressing the key twice in rapid succession.

Now 49 keys might seem like too few, especially for those who have been frustrated by tiny laptop keyboards, but the reason why new layouts fail to take hold is because, like the Colemark, they attempt to innovate and accommodate. No one can serve two masters. The 49 key QWUIO layout, with its 14 modifier keys, actually has 365 times as many five-key functions as a standard keyboard, and each one can be accessed without moving a hand away from the letter keys.

The space bar has also been separated into four different keys. This may seem like a frustrating adjustment, but on a standard keyboard, our 2 most powerful digits are dedicated to the pressing of only 1 key. It’s likely that our thumbs can be entrusted with a little more responsibility. This is especially true if we consider that game console controller’s almost exclusively employ the thumbs.

There are also a few common multi-key functions that have been bound to a specific key, such as cut, copy and paste, undo and redo. A Lock key has also been added, which could be used in conjunction with one or more modifiers to enable a customized mode, layout or language.

It’s important to remember that the ideas suggested in this alternative layout are meant to spur the mind to imagine what kind of innovations are possible, rather than provide a concrete solution. Perhaps one day we will transcend the requirement to communicate with computers through our fingertips altogether, instead using thoughts or dramatic hand gestures, but until then, we should be making the most of our situation.

Concerning Keys: Part I

Duncan

Since the creation of the mechanical typewriter in the early 19th century, and subsequent popularization, our writing habits have been on a steady trajectory toward tool-assisted methods. One commonly debated issue among early inventors was the layout of the keys, which originally resembled those of a piano more than modern computer keyboards. An inventor of the first commercially successful typewriter, Christopher Sholes, at the advice of his friend, designed the predominant alphabetical layout, known as QWERTY.

The name QWERTY comes from the arrangement of the first five letters in the upper left corner. The design aimed at reducing jamming caused by the rapid pressing of nearby keys. In order to resolve this issue, Sholes separated common combinations of keys, such as HE, AN, ND and EN. The result was slower typing but less jamming, which meant that the overall speed of entry was increased.

Some might be startled to learn that they are needlessly typing more slowly, but attempts to introduce more efficient layouts have failed. In 1936, Dr. August Dvorak and Dr. William Dealy patented a design intended to increase typing speed by reducing the average distance required for fingers to travel between keys. Since some letters are more common than others, moving the more common letters into easy-to-reach locations supposedly made typing faster and less awkward.

Although studies of DVORAK’s effectiveness have yielded contrasting results, the creation of a more efficient key layout is a step that many believe should be taken. Part of the reason for inconsistency could be the difficulty in transitioning to an unfamiliar system. This idea lead to the creation of the Colemark keyboard layout, which was less efficient than DVORAK, but was thought to be an easier transition for those accustomed to QWERTY. However, the difficulty involved in revolutionizing an established system is impossible to circumvent, so the adaptation should make the most of such inconvenience and provide the greatest possible improvement. Colemark is only a marginal upgrade from QWERTY and would still require drastic changes in habit, documentation and industry standards. Transitioning to the DVORAK layout would require the same changes, but offer greater efficiency. But is DVORAK really the most efficient keyboard layout?

In order to determine where the letter keys should rest, we must first examine the basics of typing. On modern keyboards, the correct inactive position for the hands is to have the index fingers resting on the keys with small bumps (the letters F and J in QWERTY) with the remaining fingers on each hand resting on their corresponding adjacent keys (the letters A, S, D on the left hand, and K, L, ; in the right hand). Proper typing practice teaches that the nearest finger to the desired key should reach out from its default position, strike the key and return. The goal is to have the fingers do the work while the hands hover motionless above the keyboard. This is because we have nearly 6 times as many fingers as hands, each of which can be moved more quickly and accurately than a hand.

Now that we know where our hands should rest, we can extrapolate the general area in which the letters should be placed. Since it’s most efficient to keep our hands still, it would make sense to keep the most commonly used keys within reach of the our fingers from the resting position, but here’s where things get complicated. Some of our fingers are stronger and more obedient than others, namely the index and middle fingers, which means that some key locations are easier to reach than others.

So now that we know the real estate value on a keyboard, the next step should be to simply place the most commonly used keys in the easiest to reach locations, but before we can proceed, we must take a closer look at the intricacies of typing.

