Note: in the period that I have been posting on this board and others like it, I have, from time to time, broken from the drive-by nature of what we do here to write more finished responses. And the result has always been: well, okay, but it would have worked a lot better as a blog. I’ve always found that in the more sponteneous context of the message board, a more finished piece comes off as kind of pretentious. The point is that the following was the result of a more polished piece that had to be reduced to another finished piece that I thought might be a good starting point for another string. Plus that, I needed another way to visually assess it before I sent it out. It required a field test. Therefore, should the reader note the same pretense I usually do, please keep in mind that this wasn’t the context it was originally meant for.
At a superficial level, the recent protests would seem to be a simple conflict of quantifiable demands posed against other quantifiable demands: more jobs, more pay, less struggle, and more benefits posed rigidly against lower taxes and higher profits. And as typical as it seems of market based societies, on deeper inspection, we find it’s not enough to talk about more and less. We cannot, for instance, rest on the old adage that workers want more compensation for less work, while their employers pose, against these demands, their own requirement for minimal investment at maximum return. It might seem common sense. But on closer investigation, we see that the two positions are not so deeply entrenched. If they were, the workplace would hardly be worth any amount of compensation, a perpetual battle with management while struggling to stay afoot in the mass competition toward better paying and easier jobs. And how can one be so happy at 10 an hour and another so miserable at 20? Clearly, we need to break it down to individual needs, demands, and desires and interrogate the interactions. Furthermore, we need to recognize that it is primarily about expectations and their satisfaction, and that satisfaction is not binary and digital by nature (it’s not either/or), but analogue, subjective, and a matter of degree. And lastly, we need to consider the possibility that the protests are not simply about quantifiable matters, but qualities the quantifiable should be a means to. We might consider Efficiency.
We start in the boiler plant and recognize, first, that Efficiency is a technical concept and comparison of the energy put in and that gotten out. It’s a measurement of performance. However, for our purposes, we will define it in the more abstract sense of that which seeks to maximize itself by minimizing the differential between input and output. That said, we get to the point using the same principals used in the plant. We first need to understand that there can never be 100% efficiency. Along the way, there is always a loss (heat loss) that can never return to potential form. As any plant-op knows, you can never expect a 100% return on condensate in any boiler system. And everywhere we look, we find it equally elusive. In fact, it’s physical law. Consequently, we must remain mindful that energy can never be created or destroyed, only transformed, eventually ending in its always final form: heat. Therefore, any motion or energy must be taken from something else. The pump must be driven by electricity. The electricity must created by the turbine that, in turn, derives its energy from steam. And steam is the product of heat taken from coal (taken from the earth) that sees its efficiency reduced to ash. And finally, it must be remembered that our boiler room is a complex and dynamic interaction of efficiencies. Sub-efficiencies can be supra-efficiencies to their own relevant sub-efficiencies while also being sub efficiency to their own supra efficiencies. The pump, an efficiency in itself, is the product of a lot of sub efficiencies (the windings, the armature, etc.). It, in turn, is a sub-efficiency to the supra-efficiency of the boiler plant that, in turn, serves the supra-efficiency of the building by either heating or cooling it, thereby, maximizing the sub-efficiency of comfort that, in turn, serves the supra-efficiency of how one functions in the building. However, there is one efficiency that must always be supra to the sub-efficiencies of any system: the always supra efficiency of coexistence. This is because its optimization maximizes the efficiency of the system along with the various sub-efficiencies. Consequently, it is inversely true that its minimization, through the overly high demand of any component (sub or supra), can only result in a general inefficiency and possible breakdown.
Now we leave the boiler room with new tools to analyze our situation. We now see ourselves as individual efficiencies with multiple sub-efficiencies, all of which must be balanced into a harmonious co-existence. We can look at our happiest moments and recognize that it was never about more, but rather about bringing all our needs, demands, and desires into a state of harmonious balance, and that achieving this often involved lowering some demands to maximize their efficiency by making the differential manageable and thereby leave more resources for higher level desires. We must also note that while demands and desires are often matters of choice, needs are needs and can only be minimized so much. Furthermore, we now see how someone, if they have found themselves in a situation where the demands being made on them, by themselves or others, are easily met, could be happy at 10 an hr., while someone at 20, with higher demands, could be miserable. We can also see that we are sub-efficiencies to our communities and workplace that are, in turn, sub-efficiencies to a system and economy to which all of us are sub-efficiencies –poor and rich alike. And, finally, we can now assess the source of our resentment: the minimization of our efficiencies for the sake of maximizing the high level demands of the 1%, the increasing demands made upon us with decreasing resources to meet them. We can now see it is not about the quantifiable, but rather a quality of life that is no longer tolerable, that can no longer be fixed by lowering our own demands and desires. And why should we? Clearly, more is at stake than “more”. Freedom perhaps? The happiness that comes from security and stability, or the meaning they free us to give our lives? But these don’t come from more, nor should we need or demand it. They come, rather, from that which can benefit all: the harmonious coexistence of needs, demands, and desires –ours and those of others. And beyond more, we can only desire efficiency.