Doing the right thing
Apr. 17th, 2007 11:38 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
apparentparadoxSometimes it's hard to do the right thing because it requires us to sacrifice something or put out some extra effort. Sometimes, though, it's hard to do the right thing because it's difficult to determine just what the right thing is. Lately, I've been pondering whether my implicit support of an organization/system just by being a member of said organization/system is really a good thing, and whether it would be better to remove myself from the membership, but it's difficult to know which is the better thing to do. This has come up in both micro and macro areas of my life.
As many people know, I really enjoy square dancing, and I'm generally considered a good dancer. For a while, though, I've been wondering whether my attending certain dances is really a good idea. At a recent event, many of the dancers weren't very good, and the caller wasn't able to call at speed or do anything at all tricky. Most of the people there had been dancing that level for a long time, so it wasn't just a case of someone brand new to the level. These were people who just aren't very good. The success rate on the floor was noticeably worse than other such dances, and I realized that several of the better dancers who often attend weren't present. Without that critical mass, the floor wasn't able to handle the level -- because most of the dancers weren't really able to dance their own part without substantial help. One might ask why the better dancers weren't present? My guess (based on comments I've heard other times) is that they were sick of not being able to dance at speed with interesting material, tired of having weak dancers continually break down the square, and so it just wasn't fun.
The dilemma in that situation is whether it's better for me to boycott similar events or to attend the events. If enough good dancers boycott the event, then all that will be left are the poor dancers, all the squares will break down, and the event will probably fold. On the other hand, if I attend the events, then I'm implicitly supporting a "dumbing down" of square dancing, which is not something that I support.
On a larger scale, I wonder whether living in the Bay Area is providing implicit support for a system that I don't think is sustainable. There are already too many people in the Bay Area for the land to support. Our water must be obtained from hundreds of miles away, the housing prices are too expensive for police/fire staff to live nearby (so they would be essentially unavailable in any emergency), and many people commute from a long distance in cars (leading to congestion and poor air quality).
On yet a larger scale, I wonder whether living in the US provides implicit support for a nation that I find harder and harder to agree with. The war with Iraq is a perfect example: not only do we have a president who lied to get us into a war with no reasonable plans for ending that war,and a congress that worries more about changing the name of "French Fries" in the cafeteria than whether the French might actually be right in asking for good evidence before invading a country, but a population of people who don't understand that reducing our dependence on gasoline would reduce the power that despots in the middle east have. Mark & I have talked about moving to Canada or New Zealand. Maybe it's time to revisit those ideas.
As many people know, I really enjoy square dancing, and I'm generally considered a good dancer. For a while, though, I've been wondering whether my attending certain dances is really a good idea. At a recent event, many of the dancers weren't very good, and the caller wasn't able to call at speed or do anything at all tricky. Most of the people there had been dancing that level for a long time, so it wasn't just a case of someone brand new to the level. These were people who just aren't very good. The success rate on the floor was noticeably worse than other such dances, and I realized that several of the better dancers who often attend weren't present. Without that critical mass, the floor wasn't able to handle the level -- because most of the dancers weren't really able to dance their own part without substantial help. One might ask why the better dancers weren't present? My guess (based on comments I've heard other times) is that they were sick of not being able to dance at speed with interesting material, tired of having weak dancers continually break down the square, and so it just wasn't fun.
The dilemma in that situation is whether it's better for me to boycott similar events or to attend the events. If enough good dancers boycott the event, then all that will be left are the poor dancers, all the squares will break down, and the event will probably fold. On the other hand, if I attend the events, then I'm implicitly supporting a "dumbing down" of square dancing, which is not something that I support.
On a larger scale, I wonder whether living in the Bay Area is providing implicit support for a system that I don't think is sustainable. There are already too many people in the Bay Area for the land to support. Our water must be obtained from hundreds of miles away, the housing prices are too expensive for police/fire staff to live nearby (so they would be essentially unavailable in any emergency), and many people commute from a long distance in cars (leading to congestion and poor air quality).
On yet a larger scale, I wonder whether living in the US provides implicit support for a nation that I find harder and harder to agree with. The war with Iraq is a perfect example: not only do we have a president who lied to get us into a war with no reasonable plans for ending that war,and a congress that worries more about changing the name of "French Fries" in the cafeteria than whether the French might actually be right in asking for good evidence before invading a country, but a population of people who don't understand that reducing our dependence on gasoline would reduce the power that despots in the middle east have. Mark & I have talked about moving to Canada or New Zealand. Maybe it's time to revisit those ideas.