As we’ve seen with numbers, some letters are more common than others, but there are also more common letter combinations and patterns. In addition, not all finger movements are equally fluid; it’s been shown that our fingers more easily move to and from the upper row than the lower. The most difficult movement is known as hurdling, which is when a finger leaps over the center row to reach the next key (as with the letters CR or MY in QWERTY). Also, most words involve a great deal of alternation between consonants and vowels, as with the word populate, and since we can type more quickly by alternating hands, it would make sense to keep vowels on one side of the keyboard.  It’s also important to note that the inner letters of the keyboard (Y, G, H, B in QWERTY) can draw the hand away from the default position, especially if the typist has small hands. On top of all that, most people are right handed, which means that the right hand is slightly more agile than the left, making the keys on the right side of the keyboard slightly more accessible.

In light of these important details, an ideal keyboard layout should follow these rules:

  1. The most common letters should be placed in the most easily reached locations, preferably on the right side.
  2. Vowels and common consonants should be kept on opposing ends of the keyboard.
  3. Letters that are commonly used together should be placed in locations that allow for the easiest transition.

Presenting the most efficient keyboard layout ever conceived: QWUIO.

There are a few key differences to note in the QWUIO layout. First of all, as with DVORAK, all of the vowels are moved to the left side. Unlike DVORAK, however, all of the vowels fall in the center or upper row, within reach of the index and middle fingers. Another important change is the positioning of the period, comma and apostrophe in the center of the keyboard. This allows for the hand to return to the default position while the space bar is struck by the thumb. In addition to being an uncommon letter, K also ends many words, so it is included in the center keys.

In order to better understand the improvements offered by this QWUIO, let’s compare the placement of the most commonly used letters.

As we can see, QWERTY does a good job of relegating uncommon letters and punctuation to the outer regions, but seems purposeless in its placement of the more common letters, even seeming to favor the left hand slightly. DVORAK, on the other hand, obviously focuses attention on center row, but heavily favors the use of the weaker outer digits. QWUIO aims to employ the index and middle fingers as much as possible while promoting a steady hand position. Now let’s compare how well our layouts conform to common key combinations.

The QWERTY layout does a decent job of placing common key combinations in accessible locations, with few resting in optimal locations and few in poor locations. DVORAK places more keys in optimal locations, but at the cost of shifting many to poor locations. The QWUIO system, on the other hand, exceeds DVORAK’s improvements without making sacrifices, with over half of the keys directly beneath the resting position of the index and middle fingers. But what about the movement between the keys in a combination? What about alternating hands and hurdling?

This test reveals that QWERTY and DVORAK perform at a surprisingly similar level, allowing typists to access common combinations with general ease, but again, with DVORAK shifting some keys to sub-optimal locations in an attempt to increase efficiency. Although none of the three layouts require hurdling or the use of the outer-most keys, the QWUIO layout allows typists to execute a startling 90% of combinations using only the most effective movements and never asks typists to make any awkward maneuvers.

In part II we will discuss the relationship between keyboard layout and more advanced computer functions. We’ll also explore additional sections of the keyboard, including the number keys, arrow keys and the numeric keypad, as well as the function, modifier and lock keys.

Series

Duncan

If your goal was to own the fastest Mercedes-Benz sedan, which of the following would you most prefer?

  • S
  • SL
  • SLK
  • SLS
  • E
  • C
  • CL
  • CLA
  • CLS

The correct answer is the SLS, which takes a short 3.8 seconds to accelerate from 0 to 100 km/h. Although this fact may be common knowledge to motor enthusiasts, neither the vehicle’s speed nor any other attribute can be inferred from the model name alone. This isn’t surprising, since automobiles generally do not derive their name from specifications. However, this may cause some to wonder why a company would create a system of letters and numbers to identify their products, yet avoid using those letters and numbers to describe them.

There are generally two approaches to naming products. The first is to assign product names individually, as is commonly done with with pets and children. Automobile names are usually taken from an animal, location or native tribe in an attempt to summon imagery of strength, prestige and speed in the minds of consumers. Although the name may not describe any of the vehicle’s specifications, it usually embodies some of its characteristics.

The Dodge Magnum, for example, gives the impression of a powerful, dangerous weapon, while the Ford Fiesta’s title implies that driving the car is like having a party. There are cases where the vehicle’s title doesn’t quite fit, as it did with the Dodge Shadow, which is in no way a dark or sinister machine. In fact, the Plymouth Sundance, despite having nearly the complete opposite name as the Shadow, is actually the same vehicle.

There isn’t anything wrong with using individual names, other than the fact that they usually don’t communicate any significant information about the product. This brings us to the second option.

