+
“A balm for the soul”
  review on Goodreads
GOOD PEOPLE Book
upworthy
Wellness

Americans' short-sighted focus on 'personal liberty' ended up limiting another type of freedom

Americans' short-sighted focus on 'personal liberty' ended up limiting another type of freedom

As the U.S. crosses the 300,000 COVID-19 deaths milestone, let's take a step back and look at what got us here.

But first, let's tip our hat to those who aren't where we are—to the countries that took swift, decisive action, got the population on the same page about what needed to be done, and kicked pandemic ass. The countries that not only have a tiny fraction of our death toll, but who also have been able to resume normal life in all its glory.

While mandatory quarantines for travelers and contact tracing systems for any cases that slip through the cracks are still in place, countries like Australia, New Zealand, Vietnam, Thailand, and Taiwan are experiencing a level of collective and individual freedom that America—and much of Europe—simply does not have right now. People are attending concerts, plays, sporting events, weddings, etc. without masks or social distancing. People can hug one another without worrying about killing someone. It's literally like a whole other world.

Sure, some of those countries are islands and they all have smaller populations than we do. But the U.S. is bordered by just two countries. Thailand borders four and Vietnam borders three, including China—and our not controlling the coronavirus spread has nothing to do with people crossing our physical borders. And as far as population goes, our large size accounts for raw numbers, but not deaths proportional to population.

Check out the deaths per million statistics among these countries:

Australia: 35

New Zealand: 5

Vietnam: 0.4

Thailand: 0.9

Taiwan: 0.3

United States: 924

We currently have the 12th highest deaths-per-million rate in the world. So much winning, we're sick of winning, right?

It's been said a million times that it didn't have to be this way, and it didn't. But while our government has been blamed for its abysmal response to the pandemic—and while those criticisms are legitimate—that's not the whole problem. It's nice to think that if we had a president that listened to public health officials and provided coherent guidance, we'd be in better shape, and we probably would be to some degree. But a big part of the problem is the American people ourselves.

I love us, but a huge key to controlling a pandemic is getting a population on the same page and getting people to make personal sacrifices for the greater good. It requires a collective commitment, and I'm just not convinced the U.S. is capable of that without a serious rethinking of what our core national value actually means.

The world knows—because we really, really like to shout it from the rooftops—that the U.S. is all about freedom. It's what we were founded on, what we take pride in, and what we cling to as our highest ideal. And we most often define freedom in terms of personal liberty—the right to live our lives the way we choose.

But in a pandemic, personal liberty can be problematic. I know that's hard for some Americans to hear, but it's true. If we all just do whatever we please, we end up right where we are—with an out of control virus killing a 9/11's worth of Americans every day, ten months in, and the ongoing economic hardship that goes along with a half-assed, incohesive attempt to maybe save businesses or maybe save lives. We've ended up with the worst of both worlds—mass death and economic demise—largely due to Americans' insistence upon personal freedom to the deadly and devastating exclusion of everything else.

Let's be clear about the fact that the federal government has not established any mandates or restrictions that violate American freedoms during the pandemic. Decisions about mitigation measures have been left to the states, which is both good and bad. The United States is huge, and logistically it makes more sense for local conditions to guide local responses. However, our borders between counties and states are imaginary lines with no checkpoints or restrictions for travel, which makes for a lot of holes in our collective pandemic control.

I'm not saying that the government should go all willy-nilly with our freedoms; I'm saying that Americans are short-sighted in our vision of what freedom actually means. Too many Americans have exercised their personal liberty in a way that limits our collective freedom (because it leads to out-of-control viral spread) and also ends up limiting personal liberty anyway (because out-of-control viral spread means having to take measures to keep our healthcare system from getting overwhelmed).

I know some people say "collective freedom" isn't a thing, please see the difference between daily life in the U.S. and daily life in Australia right now. Our Aussie friends are living a far freer life than we are, both individually and collectively, because they chose to sacrifice individually so that the whole society could be free from the virus. That's what collective freedom looks like, and they didn't succumb to tyranny to get it. That could have been us, if we stopped seeing everything that isn't "go ahead and do whatever you want" as tyranny.

