July 14, 2008 at 11:17 PMGreetings,
Let us look at the science, at the facts. There is a lot of money, a lot of money, at stake here and governments and corporations and media companies are latching onto this source of dough. Governments are salivating at the sight of it, and falling lockstep into line.
But what really are the experts saying? Scientists everywhere are slowly forming a rebellion to this hysteria. Believe me, we are talking amongst ourselves. For dangerous hysteria is what it is. I haven't heard of anything as serious as this before.
Violins and violinists? Buri, you won't be able to live if this ball gets rolling too far. Life will be too expensive. There's nothing romantic or 'old world values' about it.
Pass legislation that requires all new cars sold in the U.S. by year 20XX to be flex-fuel. It adds $100 to the cost of a new car (more expensive to convert one). It takes two years to build an alcohol plant, it costs as much to build as a suburban mall, and occupies about the same area. If flex-fuel is required in the U.S., then every new car made for sale anywhere in the world will be flex-fuel as well. The price of oil would plummet. Pass legislation making alcohol "hands off" meaning limits on taxation, etc. Put better controls on the price of food grain. We have so much unused arable land here you can't fathom it. This is "solar energy" in its cleanest form, I would say.
For sure, I often express impatience at opinions differnet to my own, but that doesn`t presuppose I listen. My bad, but I`m not actually that bothered.
But this is all kind of personal. I think you are a very knowledgeable guy with very valid opinons who correclty pointed out that thes ekinds of things are about politics. Of course everything is about politics. Accepting without question the harm we do with the way we live is a very strong political staement. I And I acknowledge ed that this has certianly been true in the past.Except I think that by liberally using the word politics we lose sight of the other factors involved: economics, sexuality, nationlism, and the environment. These things all interact and an analysis done only on apolitical basis is largely incomplete.
Now I look around , read and listen and based on that, not hysteria, ask what are we going to do without oil? The question needs to be asked since that is where the man on the street is at. Is it going to suddenly reappear and the prices drop? Maybe once the Iraq oil filed s are up and running having been forcibly taken by multinationals. Or more likely not. Too much violence, hatred , greed even before one poses the moral question of whom does that oil belong to?Are the prices going to drop back down and thinsg return to where they were before?. And when that runs out?
The idea we have enough resources and they will never end sadly remains asinine to me.
This is a completey spurious straw man argument. Nothing in what I said to support this made up position. Bit of a shame you said it.
Your point about asinine and hysteria is well taken, I slipped up.
I'm not sure about flex-fuel cars. I'm all for alternative energy sources, though, as part of the available resources, if they are going to work well and ensure healthy economies. It is the brook-no-dissent journalism that I'm concerned about. The media is out of control.
Absolutely, but then the counter argument is rooted in the imperilaism and racism of the greater good. The unspoken point being that inferiro races should not be given control of a resource that we need. The `we` somehow excluding third world nations.
* A reduction of as little as 10 to 15 per cent could cripple oil-dependent industrial economies. In the 1970s, a reduction of just 5 per cent caused a price increase of more than 400 per cent.
* Most farming equipment is either built in oil-powered plants or uses diesel as fuel. Nearly all pesticides and many fertilisers are made from oil.
* Most plastics, used in everything from computers and mobile phones to pipelines, clothing and carpets, are made from oil-based substances.
* Manufacturing requires huge amounts of fossil fuels. The construction of a single car in the US requires, on average, at least 20 barrels of oil.
* Most renewable energy equipment requires large amounts of oil to produce.
* Metal production - particularly aluminium - cosmetics, hair dye, ink and many common painkillers all rely on oil.
I thought this was an interesting, if sobering, point. In my blog I wondered if it might actually be good for local communities and for nurturing local talent across the board if it becomes more difficult to bring in whoever's perceived as the latest, hottest "star" from somewhere else. Kind of like eating local, seasonal foods: how about listening to local, seasonal music?
Anyway, Stephen, what is public transportation like in Japan? I've been fairly surprised (I guess I shouldn't be) that people have been so focused on making more fuel-efficient cars that they haven't talked so much about improving public infrastructure such as trains, subways, buses, and the like.
