Work makes you free???

Arbeit macht frei (work brings freedom) - a slogan placed at the entrances of Nazi concentration camps

Hombre que trabaja pierde tiempo precioso (a man who works wastes precious time) - Cuban proverb

I recently changed jobs after only one year. I liked my work-colleagues and was sad to leave them, but I quit because the job was mind-numbingly boring and unchallenging, and I'd be damned if I stayed in such a job for too long. I feel lucky and privileged that I am able to turn my back on a job and find something better; most people have no choice but to stay in their jobs, whether they like it or not.
Just the other day, I noticed a policeman directing traffic at an intersection. I imagine that when this guy was a kid, he probably had a burning desire to be a cop; perhaps he idolized TV law-enforcers like Columbo and Starsky & Hutch, and fantasized about hunting down bad guys and bringing them to justice. But there he was - a police constable - and he certainly didn't look happy. I wonder how many teenagers are out there dreaming of becoming taxi-drivers or garbage collectors or office administrators. Yet there are people doing these very jobs - whether they like it or not. And how many people out there would quit their jobs if somebody could guarantee them an annual stipend of 50 or 60 thousand Australian dollars? I'd say that millions of people would jump at such an offer. Would you?

It has been argued that work gives people freedom and prosperity. In fact, in the recent Australian election campaign, the former prime minister constantly reminded us of how "Australians have never been better off". In Australia - as in most of the developed world - the stock market is at near-record highs, and unemployment is very low. Our overall wealth seems to confirm Howard's assertion - but look beneath the surface and you get a different picture. Yes, unemployment is low, but there are many people working in low-paying and part-time jobs who are not counted in the statistics. In addition to this, most of the workforce has experienced a decline in real wages in the past 30 years. In order to reach the standard of living of 30 years ago, most people have to work longer hours. This can be illustrated in the following datum: in the past 20 years, the starting wage for an newly qualified electronic engineer rose by an average of 3.5% per year. In the same period, the average house price in Melbourne rose by 8-10% per year. Hard work pays off less than it used to!
So how come we're so wealthy overall? How come John Howard can brag about the wealth of the Australian people? Wealth comes from capital gains of investments - shares, real estate, businesses; however, in Australia, the wealthiest 10% of households owns 90% of shares (outside of superannuation). The average worker is unable to invest much (if at all) because he/she is unable to save enough. The rich get richer and the working poor are working harder than ever before.
Obviously people have to work to provide food and shelter for themselves and their families - that's enough of a motivation for us to work in jobs we don't like. But there are other motivations: people have come to regard their jobs as means to getting the money needed to purchase items that are being marketed to them. As Madonna sang "we are living in a material world" and people are judged by the goods they possess. We are encouraged to go into debt to buy the consumer goods that advertising companies tell us we need; the message is that life is short, so why wait to buy the things you want? One of the most insidious things I've seen is the way investment strategies are marketed by "respectable" current affairs shows like Today Tonight. Every once in a while on Today Tonight, there is an "inspirational" story of a person who has become fabulously rich by borrowing heavily and gearing into property. We are shown the image of a successful investor driving a flashy car and looking very prosperous with the implied message: "dear viewer, if this average unremarkable person can go from rags to riches, why can't you?" The trouble is that when the average person uses a lot of "other people's money" to fund investments, he/she must work hard to service the debt. And as our wealth increases, so does our spending. All this in the hope of making your dreams come true ... well, the dreams that advertising companies push upon us. I worked with a guy who is still working in a job he hates, and reports to managers he loathes, but he can't quit because he has investment debts to service. Last I heard from him, he was absolutely miserable.
So what's the answer? We can't all work in our dream job, yet we all have to eat. I know of 2 people who seem to have things worked out. John worked very hard for a number of years for the same company. Due to market conditions, he was retrenched from his job and was fortunate enough to receive a generous payout. The payout was enough for him to pay off his mortgage and other debts. With no dependents and financial commitments, he chooses to live off unemployment benefits and enjoys his hobbies. Such a very simple life may not be to everybody's liking but John has never been happier.
Another case is that of Simone. Many years ago, she wrote a small software package and sold it for a small fortune. She invested every cent of the proceeds in the Australian stock market. Today her shares are worth over a million dollars and yielding a gross income of 60,000 Australian dollars. Rather than working and investing to make even more money, she retired at the young age of 40 and now lives a simple yet pleasant life, spending her time writing, painting and occasionally travelling.

