Before and during the holiday season, we were inundated with supplications from various charities, especially the ones to whom we’ve given in the past. We’ve managed to gently request that most of them stop calling – which has to be done on a charity by charity basis, because they’re exempt from the blanket provisions of the “do not call” list – and we’ve also informed them that we will not EVER pledge or respond to telecommunications requests for funds.  Even so, the postal and internet supplications continue ad infinitum… or so it seems.

No matter what one gives, it’s never enough. There are more homeless orphans, political prisoners, third world inhabitants needing medical care, starving refugees, endangered species, abandoned and homeless pets… the list and the needs are truly endless.  I understand that.

What drives me up the wall is that many of those charities and causes in which I believe and which I support seem to increase their petitions – even though my wife and I only give to them once each year and request that they not bother us more than once each year.  Now… I know that almost all fundraisers are taught to “develop” their clientele and press for more funds from those whose donations show they are sympathetic.  For what it’s worth, I’ve served notice that pestering us for more support is more likely to get them less… and that other worthy and less obnoxious causes may well get what they used to receive.

There’s also the question of “gratitude.”  One state university with which my wife and I are acquainted has adopted a de facto policy of not acknowledging “small” contributions, those under $1,000.  Apparently, the development office can’t be bothered.  Interestingly enough, the small “Ivy League” college from which I graduated responds to donations of any size with not only a receipt, but a personal letter, often with a hand-penned personal notation, to donations of any size – and in the early years after my graduation, some of my contributions were modest indeed.  Just guess which institution has been more successful in raising funds, and has an alumni participation rate of over 70%.

In her time as the head of several local non-profit arts/music organizations, my wife has had to raise funds, and she made it a policy to hand-write thank-yous to every single donor.  In every case, the organization was in debt when she took over, and in every case, the number of donors rose, and she turned it over to her successor with a healthy surplus.  She’s adopted a similar policy as the chair of a national educational music association… and again the outcome of recognizing donors has resulted in a significant and healthy increase in donations and support.

Yes, in economic hard-times, people often cannot contribute as much or as often as once they may have, even though the needs are often greater, but those who give don’t like to be pestered and guilt-tripped, and they would like a little personal recognition for their concern and generosity.

It’s something to think about anyway.

What is morality?  Or ethics?  The simple answer is “doing the right thing.”  But the simple answer merely substitutes one definition for another, unless one can come up with a description or definition of what “right” or “ethical” or “moral” might be.  A few days ago, a reader (and writer) asked what would seem to many to be an absurdly abhorrent question along the lines of, “If morality represents what is best for a culture or society, then isn’t what maximizes that society’s survival moral, and under those circumstances, why would a society that used death camps [like the Nazis] be immoral?”

Abhorrent as this type of question is, it raises a valid series of points.  The first question, to my way of thinking, is whether ethics [or morality] exist as an absolute or whether all ethics are relative.  As I argued in The Ethos Effect, I believe that in any given situation there is an absolutely objectively correct moral way of acting, but the problem is that in a universe filled with infinite combinations of individuals and events, one cannot aggregate those individual moral “absolutes” into a relatively simple and practical moral code or set of laws because every situation is different.  Thus, in practice, a moral code has to be simplified and relative to something. And relativity can be used to justify almost anything.

Taking, however, that survival on some level has a moral value, can a so-called “death camp” society ever be moral?  I’d say no, for several reasons.  If survival is a moral imperative, the first issue is on what level it is a moral imperative.  If one says individual survival is paramount, taken admittedly to the point of absurdity, in theory, that would give the individual the right to destroy anyone or anything that might be a threat. Under those circumstances, there is not only no morality, but no need of it, because that individual recognizes no constraints on his or her actions.  But what about group or tribal survival?  Is a tribe or country that uses ethnic cleansing or death camps being “moral” – relative to survival of that group?

Again… I’d say no, even if I agreed with the postulate that survival trumps everything, because tactics/practices that enhance one group’s survival by the forced elimination or reduction of others within that society, particularly if the elimination of other individuals is based on whether those eliminated possess certain genetic characteristics, or fail to possess them, is almost always likely to reduce the genetic variability of the species and thus run counter to species survival, since a limited genetic pool makes a species more vulnerable to disease or even the effects of other global or universal factors from climate change to all manner of environmental changes.  Furthermore, use of “ethic cleansing” puts an extraordinary premium on physical/military power or other forms of control, and while that control may, in effect, represent cultural/genetic “superiority” in the short run, or in a specific geographic area, it may actually be counter-productive, as it was for the Third Reich, when much of the rest of the world decided they’d had enough.  Or it may result in the stagnation of the entire culture, which is also not in the interests of species survival.

The principal problem with a situation such as that created by the Third Reich and others [where so-called “ethic cleansing” is or has been practiced] is that such a “solution” is actually counter to species survival.  The so-called Nazi-ideal was a human phenotype of a very narrow physical range and the admitted goal was to reduce or eliminate all other types as “inferior.”  While there’s almost universal agreement that all other types of human beings were not inferior, even had they been so, eliminating them would have been immoral if the highest morality in fact is species survival.

Over the primate/human history various characteristics and capabilities have evolved and proved useful at different times and differing climes.  The stocky body type and small-group culture of the Neanderthals proved well-suited to pre-glacial times, but did not survive massive climate shift. For various reasons, other human types also did not survive. As a side note, the Tasmanian Devil is now threatened by extinction, not by human beings, but because the genetics of all existing Tasmanian Devils is so alike that all of them are susceptible to a virulent cancer – an example of what could happen when all members of a species become too similar… or “racially pure.”

Thus, at least from my point of view, if we’re talking about survival as a moral imperative, that survival has to be predicated on long-term species survival, not on individual survival or survival/superiority of one political or cultural subgroup.

For the past several months, an almost continual simmering issue at City Council meetings here in Cedar City has been over the new aquatic center.  First, there were the charges and countercharges over the cost overruns, and although most people eventually conceded that the additional work was necessary, there was great debate over the price tags.  Then came the continuing arguments over the operating costs, which most likely resulted in two incumbent city council members being defeated in the municipal election and the third whose term was up not even running for re-election.  At present, revenues only cover a bit more than sixty percent of the operating costs, and all three of the newly elected councilmen declare that the center should be self-sustaining.

Right!  A survey by one of the state new organizations discovered that not a single aquatic center in all of Utah had revenues that covered its costs.  One managed to recover almost eighty percent of its annual operating costs, and one only managed about fifty percent, and all the rest fell in between.  Why?  Because, like it or not, the people who use aquatic facilities are predominantly either families or seniors, and the majority of both have limited funds.  Increasing fees drops the number using the facility, and if fees are considered too high for the local community, total revenue drops even with increased per capita fees.  Add to that the fact that Cedar City is a rural university town located in a county with the lowest family income in the state, and the potential for raising fees is pretty limited.

This debate raises the eternal question about publicly funded projects.  Which are justified and which are boondoggles?  Comparatively, very few people seem to complain about public park budgets, for which no out-of-pocket fees are ever collected, but many would say that’s because they’re open to everyone.  Open, yes, but I have to say that although we have good parks here, and I’m for them, and for my tax money being used for them, I’ve set foot in them only twice in the eighteen years I’ve lived here.  I’m for them, and for the aquatic center, because they make the community a better place.  I’m also for them because I’ve lived all over the USA, and I can see that the tax levels here are low, most probably too low, and the local politicians certainly aren’t spendthrifts with the public money.  Sometimes, though, they’re idiots.

Cedar City is home to the Utah Shakespeare Festival, a good regional theatre [it won a Tony some ten years ago as one of the best regional theatres in the United States] based largely on the campus of Southern Utah University.  Founded some fifty years ago, it’s grown from a three-day event to almost a half-year full repertory theatre.  The university, however, has also grown enormously over the past two decades, from around 3,000 students to over 8,000, and there’s really not enough theatre space for both the University theatre, dance, and music programs and the Festival.  The Festival professionals have recognized this, and for years have been working on an expansion plan that would make the Festival far less dependent on university facilities.  In order to obtain some state and foundation funding, the Festival requested a grant of two million dollars from the local RDA, controlled by the city council, in order to demonstrate the required local support.  Several council members objected, and the entire $20 million plus expansion project was threatened before reason finally prevailed.

Was that $2 million a boondoggle?  Scarcely.  Economic studies have shown that the Festival generates between thirty-five and forty million dollars annually for local businesses, and provided a great economic cushion for the town some thirty years ago when the iron mines closed, and that’s been with minimal economic support from the town. For fifty years the town has benefited from the University’s support of the Festival.  Yet the decreasing percentage level of state support for the University [and any higher education institution in Utah] and the need to raise student tuition to compensate has placed the University in a position where it can no longer be so generous to the Festival.  Despite the enormous economic benefit to the town from the Festival, some politicians would call a two million dollar grant a boondoggle.

A decade ago, local politicians decided the town needed a good local theatre, one independent of the educational institutions… and they built one that holds almost 1000 seats, with good acoustics and associated modest convention facilities.  As a consequence, Cedar City has been able to host events from traveling operas to American Idol vocalists and everything in between.  But once again, the new councilmen are demanding that the theatre make money… despite the fact that the previous director [who was forced out by the new council] came very close to doing so.  NO decent performance theatre in a town of 40,000 people can do that [a lot of Broadway theatres can’t, and they charge exorbitant rates, which isn’t possible here].  But what that “borderline” economic performance doesn’t show is the thousands of people who travel to Cedar City from nearby and sometimes not so nearby rural areas for those shows and other events, and the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars they spend in town on those trips.  Nor does it count the food and lodging paid for by the performers [and when those performers include 100 member symphony orchestras, that’s not inconsequential].

Especially in rural areas like Iron County, whether a town or small city prospers or withers depends not just on low taxes, but also on the quality of life, and often a “good” quality of life can generate enormous economic benefits, which tend to flow back in tax and other indirect revenue sources.  Past management of the quality of life has led to Cedar City being named as an outstanding community for both families and retirees, but with the recent rise of Tea Party type politicians, there’s been a cry for lower taxes and spending, despite the fact that they’re already too low.  There’s a huge difference between managing public facilities well and concentrating on profit-loss figures from single facilities or projects as an indication of their community usefulness and “profitability.”

Yes… there are many public boondoggles, and I’ve seen all too many of them, but just because a public facility or expenditure doesn’t cover its operating costs directly doesn’t mean it’s a boondoggle… or that the town isn’t “profiting.”   And that’s something too many people and politicians fail to understand.

A number of family members visited us over the holidays, and I ended up having to ship gifts, ski clothes, etc., back to them.  Some of them stayed almost a week, which we appreciated because we live great distances from them and with everyone working [which, as I’ve mentioned before, more and more often requires more and more time and effort for those who have jobs and wish to keep them], we don’t get to see them often.  Staying longer does require a few more clothes, especially in the case of small children, even though our washing machine was busy at many times, and more clothes means more weight.  More weight means checked suitcases… and since Southwest doesn’t fly to Cedar City, checked bags add to the cost of travel.

Then I recalled that, at one time, a little over ten years ago, a checked bag was not only free, but you could put 60 pounds of clothes and gear in it, rather than the current 50 pounds. That ten pound reduction doubtless reduced the strain on baggage handlers, and most probably accounted for some fuel savings – and cost savings – for the airlines.  All in all, though, these cost-savings measures for the airlines add to the cost for the traveler.  They also add to the inconvenience, since the overhead luggage bins are not adequate for all the carry-ons if a flight is full – and most are these days.  Then, too, there are the charges for seats with slightly more leg-room, and the elimination of in-flight meals in coach [often replaced with a “menu” of items for which the costs are just short of exorbitant].

Airport security also adds to the time spent in travel – from an additional 30-45 minutes at small airports to more than an hour at major hubs. And time is money, meaning that the more security agents on duty [to reduce waiting] the higher the cost to government.

Then I discovered that, because December 26^th was a holiday this year, all the packages we’d hoped to ship back to the various coasts on Monday had to wait until Tuesday, and one of my sons and I wasted gas and money to discover that – because the local shippers never said that they were closed – they just left messages on their telephones that they were busy and asked us to leave messages or to call back.  Now, except for the various layers of government, banks, and the stock market, most other businesses – except for the shippers – were open, obviously believing that Sunday, December 25^th, was the holiday, and not Monday.

Given the “efficiency,”  “effectiveness,” and self-centeredness of government, banks, and financiers, to find shippers following their lead gave me a very disconcerted feeling… and, well… you all know what I think about government, banks, and financiers, not to mention the airline industry.

Recently, I’ve posted a few blogs dealing with various aspects of personal opinion and confirmation bias and how the combination can, to an outsider, make any individual, in certain circumstances, look like a complete idiot.  That even includes scientists, sorry to say, yet “science” as a whole has an unprecedented record of accuracy over time, regardless of what climate change deniers and creationists say.  If scientists can be as personally biased and opinionated as all the rest of us, how does “science” end up with such a long-term record of accuracy?

There’s one basic reason, and that is that the modern structure of science, if you will, requires proof, and all the proof that is submitted is subject to scrutiny and attack from all quarters.  What emerges from this often withering barrage almost always turns out – in time – to be more correct and more accurate than that which preceded it.  That’s not to say that, upon occasion, it hasn’t taken the scientific establishment time to get things right, but eventually better techniques and better thought proved that plate tectonics was correct, just as, regardless of the creationists, there’s an overwhelming body of evidence in favor of evolution, and that relativity provides a more accurate picture of the universe than did Newton, or the Ptolemaic theorists.

But there are several “problems” with the scientific method.  First, establishing more accurate knowledge, information, or theories takes time, and often large amounts of resources, as well as winnowing through and considering a fair amount of uncertainty at times. Second, it requires reliance on data and proof; mere opinion is not sufficient.  Third, it’s not as set in stone as human beings would like.  The early Greek scientists had a fair idea about the earth and the moon, but their measurements and calculations were off.  As methods, equipment, and techniques improved, so did the measurements, and Newton did far better, and his methods and theories result in a high degree of accuracy for most earth-bound measurements and systems, but Einstein and his successors have provided an even more accurate explanation and more accurate measurements. And fourth, at present, the scientific method isn’t absolutely precise in predicting specific future results of massive interacting inputs.

That lack of absolute precision in dealing with future events often causes people to doubt science as a whole, even though its record is far better than any other predictor or prediction system.  Part of its accuracy comes from the fact that science as a structure adapts as more information becomes available, but some people regard this adoption of new data and systems as unsettling, almost as if they were saying, “If science is so good, why can’t you get it right the first time?”  An associated problem is that science is far more accurate as a descriptor than a predictor, and most people subconsciously assume that the two are the same.

Even so, one could easily adapt Churchill’s statement about democracy to science, in saying that it’s the poorest way of describing the universe and predicting how things will happen – except for any other way that’s ever been tried.  And that’s because the structure of modern science is greater than any individual scientist.