I live in New York City, don't even own a car, and take public transport everywhere I go, and it makes so much sense to me---concentrate our resources to benefit the most people, and everyone wins. At least in the USA, we're going to have to totally re-define our lifestyle so that we're not so gas-dependent. No more 2-hour commutes in SUV's just so people can have the 4000 sq. ft. house way out in the suburbs with the huge backyard and the four-car garage. It's incredibly wasteful. I used to live out West and it always amazed me that the houses and buildings there never have solar panels---all that free sunshine and they don't use it. Big changes are coming.
Every year in our area there's some horrible tragic story involving teenage drivers and car accidents and I think I'm going to follow the German example and not let my kids learn to drive until they're 18. I'll give them an MBTA pass instead--they'll be safer.
Ha, I thought that in the 1970's too! (I was only a kid then, *cough cough*)
I hope it really happens this time, though. It has to. It amazes me that we don't have high-speed rail in the US. You can go from London to Paris by train in what, 2 hours? 4 hours? And it takes 4 hours just to go from NYC to Washington DC? That's just embarrassing. We can do so much better in this country. But notice, you don't hear the political candidates pushing it. It's too hard to do. It takes real leadership.
The root of the problem is greed - no matter, the rich want to keep getting richer, and especially stay rich! Consider fuel... There are many technologies that could render things more useful, and make people less dependant on things - a solar powered car for example or something of the sort that could be developed. HOWEVER, that would put many in the fuel industry out of business - you buy the car and that's it. So, they find an "alternative" solution that works in keeping them in business - producing another type of fuel.
Rise in food prices is not just a matter of transportation. Keeping all those out of season vegetables and fruits in your local market is not only expensive but very wasteful. Like a president of a famous food chain here told me once, almost 50% of the fresh food on the shelf gets thrown out after a couple of days, but replace it with fresh food. Not given out to the local poor, or anything, just thrown to the garbage. That to keep people happy.
Our biggest problem is not just one of ressources, or supplies, but one of attitude - everyone seems to want everything they want when they want it. Fulfilling that false need that people have created for themselves leads to all the problems we have.
Living in a world of scarcer and more alternate ressources has lead humanity to develop the perverse notion that seems innate of wanting and longing for things it cannot have, or waiting in anticipation. Now, with everything available, it has lost its value. Yet, the desire remains there and continues to be catered to. The results being even worse than not having enough, because nothing seems like enough.
I think that not only do we need a change in lifestyle, most people need a change in perspective, and concept of life. That is much harder.
Living in Canada, I am impressed though by the recent trend in things. Major supermarkets like Loblaws are making huge efforts to market organic products, often at the same cost as conventional things. Plastic bags will be outlawed here by the end of the year, people instead buying reusable bags. Recycling is up with limits on how much garbage one can put and huge containers that can take larger amount of recyclable material. Rising fuel prices are leading people to buying the smallest most fuel effecient cars, at least in my city. So, maybe through all of this there possibly a tiny glimmer of hope of something better...
Violinist need jobs. They often have to travel huge distances to take auditons. Quite often this involves flying.
Violnist travel to masterclasses ands summer camps in foreign countries. They use planes.
Orchestars go on tour on planes.
Otehrwise the life of a professional msucian involves a greta dela of travel by car or bus. Consider the poor private teacher who has to travel around for somne stduents because they cannot afofrd a studio.
So you really don`t have much of a point.
Also, having read more of the above I have seen mention of alternative fuels. For one who lives a life close to the land, I can tell you that corn-based ethanol is NOT the answer (so not an answer, which has nothing to do with the fact that if every kernel produced today were made into ethanol, we would only offset about 15% or so of our current demand).
I may not be totally qualified to comment on the Charlotte area, but why are we assuming that all these people are rich? Wasn't a large part of the current economic crisis was about too-easy credit and people spending money they didn't have? They may still be in denial.
Things are ugly and expensive now; they will get uglier and more expensive. But all that will bring about change for the better, with new sources of renewable energy, reduction of dependence on petroleum as a fuel source, and a reduction in CO2 emissions. With luck most of us will live to see the result.
If that doesn't work, we still have the neutron bomb to fall back on; kill the people, leave the infrastructure intact. Let's face it, there are just too many people on this planet.
Poop to you too.
Sorry you don't agree sweety. Argue your point better and I'll listen to you.
I don't think so. The rest of the world doesn't drive what we drive.
We just got back from Italy and the vast majority of the people drive very small cars. Our rental was a Fiat diesel that ran like a top and averages 40some mpg. Smart Cars everywhere. No Suburbans. Not one. I saw a couple of Range Rovers and literally like three pick ups. A fair amount of lux 4 doors, but mostly little cars. When I got back home I started looking around for info on avg Euro fuel economy. It turns out that in the US we have two vehicles (2!)that average over 40 mpg. The rest of the world, mostly Europe, has more than 100! Many of them are made by Nissan, Toyota and GM (Opel, Vauxhall). Maybe there are very good reasons (Reliability? Unions blocking imports?)we don't buy French or Italian cars (Renault/Peugeot, Citroen, Fiat/Lancia) but there are many other options.
There's a Citroen in the MSNBC link below that averages something like 57 mpg and it's not a hybrid. They have actual minivans: van-shaped vehicles that are small! Here we would have to call it a MINI minivan.
What are we doing?
You might find these links interesting:
It’s all too easy just to blame the rich or the politicians or whomever we can point our finger to at the moment. I walk and bus and grow my own fruits and vegetable in a small backyard, but I’m not an environmentalist. Why? Because most of the environmentalists I met are driving everywhere, they also tend to nature lovers and frequently travel distance to climb the mountain and hug the trees. And when then complain about the environmental problem in the 3rd world during their coffee breaks. Who cares?
Jon, I would agree with you 100% in that there is a lot of press about, creating hype, much of which may be unfounded (in part, although not in total). But, nobody can argue the degree to which the industrial (and post-indutrial) era has changed the world, and for those of us who happen to think of the natural world as a beautiful thing, we find it disturbing.
I am not against technology, per say (I have a son with Type 1 diabetes who would not be with us were it not for some aspects of modern technology), however what I am against is the greed that comsumes.
A world without profits would be a very scary place. None of us want to live in such a place.
It scares me that educated people have these conversations. What does it say about education? Journalism?
I bet if we averaged twice the mileage in the U.S. that we get now, then gas would be twice as expensive. Oil co's would love it. It's almost like the oil co's have been subsidising us, and now can adjust supply and price to their liking. Don't know why it didn't happen before. One possible answer is the theory I posited above...
I meant if we averaged twice the _mpg_.
Are these the guys that have our homes bugged and watch us through our television screens?
I worked for a major oil company in Japan for 6 years. Their cost per unit of petroleum product and their prices were no different than the US. The cost to the consumer was inflated by a huge amount of taxes and to (a much smaller extent) a very inefficient and cartelized distribution network that was the bane of my employer.
It speaks poorly for the state of our press and the education of our citizens that we have such a paranoid conspiratorial-ist mentality about markets.
Ok, you were a high-level enough employee of a major oil company for it to be relevant to bring up here. Bringing it up means you understand the oil situation, so let's hear the real lowdown on it. Inform the mentally impoverished now....
Perhaps I should say that the violin is only properly played in first position or that it is never necessary to rosin the bow or something else that is patently silly and try to pass it off as wise. Isn't that the way it works?
And this blog isn't about bad, hysterical, environmental journalism in Australia either (of which there is also plenty out there). Is it just the on-line nature of the forum that leads to such odd and off-topic misinterpretations? Or what?
You are right in that a lot of us are trapped, some in riches and some in poverty. As I had mentioned previously, we as a family (living in Minnesota) do our best to live a small life, which is in stark contrast to many of those around us (those who have not yet awaken to reality). It is not easy, and there is no shortage of encouragement to do otherwise. Our entire economic system is based upon such. Every day of our lives we are bombarded with carefully crafted messages designed to entice us to crave even more excess, to make us think that somehow our lives are incomplete (and while this may be true for some, the lack of completeness is not due to a lack of material goods). The economy figures prominent in all media, as people strive to maintain and protect their “precious”. There is a simple truth, though, life is not found in the abundance of material possessions. Indeed, life is found when we seek to give over our own, and life is lost when we seek to acquire our own. Which is just another way of saying that life is found when we live a life of love in service to others. I realize that this may seem off topic, but believe me it is not. This is the heart of the matter.
Anyway, we are agents of free will and do have a choice. Sometimes the choice is not an easy one, but the alternative is even less so. Thank you for sharing your experience, and for offering a real-life perspective on the matter.
Contrary to the prevailing model, food is not a commodity. Food is a life-sustaining element, a significant part of our culture and one of the purest expressions of our need to co-exist, in harmony with one another and the land we all call home. In short, food is a gift, as is the land upon which it is grown. This is something we would all do well to acknowledge, this and the realization that we only experience such a privilege for a time, which means that if we abuse the privilege, others will bear the burden of our selfish desires.
I think that although service to others is crucial it is not quite the central heart of the matter alhtough we may simply be arriving at the same place by a differnet route.
There`s an interestign and often aggravating series of books calle d`Converstaions with a brother etc` which contain a great deal of thought on this subject. he idea that has stayed with me and influenced me the most perhaps is the idea of not doing harm. The argument is put forward that there is a specific tipping pint in which the human race will enter a newer and better (read spiritual??) existence once the amount of harm harm we drops below 50 percnet of all our collective actions. Very little is said about what the cocnept of harm might mean aside from the obvious more or les sactive suport of war. But the more I thought about it the more this idea can be applied to our whole existence to include issues a sdiverse as the language we use to others and the harming of our own bodies though wrong eating or angry thoughts or whatever. To do no harm becomes an enormous challenge when applied in totality to eevrythign we do and is indeed unattainable. However this is the idea which to me will remian centrla until you convince me otherwise.
I agree with what the original poster said. I put this video on youtube about 15 months ago with a similar message.
It seems to me that harm is built into everything living things do. You can't have competition without harm, and you can't have life without competition. Every bite you eat, every job you take, every bit of space you use could have been used by someone else and you've done them harm by taking it, right? As long as there is one hungry person in the world or one homeless person or one poor person, you are doing harm every second you exist by not giving up your space, food, money, violin, etc. War and murder are just the extreme end of this process, right? So tell me, how do we reduce harm?
But I guess to think in this fashion is missing the point. It is intent and the effort that matters. By keep thinking and acting along these lines, we become taller or at least we won’t be dragged down to the level of angry and self-pity victims of the circumstances. The tougher the time gets, the harder it is to practise along these lines due to our survival instinct; yet, it is precisely during such moments the practice has true significance. I want to thank you both so much for reminding us!
>It seems to me that harm is built into everything living things do.
I can think of a huge range of things living things IE us do which do no harm. Loving, making music, looking after children, helping old people, exercising...the list is infinite.
Where I think the distinction between us and other speice s lies is in our ability to make choices or choose to accept the status quo.
>You can't have competition without harm, and you can't have life without competition.
That is debatable. What kind of competition are you talking about?
>Every bite you eat, every job you take, every bit of space you use could have been used by someone else and you've done them harm by taking it, right?
No. Everything I eat that is necessary for sustenance or even pleasure at times belongs on a spectrum of harmfulness that can be modified. So if one chooses to eat meat one is doing a very high level of harm to the world in a whole range of areas and one can chosse to reduce that harm. Not that this is a debate about the reaosns for being vegan or whatever- but I think it is a clear excample. If one chooses to distance oneself as far as possible form any food or product taken by exploiting animls then one has chosen to embrace alifestyle taht has reduced harm to the minimu alhtough one hundred percnet is never possible. A similar thing is killing insects. I will happily kill cockroaches, mosquitos and the like because I hate them. Those people whose courses in helaing I have attended have made it mandatory to not kill a single living creature on those premises. The differnece is palpable and represnets a high level of choice to do no harm.
> As long as there is one hungry person in the world or one homeless person or one poor person, you are doing harm every second you exist by not giving up your space, food, money, violin, etc.
Not at all. Jesus very sharply refuted this argument and I also have a colleague who tried it on once with the Dalai Lhama who burts out laughing. I personally aren`t aware of a sensible and useful approahc to spiritualism that doesn`t include taking care of yourself as a priority before taking care of others. Bhuddism is quite clear on this point as well. The idea that one should throw away all ones worldy possession and live like a homelss person to feed a family of six in Ethiopa does not ring true at all to me. We are all entitled to space and a decent live in which we can love and grow.
One thing I am sure of is that I wa sput into this world to use the gifts that I was given. By not doing so I am harming myself and the issue of harm is as much cocnerned with oneself as with others. That seemes ot me the point I wa strying to make that you missed. Drinking alcohol , abusing drugs and smoking are classic examples of harming the self. Most people can take a shot at reducing that right?
The purpose of reducing harm is striving to find how one can help others towards this while enjoying your fair share of the fruits of the earth which were put there for your benifit. The problem is , as Christian pointed out greed.