Don't fall for the images that advertising companies are trying to sell us; they are carrots used by big corporations to make us work even harder. Ultimately, those ideals will not make us happy, but will only serve to make the greedy corporations richer. Simplify your life; do you really need that plasma TV and that expensive car? If you simplify your life, chances are you'll be much happier and maybe you can be freed from the clutches of the greedy corporate monster.‎ CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST!

How the present shapes the past

"The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense knew we were coming." -- Freeman Dyson

Much has been written about the weirdness of quantum mechanics - for example, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the wave-particle duality of light, and entanglement - however, I've just come across something mind-blowing after reading "The Goldilocks Enigma" by Paul Davies. This quantum weirdness might just explain why life exists - i.e. why the universe is "just right" for life to exist. It can explain why the laws of physics and the constants of nature are just right for life to emerge. It can explain how these laws came to be. The laws of physics can be likened to a kind of software, while the physical universe is like a giant computer - the hardware. The software cannot exist without the hardware, so what role does quantum mechanics have in the cosmic software development?

I recently watched an episode of Doctor Who, called "Blink", in which the Doctor battles against a group of Weeping Angels. The Doctor says that they are quantum-locked; when they are being observed (presumably by conscious beings), they turn to stone. But as soon as nobody is watching, they move quickly and are deadly. A touch sends their victims into the past to live out their lives before they were even born; the Angels then feed on the "potential energy" of the lives their victims would have lived in the present.
Quantum-locked: This is like the quantum weirdness which suggests that the world has no well-defined structure until a mind observes it. This is the weirdness that emerges from the mystery of what happens when the wave function of a quantum system is collapsed by the act of measurement. In quantum mechanics, the wave function is a mathematical expression that gives the probabilities that when a quantum system is measured, certain variables - e.g. position, velocity, spin - will instantly acquire values. These probabilities are not the same as those we face when, say, flipping a coin - which is only due to our ignorance of the forces acting on the coin.
The much-described double-slit experiment illustrates the quantum weirdness very well. In this experiment, light is shone at a solid thin plate that has two slits cut into it. A photographic plate is set up to record what comes through those slits. In the case where the light from both slits arrives at the photographic plate in phase, the waves reinforce each other and produce a bright band. Where they arrive out of phase, they cancel each other out, producing a dark band. Thus we get an interference pattern of bright and dark bands. The remarkable thing is that the same thing happens when the brightness of the light is turned down to the point where single photons are directed toward the double slits - implying that, although each photon passes through only one slit, it somehow interferes with itself(!) causing a pattern to emerge on the photographic plate. Even spookier: if we try to put detectors at the slits to see which one each photon actually goes through, no interference pattern results. If we don't look, the photon exhibits a wavelike behaviour but, as soon as we look, the photon behaves as a particle.



So, what has all this to do with life in the universe? John Wheeler added a new twist to the double-slit experiment; an observer waits until long after the light has passed through the slits before choosing to see which slit the photon went through. By doing this, the interference pattern is destroyed. The observation you have made affects the past - i.e. whether the photon previously behaved as a wave or a particle!!! We could wait a few seconds or billions of years - it makes no difference to the result. Apparently, this behaviour has been confirmed by experiment. The idea is that, due to the existence of observers in the universe at the moment (in other words, the existence of life), it means that life can emerge by acts of quantum observation into the past. The laws of physics were not produced ready-made from the big bang, but emerged over time since the big bang and have been fine-tuned ever since by quantum observations. So we have a situation where the Universe and its laws explain life, and life explains the the Universe and its laws - a nice iterative process. Is this concept testable? Can it be modeled mathematically? What does it mean for the concept of time? I don't know, but it's certainly an intriguing, outrageous and mind-blowing idea.‎ CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST!