work small, think broad.

My problems are clear. First of all, everything becomes more interesting when there are exams to study for. I don't recall being as inspired or enthused to research so far and widely on everything I'm reading about now, because new things are presented to me all the time. Everything just wants to rush out in a messy stream of word-vomit but I'll try to go through everything slowly.

I'll start by scrambling for a connection between what I'm currently doing and what I'm supposed to be doing - my interests having some sort of uni-related foundation. Despite everyone's complaints about Reason, the ideas it has brought to me throughout the semester, some of which I've left but others - particularly ones mentioned only fleetingly, like George Price - I've taken upon myself to look into further.

What's been on my mind? This 1996 article on George Price from The Guardian Joey linked me this morning, where I pondered out in an extremely long reply where my fascination and confusion lay - a staunch atheist turning to organised religion when findings based in his own life work - cold, hard mathematical and scientific proof - render him desolate and depressed beyond any salvation but a Christian one. The mathematical equation of altruism implying that other traits - so sweepingly, forbiddingly referred to as the 'darker side of humanity' in all of this - can similarly be passed down, commanded by evolution. A man of science so shaken by the discovery that these traits we thought so unique to humankind can have biological limitations... perhaps, in some ways, it would've blurred the distinction between religion and science somewhat. Those who stand firmly on the side of the latter have often criticised destiny, fate and implied lack of free will religion presents. What a betrayal it must've felt to discover that no matter what avenue we choose to draw our beliefs from, scientific or religious, that even in the field of his choosing, it is not any divine commandment but genetics shaping us from the get-go as to who we are. Not necessarily... it would've comforted him to think more greatly about what the journalist continues to ponder. Our morality isn't dictated by evolution:

Evolutionary theory is a science of averages and mathematical abstractions, whereas we live our lives uniquely and unrepeatably. The altruistic or selfless acts that interest us as ethical beings are those that people choose freely, not those we cannot avoid.

So maybe in his charitable work with the poor in his life following this refinement of the altruism equation desperately sought to prove this to himself, daily.  This somewhat reminds me of my ever-shortening tether to exam preparation. Does morality come from reason or our will?

That should currently be my main focus, and yet I treat it as a tangent. TED: Ideas Worth Spreading first crossed my path during O-Week, when a volunteer wearing a 'TEDx' t-shirt presented me with a bookmark, asking if I was interested in bringing 'good ideas' to Melbourne Uni. The vagueness of it all made me apprehensive, so I accepted the bookmark but just moved on, not bothering to find out what he was actually talking about. Lo and behold, I link it back to my subjects again - throughout the semester, we watched plenty of population health-related TED talks in Famine, mostly by Hans Gosling (love that guy and his storage boxes to represent millions of people, and his massive pointing stick). Even more recently - i.e. when SWOTVAC started - I decided to take more initiative and see what other subjects were on offer. Thank god for newsfeed updates, because the videos present themselves to me in stalkfeed quite frequently. I just finished watching a talk given by the co-founder of Health Leads, an organisation striving to reform healthcare in America by empowering doctors to provide prescriptions for nutritious food, heating etc. just as they would medicine, to combat underlying socio-economic issues - which often lead to preventable medical presentations. The prevention over treatment principle has never rung out so strongly with me, and that is because I am getting impatient with all the good ideas that are bombarding me. Ideas - good, new, innovative ideas - are powerful instigators of motivation and inspiration, and necessary to wreak change. It's the manifestation of these ideas into action, however, that truly impresses me. I think what Health Leads envisions and that the work they carry out is not only important, but also clever in that their main source of labour is college student volunteers. Their mission is targeted, and specific, and that's the way it should be.

Work small while thinking broadly.

How do I personally want to contribute? This is where I really wanted to start the post, when I began typing 'My problems are clear' - there's so much I want to do, and I don't think that dabbling in a bit of this and then heading over for a bit of that will be neither effective nor satisfying. I believe in equipping myself with a set of solid skills I can use to analyse and solve problems. There are many innumerable skill sets that contribute to policy formation - economics, finance and politics being only a few of personal interest (although recently, thanks to famine, global health is on the agenda as well), as well as engineering and all areas of specific studies under the broad spheres of sciences, physical and social. Dabbling allows me to gain a grounding and appreciation of what others do, but in order to contribute meaningfully, I need to find out what I can do best. Work small but think broad.

Being able to get a message across, as I've mentioned before, is so crucial in actually seeing your plans come into fruition. Throughout history, there have been many instances where advocates lay their cards on the table. They bear their hearts and raw passion to the people, and the people lap it up. I just don't think you can only rely on the sincerity you personally feel towards your mission, or public exposure and awareness. These things must continue, of course, but you need better ways of presenting a reasonable case to the skeptics and, even more challengingly, the indifferent. The skeptics who actively oppose your stance will have a vested issue in the subject already, but the first step in reaching out to the indifferent is to engage them in the first place. You do not successfully do this by preaching. Finding out what matters to them and acknowledging that you know it's important is key. From this, a number of things can happen.

First is that they can find within their own value system some method of supporting yours. Commercials on TV which started cropping up maybe as early as last year or the year before do a perfect job of revamping the 'save-the-environment' message: 'This is ____. ____ is not a hippie, ____ is not looking to save the planet, ____ just wants to save on her electricity and gas bills.'

"Save the environment, save the planet."
People aren't convinced when you throw a big, hairy, audacious goal at them.
Sometimes when they try, the overwhelmingness of what you're asking them to achieve leaves them floundering and forgetting the simple measures they can take to help out.

"Turn off your appliances at the powerpoint and save a few on your bills."
Better, and tangibly helpful.

Second is that if their values are completely contrary, the very fact you have acknowledged them places them in clear comparison. They may learn from you, but most importantly - you might learn from them. You might have what you think are the clearest goals for the most benevolent outcome in the world, but there are going to be flaws in what you want to achieve.

Understand the people you are trying to connect with.

I have to get up in about three hours, but my last notable plug as of late has already been linked in the post below, but Zen Pencils is a bloody good website in general. See what you personally get out of it.

Work small, think broad, learn what makes the people around you tick.

LEMON OUT.
I wish I had a citrus fruit surname.