>War and murder are just the extreme end of this process, right? So tell me, how do we reduce harm?
The examples are infinite, small and often individual specific. The more one thinks about it the more one can do one little thing at a time in some area consciously. If everyone did taht then we might get to the fifty percent mark.
We are never going to live in a perfetc world but the ide athat we can`t do things less harmfully to everything including oneslf , mlitlte by little in one`s own way is rather sad.
I think I did understood what you wrote, but I didn’t write this stuff just to argue with you- it's a real problem to think about and one which occurs to me and gives me trouble every time I give a dollar to this homeless guy and not the other. Have I really done any good by that? Have I given back at all, really, when after giving a dollar to this guy and not the other I then spend 4 dollars on a latte? What if I give a dollar to both, and just buy a regular cup of coffee? Have I done less harm? But anyway, here’s my reply to your other points.
Loving- That's a complex obfuscation on your part, since I'm not sure if you mean respecting or mating or everything along that spectrum, but it does seem to me that unless you love everybody (to use your ambiguous term), you are doing harm to those whom you've left out by virtue of making the choice to love the ones you want and not the others. Obviously if you love your wife or your child that’s a selfish thing. That kind of love is defined by ideas such as taking care of them preferentially, giving everything you have to them etc. merely because you care about them, merely because they are “your” family and not somebody else’s.
Making music- This one is obvious. If you are making music you are NOT raising food, taking care of the homeless, building houses etc, so you are doing almost infinite harm ( by indirectly causing death) to those who need food, care and houses even as you entertain the middle class and rich who can afford such luxuries.
Looking after children- Whose children? Your children? The children of your friends and associates? Unless you're taking care of ALL children, then you're doing harm to the parents and loved ones of the ones you've left out because you've made the choice to take care of the ones you need or like and not theirs, and then spend the rest of your time doing what you want to do, like playing violin.
Exercise- Again, if you're exercising, you are not building houses, raising food, feeding the poor, etc. Actually, you should build houses or farm for exercise if you want to do the most good.
Buri, I'm not saying that one shouldn't try to do less harm, just that it's hard to imagine that if you do "50 percent less harm" that you've done something all that good. It sounds a little like saying, “today I only caused the death of one child and not two. I’ve done less harm!”. Perhaps, but that other child is just as dead and the stain of that sin is infinitely large, right? So how do you deal with that? And how exactly did Jesus and the Dalai Lhama banish that argument except perhaps by fiat (which you can do if you're "god in the flesh".)
In my opinion, the only thing that supports the morality of doing ANYTHING at all besides giving all your time and money to the poor is that by your work you might help make the pie bigger, so to speak. So, maybe by playing the violin I make people better able to produce more, or be happier and give more, or something along those lines. And I never try to imagine that I'm anything less than infinitely selfish just because I gave a dollar away or took the metro instead of my car.
So, instead of pursuing the hopeless and unsupportable idea of "doing less harm", you should direct your inevitable human sin and selfishness towards pursuits that "make the pie bigger" for everybody.
First off, I love your words. They speak of an introspective mind and heart, of one who considers life beyond the sphere.
So, here's the shortcut to the 50% mark…"Love your neighbor as yourself." This implies that we are to care for ourselves as we care for others, and it is essential that we do so. The real question is one of motivation, are we motivated out of love, or for another reason (such as guilt)? Only the love motivation is pure, and only the love motivation results in a heart transformed (ours and those around us). This is the important bit and is, as I had mentioned previously, “the heart of the matter.” Words count for little (the same is true of belief…read the Bible, it speaks volumes on this very fact). It is love in action that makes the difference, in our lives and in the lives of others with whom we interact on a personal level. Online forums are nice and we all need an outlet as not everyone with whom we interact in person has similar interests (for instance, I and my teacher are the only two people I know who play the violin, so I turn to v.com for camaraderie, and thanks to people such as yourself find other enlightening topics as well!). However, life happens on a personal level and as we seek to live a life of love in service to others, to enter into and share in suffering on a personal level, hearts (ours and theirs) are transformed…for the better! This is the radical, topsy-turvy, nonsensical “mustard seed” Kingdom of God that Jesus spoke of in the Bible…”Those who are least will be greatest…” etc. It goes on and on, but in short faith is love in action (i.e. washing the feet of another, not merely telling another that their feet need washing, and this can only be done in person). It is a beautiful story, so beautiful and since I have begun to experience this in my life, personally, my heart and the way in which I view others and the world around me has been radically transformed. I have never known anything so beautiful, so wonderful and the very thought of it brings tears to my eyes. It feeds the heart and meets our need on the deepest level, which only serves to confirm that this is the purpose for which we’ve been created…to love…God and all others, without condition, without reservation, without judgment.