In a viral pandemic like this one, doing whatever we want is inconducive to true freedom. We're watching this play out in states that were reticent to implement restrictions until now, as hospitals spill over and mandates become necessary for public safety. People exercising their personal freedoms with no regard for public health guidelines results in out-of-control viral spread, which results in social and economic devastation as huge numbers of people get sick and die.

Exercising personal liberty without personal responsibility in a viral pandemic leads to limited freedom for longer, with a lot more pain and suffering, than using our liberty to do what needs to be done to prevent that.

I can already see people bringing up Benjamin Franklin's quote—"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Some version of it comes up any time the government tries to enact anything Americans view as limiting their freedoms, but there are a couple of problems with bringing it up now. Franklin, as it turns out, was specifically talking about a dispute over taxes to fund securing the frontier, not public health in a pandemic. (And despite what people might assume, his quote was actually pro-taxation.) While that quote pushes all the right "my personal freedom" buttons, I'm quite sure that Ben Franklin would be losing his mind over Americans rejecting public health guidelines in the name of "I do what I want" if he were here today.

As an American, I appreciate our nation's commitment to personal liberty. I really do. But we seem to have forgotten that the founding premise of our republic wasn't just an inalienable right to liberty, but to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." When exercising personal liberty costs another American their life, then our national values are in conflict. "Give me liberty or give me death" is great when we're not in a viral pandemic, but "Give me liberty and I will give you death" is what we're currently experiencing.

Freedom can't be merely seen as an end, but as a means. In the next pandemic, I hope my fellow Americans will use their personal liberty to choose do what needs to be done to help us reach collective and individual freedom, rather than cutting off our nose to spite our face by insisting on a puerile version of freedom that only leads to all of us losing both.

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
United states of america
Badge
Visit Sweden
Visit Sweden
Education

Sweden makes stunning decision to trademark its name to avoid confusion

The country is taking historic steps to fix the problem.

via Visit Sweden (used with permission)

A Swedish woman taking things into her own hands.

True

Sweden has existed for over 1,000 years, but travelers across the globe are confused because other places, inspired by the country’s untouched beauty and joyously inclusive culture, have taken its name.

Seven other places in the world call themselves Sweden, so to distinguish itself from the name-alikes, the Kingdom of Sweden is taking a bold, historic step that no country has before. It’s become the first to apply to trademark its name with the European Union Intellectual Property Office.

Visit Sweden likens the country’s problem to a luxury brand that has to contend with dupes, knockoffs, or bootlegs that fall short of the glory of the genuine article.

“It’s flattering that other places want to be called Sweden, but let’s be honest, there should only be one. Our Sweden. The one with the Northern Lights, endless forests, and the world’s best flat-pack furniture,” says Susanne Andersson, CEO at Visit Sweden.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

By trademarking its name, Sweden will make things much less confusing for travelers worldwide. It’d be a shame for someone looking to visit Sweden’s majestic Lapland to mistakenly wind up in a place with no reindeer, Aurora Borealis, or cloudberries to be found.

The world-class research team at Visit Sweden knew it had to act when it realized that other destinations with the same name had tripped up travelers. People looking to vacation in Portland, Oregon, have accidentally wound up in Portland, Maine. Travelers yearning to experience the fall in Manchester, New Hampshire, have been deplaning in Manchester, England. “It happens more than you think!” the researchers admitted.


sweden, visit sweden, swedish vacation The Northern Lights in Sweden. via Visit Sweden, Photographer: Jann Lipka/imagebank.sweden.se

The E.U. Intellectual Property Office must act swiftly and allow Sweden to trademark its name so that travelers worldwide don’t miss the opportunity to experience an utterly unique country known for its serene landscapes, commitment to deep relaxation and personal freedom.