The other route to naming products is to implement a system of alphanumeric codes. Although products named in this fashion lack the unique symbolism of an individual name, there are several significant advantages to this method. First, the release of each new model does not require the creation of a name. Second, these names sound technical and cool. Finally, and most importantly, key product information can be easily deciphered from these codes, but only if the codes are implemented with care.

Product codes may reflect one or more of the product’s traits, including release date, size, speed, color or series. BMW, for example, names its vehicles with a three digit number, followed by one or two letters. The first digit of the number represents the vehicle’s series, which describes the body size and other details. The following two digits indicate performance, and the letters describe various options, including automatic transmission, fuel injection or a convertible roof.

One mistake that those at BMW made when they conceived of this system was that they limited their capacity to release new series of vehicles. By using single digit numbers, BMW essentially proclaimed that they would never introduce more than two models smaller than the 3 series, and no more than one model between the 3 and 5 or 5 and 7 series. Although there have been changes, additions and exceptions to the BMW codification, their system remains a useful and straightforward example of the implementation of product codes.

There are many examples of product codes that do more to confuse than to educate. Nvidia’s GeForce line of computer graphics cards have suffered from a lack of clear and consistent product coding. In modern GeForce codification, the first digit of the model number represents the generation, while the remaining numbers indicate performance. There is usually a prefix, a suffix or both a prefix and suffix attached to the model number, which also indicates performance.

Although the model numbers, prefixes and suffixes do have meaning, the actual specifications of the product are impossible to extract from the product code alone. For example, the GTX 690 has double the amount of memory of the 680, but the 680 has the same memory as the 670. To cause further confusion, the 680 model also has a higher clock speed than the 690, which was touted as the most powerful card in the 600 series.

Now aside from using an inconsistent system for identifying individual products, the many generations of GeForce graphics cards have not been named in the same way. The first generation was strangely named the GeForce 256, which was succeeded by the GeForce 2. The GeForce 3 and 4 followed, but then the numeric succession was interrupted by the GeForce FX. The coding then returned to the previous pattern with the releases of the GeForce 6, 7, 8 and 9. However, when Nvidia announced its 10th generation of graphics cards, there was an adjustment. Since the 4th generation, most of the model numbers had been four digits long, which meant that the 10th generation would roll them over to a five digit number. To avoid such extensive product codes, the 10th generation was christened the 100 series. Since then, each generation has added 100 to previous generation’s code.

Another possible area of confusion is that series and model names are often largely arbitrary. In the examples above, the numbers don’t actually represent anything other than the relation between products, which isn’t even proportionally accurate. To avoid this, Samsung coded its televisions according to the size of the screen, the type of display and the number of features. By linking product codes to actual, meaningful specifications, Samsung’s products may all be easily identified by their product code.

When planning to implement a system of codes for products, whether for inventory or product naming purposes, be sure to follow these simple rules:

  1. Have your codes represent key product information.
  2. Leave room for new codes.
  3. Be consistent.
  4. Don’t use the letter X.

Ideally, product codes should include the greatest amount of relevant information that can be conveyed while remaining concise and legible. As an exercise, examine the following examples of product names:

  1. Nintendo
    • Nintento Entertainment System (NES)
    • Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES)
    • Nintendo 64 (N64)
    • Gamecube (GCN)
    • Wii
    • Wii U
  2. Sony
    • Playstation (PS1)
    • Playstation 2 (PS2)
    • Playstation 3 (PS3)
    • Playstation 4 (PS4)
  3. Microsoft
    • Xbox
    • Xbox 360
    • Xbox One

Now try to determine which of these companies has implemented a logical and informative series of codes, which one is mostly using individual names and which company has backed itself into a corner with a poorly devised system.

Knee Deep in the Dead

Duncan

No one knows exactly what happens to our consciousness when we die, but we do know what happens to our bodies: they rot. Flesh festers and decays, bone and sinew dissolve and the elements that once formed us are cycled back into the Earth. At least that’s what happens if we don’t interfere with the natural process.

Humans have always been fascinated with death, particularly death of those of our species. Because of this fixation, and also our attachment to those who have departed the world of the living, death rituals are an important practice in every culture.

A death ritual is a ceremony held shortly after the death of a member of society, which honors and commemorates their life through speech, dance or song.

The precise purpose of a death ritual can vary, but they are generally viewed as a sort of final farewell that releases a soul into the afterlife, honors the life of the deceased and offers closure to those left behind. Although these ceremonies share common purposes, their executions are unique and can be shocking to the unfamiliar.