Sorry to have gotten to far off topic…again. Take care, and have a good weekend!
>Looking after children- Whose children? Your children? The children of your friends and associates? Exercise- Again, if you're exercising, you are not building houses, raising food, feeding the poor, etc. Actually, you should build houses or farm for exercise if you want to do the most good.
Same comment as above.
>Buri, I'm not saying that one shouldn't try to do less harm, just that it's hard to imagine that if you do "50 percent less harm" that you've done something all that good. It sounds a little like saying, 鍍oday I only caused the death of one child and not two. I致e done less harm!・ Perhaps, but that other child is just as dead and the stain of that sin is infinitely large, right? So how do you deal with that? And how exactly did Jesus and the Dalai Lhama banish that argument except perhaps by fiat (which you can do if you're "god in the flesh".)
Fifty percent les sharm was a figure put forward by a spiritual figure ina book I mentioned. Putting numbers to things just makes it clearer for some perhaps? But the actuall principle of constantly striving to do less and elss harm in all spheres of life and including too ourselves is quite straightforward. If you want to give an example of choosing between the death of one child and two then I would say in some circumstances that is not so difficult either. If you were ina situation in which you could do only two things and one resulted in less death then you would choose the best of the bad options. The childrens death is a nasty example but the principle can be applied all the time as such situations often arise in life.
>In my opinion, the only thing that supports the morality of doing ANYTHING at all besides giving all your time and money to the poor is that by your work you might help make the pie bigger, so to speak. So, maybe by playing the violin I make people better able to produce more, or be happier and give more, or something along those lines. And I never try to imagine that I'm anything less than infinitely selfish just because I gave a dollar away or took the metro instead of my car.
The problem with making the pie bigger is who gets to eat it. Doesn`t mean it`s wrong but that would be important to me? Does making the pie bigger always help? In the case of food for example, the main reason why America has a majority of obese is because the principle of capitalism was applied to food production where the only possinle route is to constantly urge people to eat more, thereby maximizing profits.
I cannot see the point of living life believing I am selfish. That would cause me to attract people and experiences involving just that condition. Harmful to myself;)
>So, instead of pursuing the hopeless and unsupportable idea of "doing less harm",
Thanks for taking the trouble to spell out your ideas. I`m sorry I don`t feel you have offered anything to support that position.
I agree with Buri here (if I understand him correctly), that this is a flawed argument. What if you sponsor a child through one of those programs like Children International? You only have enough money to sponsor one child, so that child gets food, clothing, birthday presents, and parasite medication. She also has someone watching out for her and making sure she stays in school. Other children in her village are not sponsored because the agency doesn't have enough sponsors. Some of them may therefore have parasites, and not enough to eat, and have to drop out of school. But you didn't harm them--they would have had those problems whether you sponsored your child or not. And, since your sponsored child has food, doesn't have parasites, and stays in school, she might grow up to be in a position to help others. To be a teacher, or a health care worker, or a parent who has a good enough job to put food on the table for her own kids.
There is a story by Loren Eisley called "The Star Thrower," in which a young man, or a girl in some versions, throws starfish that have been washed up on the beach back into the ocean to save their lives. The narrator comes along and says to the boy, with all the thousands of starfish washed up on the beach, dying, how can the few you throw back make any difference? And the young man throws one back and says "made a difference to that one." Enough people throwing starfish, they'd all get thrown back. Enough sponsors, and the whole village is parasite-free and stays in school. But even if not, and it's only one individual's puny efforts, those puny efforts still make a difference to that one starfish, or that one person. Why would that not still be important?
Buri, If the person you would have saved was in front of you on their knees begging for their life, instead of faceless and far away, you might realize the selfishness then!
Ultimately, in the end, I think the net result of what you did is the important thing, if you attach importance to doing good. Failed attempts are probably just as valuable.
This entry has been archived and is no longer accepting comments.