Gadgets just make things more Complicated

You are probably familiar with the Microsoft Office Labs vision of what 2020 might be like. Its in the video below if you haven't seen it before.


However I want to point out something of interest...

The gadgets don't actually make your life easier. They just make everything more complicated and time-consuming. Yes, they look kewl and interesting, but most of the time (99% or so) people are just wasting time on such things and not actually "building" anything.

Now in the video they do, eventually, design a rooftop garden for buildings in the future. Which is a nice idea, absolutely. But did they really need to use all those gadgets to design such a thing?

Nope. They could have done it a lot faster the "old fashioned way" and not wasted all that time playing with their toys.

Which begs the question... will so much of our society in the future be spent twiddling with gadgets and designing stuff (that rarely gets built) or will be actually putting our skills to use and BUILDING things.

I chalk it up to wasted "manpower". Take Britain for example, which has just over 2.5 million unemployed people right now (not counting me, I'm a professional writer).

That is 2.5 million people who could be building things. Building homes. Bridges. Roads. Parks. Rooftop gardens. Greenhouses. Windmills. Solar panels. Building things that would make Britain even more amazing than it already is.

Now what would it cost to employ 2.5 million people and give them a decent salary? Say 50,000£ per year (about $80,000 USD). Well it would cost £125 billion per year.

Now I admit 50,000£ is a lot. The average annual wage in the UK is actually 36,000£. So maybe we don't need to spend that much.

£90 billion would cover it and give those 2.5 million an "average job" building things that make the UK a greater place.

Well... let me put it this way.

The UK already spends £190 billion on "social protection services" every year. Another £119 billion on health care. £88 billion on education. £38 billion on defense. And so forth.

The pie chart on the right is from the 2009-2010 fiscal year.

So an extra £90 billion to give every unemployed person in the UK a job building stuff isn't actually that big of a deal. It is, ahem, controversial and a wild idea, but it would solve a host of problems simultaneously.

#1. It would pretty much eradicate unemployment and homelessness. As long as people are willing to work, they will automatically have a job waiting for them.

#2. Crime/theft would drop dramatically. People who have jobs have little reason to steal things if they are making a decent wage.

#3. Foreign investors would flock to the UK because our economy would be booming. Once the initial stages pass the private sector would start hiring more people and the amount of money being used for "building things" would drop dramatically over time.

#4. The UK government would get most of their investment back in income taxes anyway. Not just the newly employed people, but from everyone else as well. Why? Because people would be spending more, which means other companies will be making more, which means they too would be paying more in income taxes.

#5. More people doing manual labour means more people who are exercising as part of their daily routine. This would boost the overall health of the country. Which means health care costs would decline a bit.

HOWEVER THERE IS A BIG FLAW IN MY IDEA

And it is that many people simply refuse to do manual labour.

Pick up a shovel and do work with my hands? Pff!

I think this is because many British people now have this sense of entitlement, that they don't "need" to work. Myself included. I'm a writer / former teacher. I've never worked a manual labour job beyond when I did some gardening during high school.

But if someone offered me a job in a greenhouse tending plants, I would do it. I think that would be an awesome job. (I love greenhouses.)

The same thing is true of Canada and the USA. Nobody over there is willing to pick apples or do agricultural work. So instead they import hardworking Mexicans to do all the work instead. And its not just farming either... the food services industry is mostly Mexican and Asian people. Why? Because most white people are too proud to work in McDonalds.

White people are, frankly, lazy and feel overly-entitled. Many of them think they are too good for manual labour. They went to college or university, they got a diploma or a degree, but they cannot find work in their chosen degree because frankly how many psychologists and social studies majors does the world really need?

No. The real jobs are in manufacturing and in building / growing things. Which is why places like China, Taiwan, Japan, etc are now manufacturing superpowers compared to many other countries - because they mass produce things and their employees do it for relatively little - and they're not too proud to refuse to do the work.

Our Arrogance Will Be Our Downfall

Life With/Without a Cat

Cuz Cats are Funny regardless of what you do.

Pregnancy Complications = Death

Complications of pregnancy results in the deaths of an estimated 70,000 teen girls in developing countries (second world countries) each year. In third world countries the rates are even higher. Overall half a million women die every year in childbirth due to complications.

So what is it like in the developed country like the UK, Canada or the USA?

Honestly, its not much better.

In the USA pregnancy is the leading cause of death for young women ages 15 through 19.

Its sad but true.

Certainly things could be done to prevent this, but the truth is that many teenagers who are not fully grown simply are not ready to bear children.

And the fact that health insurance in the USA is lagging behind the rest of the western world doesn't help either.

In the UK, where we have high standards for our hospitals we really are not much better. Part of it is societal. The kind of society the results in children as young as 12 getting pregnant and having babies.

FACT: In the UK girls under 15 are five times more likely to die in pregnancy than women in their 20s.

Its not just the mother's lives who are at risk either. Babies are 60 per cent more likely to die if their mother is under 18.

20 per cent of girls worldwide have their first child before the age of 18. Teen pregnancy living in a third world country is basically a death sentence and its not much better in 2nd or 1st world countries.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that in 2006 there were 435,436 babies born to women ages 15 to 19 in the United States.

Teenagers in the USA are also more likely to have premature births. Premature births are 14.5% for teenage women in the USA, compared to 11.9% for women 20 to 29 years old. Premature babies are often grossly underweight. Babies born weighing less than 3 1/3 pounds are 100 times more likely to die than normal weight babies.

Babies born to teenage girls in the USA under the age of 15 are 240 percent more likely to die during or soon after childbirth.

And if you factor in Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) then the statistics are even higher, since SIDS is much higher with premature / underweight babies...

All in all... teen pregnancy is a huge risk for both the mother and the baby. Even if you live in a developed country like the USA, Canada or the UK it still kills.

What is bizarre is that the majority (70%) of American women who get an abortion is NOT teenagers. Its actually women in their 20s who are single mothers and already have one or more children. They get pregnant AGAIN and decide that one extra mouth to feed is enough.

I think part of the problem is that teenagers think they are immortal and they don't know the risks of teenage pregnancy and that they have great faith in doctors. They think that even if something goes wrong that they will somehow survive. Teenagers are ever immortal optimists.

And its killing them. Pregnancy is the leading cause of death for young women ages 15 through 19.

Something to think about.