The preparation of the body may involve a number of different customs, including dismemberment, mummification or even applying makeup and dressing it in fine clothing. The final ceremony may involve burying, burning or eating the corpse. Many of these customs seem vile and heretical to Western folk, for we predominantly bury our loved ones and seldom interact with the body. What’s interesting is that of all the ways to dispose of a dead body, burial in a marked grave is the only unsustainable method.

By assigning a small plot of land to each person, every member of society receives a shrine in their honor. Each grave is marked with a stone that bears a brief inscription epitomizing the person’s values and accomplishments. Because of our respect for the dead, these memorials are expected to remain undisturbed. However, this practice cannot continue indefinitely. Eventually our cemeteries will fill, requiring that we devote more and more land to those unable to appreciate our efforts.

This isn’t a threat that many are worried about, since cemeteries now occupy only a very small portion of developed land, which is only a fraction of the 150,000,000 square kilometers of land on our planet, but at some point we must address this issue.

Allowing for reasonable spacing between graves, each plot would require about 6 square meters, which means that the Earth could accommodate around 25,000,000,000 graves. If we inaccurately assume that our population and annual mortality rate remain constant, at 7,000,000,000 and .86% respectively, and that burial soon becomes the official worldwide death ritual, it will be a short 446 years before the entire globe is transformed into a graveyard.

It’s possible that the reason we abandon our world and take to the stars in search of a new home won’t be war, pollution or overpopulation (at least in the conventional sense), but that this planet’s overrun by the remains of our ancestors. It’s true that 2459 is a long way off, and that things could change by that time, but we could be losing 336,000,000 square meters of land every year – land that could be used to benefit the living.

Rather than fearing that the dead rise from their graves, perhaps we should fear that they remain there.

The Nature of Competition: Part II

Duncan Leave a comment

In part I we discussed the different forms of competition, the origin of sport and the difference between direct and indirect competition. Now we will explore the role of competition in other areas and determine whether it’s actually a constructive behavior.

As we discussed earlier, the major function of competition in nature is to ensure the survival of those most fit for their environment. Modern human competition is used to propel ourselves to achieve new levels of excellence and elevate those who are more talented or dedicated. Competition is a wonderful thing for those who succeed, but as Charles Schulz reminds us, “Nobody remembers who came in second.”

Beyond the podium, in silent locker rooms and on long drives home, the unremembered contemplate the purpose of their efforts. Failure is a necessary component in competition; there’s no way round it. Even the most innocent and well-meaning contests produce failure. These failures are not incidental, but a requirement in order to produce the successes, for a competition without losers is not considered legitimate.

By asking individuals to compete against each other, we are demanding failure. We’re taking pleasure in watching people devote their lives to something and come up short. This reveals how competition is actually a cruel experiment carried out by fans, coaches and parents. By enticing individuals with visions of fame and fortune, while planting false ideas of superiority and a right to win, competitors are conduced to compete, and often fail, for our amusement. But when disappointment falls on those who didn’t achieve their goal, their only consolation is that they may have a chance to redeem themselves. This cycle can continue indefinitely, when a simple cost-benefit analysis of would easily determine that competition is a poor investment.

We may attempt to excuse ourselves from responsibility by proposing that failure is a result of inadequacy, but the fact is that it will come to most, regardless of their efforts. In addition, competition has no sense of justice, so there is no guarantee that the most deserving will be victorious.

Another fundamental part of competition is enmity. Competition is conflict, and in order to have conflict, we must have an us and a them. It is essential that we detach ourselves from those we compete against, for our actions may directly result in their failure. Some competitors intentionally disassociate themselves with their competitors or even foster feelings of hatred in order to compete more intensely or without the restrictions that come with viewing an opponent as a fellow human being. Although there can be great respect between opponents, this relationship is hardly worthy of admiration. There cannot be unity between competitors, for in striving for the same goal we are actually stealing from others what they do not yet possess. There is a limited number of awards to be won, so the aim of each participant is to look out only for themselves, even at the cost of others. This may not be considered theft in the conventional way, but it is by our actions that our opponents are robbed of their prize.

This is also true in the world of business. Looking through the lens of nature, if sport is a dramatization of survival, then economic competition is an embodiment of the battle to feed. Much like blind pups suckling for sustenance, or wild dogs clashing for a piece of a kill, businesses compete to get a larger share of the market. Unlike in many sports, the aim of business competitors is not necessarily the elimination of their opponents, though that is sometimes the case. However, since they are often striving for the same goal, the competition can still be extremely fierce.

