Is nothing sacred? I mean, original?

Just a quick note to say I had no idea I'd borrowed my blog title from Primo Levi, whose book I haven't read. Technically, of course, the book was written as Se non ora, quando? (in 1982). Not sure when it was translated into English as If Not Now, When?

I don't think, from what I read about it on Wikipedia, that he meant the same thing as I did by asking the question. For me, it occurred to me when I was 40ish and was first willing to admit to being middle aged (I don't aspire to living to 100), that the fundamental question of middle age is precisely that: If not now, when? If I really want to do this and I haven't yet done it, when am I going to get around to it? From what I've read in the new specialty women's magazines for the menopausal, such as More, the question occurs to a lot of people at this stage of life. I read a hilarious article at the hairdresser's a couple of years ago about crossing things off one's 'to do' list - regardless of whether one had done them or not. One woman let herself off the hook on the bungie jumping front because she wasn't willing to risk spraining an ankle.

Anyway, my posthumous apologies to Primo Levi. The title of this blog was not intended to be any sort of homage, reference, or mockery of him, his work, or his life. Just another case of synchronicity, great minds thinking alike, fools seldom differing....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_Not_Now%2C_When%3F

Read 'em and Weep - Scott Butki on books we should have loved

Great summary of the most over-hyped books in recent(ish) memory - including Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Life of Pi, and (snort) The Celestine Prophecy.

I 'dugg' an article for the first time (is dugg the past tense of 'digg'?) and couldn't find an appropriate category so filed it under "Science - Space." That should get some chins wagging. (See article below; digg tried to insist it had already been dugg - they're having difficulty distinguishing between "Read IT and Weep" and "Read 'Em and Weep" obviously.)

The article was from Blogcritics - another first - hadn't seen that site before. Where have I been? Reading books, I guess. Speaking of reading: Geraldine Brooks' March was quite wonderful - weakened somewhat in the last third by her decision to suddenly present Mrs. March as the narrator, when the first two thirds of the novel were all told from Mr. March's point of view. Based on Louisa May Alcott's father rather than her husband (Little Women was fairly autobiographical apparently), I was astonished to discover her dad had 'invented' recess. Children everywhere need to know this. And Greg Hollinghead's Bedlam was quite wonderful too, a fictional account of tea merchant James Tilly Matthews, confined to a notorious lunatic asylum in the late 18th, early 19th centuries for his attempts to prevent war between France and England shortly after the French Revolution.

read more | digg story

Conspicuous consumption versus sustainability

Sun flare on Burrard Street, originally uploaded by The River Thief. Copyright Ruth Seeley

If my last post sounded rather peevish, I apologize. There's no doubt I've benefited greatly from technological innovations. Unlike a British friend of mine who told me he was the only doctor in his entire London hospital who still uses a paper datebook and who has had to be talked through using phone cards (his response to the blog was, "Bloody Hell, how did you do THAT, Ruth?"), I'm not a Luddite. Honest. In fact, it's doubtful I would ever have started taking photographs if I hadn't waited till digital cameras were relatively affordable (and more important, relatively easy to use). My first experiments with a complicated digital camera were less than salubrious (of course it was midnight and there was no manual).

It's when the technology you rely on suddenly doesn't work that I get exercised. I went to high school with Giles Slade, author of Made to Break. I haven't yet read it, and I've read some criticism of some of the statements he makes and the research behind the book. It isn't enough, in my opinion, to discredit his fundamental premise. We're churning through stuff at a fast and furious rate. We've created a world of haves and have-nots that's delineated by computer and internet usage. At this point, you're considered a have-not if you're not running Windows Vista on your computer. My poor old laptop is five years old and in desperate need of not only a new keyboard but of more memory - not because of data files I've added in five years of ownership, but because the frequent updates to Windows XP, the system it came with, have meant there's no memory left to run anything but the operating system.

We still seem to have only the most rudimentary system of recycling computer goods to ensure they don't end up in landfills. Luckily there are enough people in my age group who are slow or reluctant adopters of technology that I don't think I need to worry about what to do with any of the spare bits and bobs of technology I end up with. I'm not buying at a very fast rate and I'm using the technology I purchase long past its "best by" date. When I'm done with it, it goes to a friend. My first home computer, a Mac LCII, served me well for three years, despite the sneers from my internet service provider from my very first call to them. I believe the word "antique" was used, as the machine was already three years old when I got it.

Anyway - you get my point. Western culture has evolved into one that venerates not just youth, but the shiny and the new at the expense of all else. It's strange to think that we don't really understand the concept of sustainability except in our own human physical terms. If we applied the economic concepts we've embraced (continuous rapid growth) to our persons, we'd all weigh 700 pounds by now and be unable to move. Is it because I'm not sufficiently well versed in economics that I just don't get this?