Because of the influence of capitalism and our confidence in the competitive market, the competition between businesses seems like an acceptable and upright practice, but the truth of the matter is that many honest, hardworking individuals are regularly driven into poverty. There is no room for empathy in competition, and as we already touched on, no role for justice, since there is no assurance that honest efforts will be rewarded or that underhanded deeds will be punished.

Another example of human competition can be seen in struggle for social superiority. Individuals compete to be the most popular and well-liked because we derive value from the knowledge of how we are perceived by others. This motivates us to keep up with, or surpass, those around us in whatever categories we deem important. Whether it be a measure of wealth, beauty or accomplishment, we can’t help but create competition with those around us.

Unlike official contests, these social arms races are conducted in silence, without terms or rules, and they are eternal. There is no beginning or end and no declaration of winners or losers in social competition, only the vague sense of comfort and supremacy that comes with being better at life than others. Social competition is indirect, since we rarely interfere with others’ quest for material excellence, but the frustration and sadness of those trapped below are definitely real. When we show off our new house, toned figure or gold medal to our neighbor, we could be subjecting them to feelings of inferiority, whether or not we are aware that we are competing.

Shall we continue to raise our children to view other people as enemies, to prioritize themselves above others and to subject themselves to failure for our amusement? Shall we chase success at the cost of the misery and failure of others, like ravenous beasts?

Tang

Duncan Leave a comment

With a consumer economy that fosters a rampant appetite for new and exciting superficial experiences, it’s not surprising that some of the products appearing on our shelves seem excessive or odd. Found among them: a myriad of synthetically flavored food products.

Synthetic (or artificial) flavoring is the process of simulating a flavor rather than relying on the ingredient(s) from which the flavor is originally derived. This allows us to experience a virtually infinite combination of textures and flavors. An example of this would be orange soda, which contains no oranges, yet tastes, to a limited extent, like an orange.

Artificial flavoring should not be confused with natural flavoring, in which a flavor is added by the introduction of authentic ingredients. An example of this would be chocolate milk, which acquires its chocolaty flavor directly from the chocolate contained therein. Most would agree that synthetic flavoring is the inferior method, but natural flavoring is more restrictive due to the fact that natural ingredients are expensive, don’t always fuse together properly, and may have an undesirable texture. Though artificially flavored food is often lacking in nutrition, there is an even worse process – one which produces items that border on inedibility.

Tertiary flavoring uses existing, recognized food products, not ingredients, as the basis for the creation of flavor. Basically, this means that food is being flavored to imitate other food, instead of a single flavor. Examples of tertiary flavoring include cheeseburger-flavored potato chips, cinnamon bun-flavored ice cream and pizza-flavored salad dressing. However, contrary to what the product’s title implies, pizza is not a flavor.

The term flavor carries a connotation that suggests a raw, elemental state as well as a distinct identity. Although pizza does produce a unique and memorable sensation when in the mouth, what we’re actually experiencing is the combined flavor of a variety of different ingredients, including cheese, tomato sauce and fingernails. To better illustrate tertiary flavoring, let’s take a closer look at the origin of cinnamon bun-flavored ice cream.

cinnamon (flavor) + bun (food) = cinnamon bun (flavored food)

cinnamon bun (flavored food) + ice cream (food) = cinnamon bun-flavored ice cream (food-flavored food)

The idea of food-flavored food is obviously ridiculous. Flavors are colors, not pictures – attributes, not objects. To make things worse, food-flavored food is almost always flavored synthetically, since, as mentioned earlier, it can be costly and difficult to add food to food.

On top of that, everyone knows that food is made of ingredients, not food. If we looked at the back of a bag of birthday cake mix, we would hope that the ingredient list wouldn’t just say “birthday cake.” Birthday cake tastes like birthday cake because it contains the ingredients that come together to form that particular flavor, not because it contains birthday cake. Likewise, if we looked up a recipe for fettuccine Alfredo, we would expect a detailed list of steps and ingredients to help us create the dish, not “acquire fettuccine Alfredo.”

Some claim that pizza and cinnamon bun are legitimate flavors because they are uniquely recognizable, but if we accept this line of thinking, then cinnamon bun-flavored ice cream is also a flavor. And if that’s the case, then one day we could see cinnamon bun-flavored ice cream flavored coffee, or worse.

Don’t buy food-flavored food.