No one should ever miss out on staying on one of Sweden’s 267,570 islands, more than any other country. The Swedish archipelagos offer luxurious glamping, peaceful hikes, tranquil solitude and awe-inspiring, pristine nature.

sweden, visit sweden, swedish vacation A woman camping in the Swedish archipelago.via Visit Sweden, Photographer: Anders Klapp/imagebank.sweden.se


Sweden is a beautiful place to visit all year round, with bright summers, colorful falls, vibrant springs and dark, crisp winters. It is also a place to delight your tastebuds with a cuisine centered on healthy, locally sourced produce, with some preparation methods dating back to the Viking era.

The original Sweden is a place where one can relish Old World European history while also enjoying the modern pleasures of the most progressive countries in the world. Travelers can be whisked back into history by visiting the Naval Port of Karlskona, a well-preserved European naval town from 1680. Or, enjoy cutting-edge design, delicacies, art, music and culture in hip metropolitan destinations such as Stockholm or Sweden’s “coolest city,” Gothenburg.

Did we mention Sweden has an ABBA museum? Wait till the other 7 Swedens find out about that.

As you can see, Sweden is an incredibly unique destination that cannot be duplicated. It would be a tragedy for anyone intending to visit the original Sweden to mistakenly find themselves in a name-alike place that lacks its Scandinavian charm. You can do your part to stop the confusion by signing a petition to let Sweden trademark Sweden at Visit Sweden (the original).

sweden, visit sweden, swedish vacation A Swedish Midsommar celebration. via Visit Sweden, Photographer: Stefan Berg/Folio/imagebank.sweden.se

From Your Site Articles
Innovation

Astronaut shares the profound 'big lie' he realized after seeing the Earth from space

This change in perspective could change humanity.

via Rubén Moreno Montolíu/Flickr

Our home, from space.

Sixty-one years ago, Yuri Gagarin became the first human to make it into space and probably the first to experience what scientists now call the "overview effect." This change occurs when people see the world from far above and notice that it’s a place where “borders are invisible, where racial, religious and economic strife are nowhere to be seen.”

The overview effect makes man’s squabbles with one another seem incredibly petty and presents the planet as it truly is, one interconnected organism.

In a compelling interview with Big Think, astronaut, author and humanitarian Ron Garan explains how if more of us developed this planetary perspective we could fix much of what ails humanity and the planet.

Garan has spent 178 days in space and traveled more than 71 million miles in 2,842 orbits. From high above, he realized that the planet is a lot more fragile than he thought.

“When I looked out the window of the International Space Station, I saw the paparazzi-like flashes of lightning storms, I saw dancing curtains of auroras that seemed so close it was as if we could reach out and touch them. And I saw the unbelievable thinness of our planet's atmosphere. In that moment, I was hit with the sobering realization that that paper-thin layer keeps every living thing on our planet alive,” Garan said in the video.

“I saw an iridescent biosphere teeming with life,” he continues. “I didn't see the economy. But since our human-made systems treat everything, including the very life-support systems of our planet, as the wholly owned subsidiary of the global economy, it's obvious from the vantage point of space that we're living a lie.”

It was at that moment he realized that humanity needs to reevaluate its priorities.

“We need to move from thinking economy, society, planet to planet, society, economy. That's when we're going to continue our evolutionary process,” he added.

Garan says that we are paying a very “high price” as a civilization for our inability to develop a more planetary perspective and that it’s a big reason why we’re failing to solve many of our problems. Even though our economic activity may improve quality of life on one end, it’s also disasterous for the planet that sustains our lives.

It’s like cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Actor William Shatner had a similar experience to Garan's when he traveled into space.

"It was among the strongest feelings of grief I have ever encountered," Shatner wrote. "The contrast between the vicious coldness of space and the warm nurturing of Earth below filled me with overwhelming sadness. Every day, we are confronted with the knowledge of further destruction of Earth at our hands: the extinction of animal species, of flora and fauna … things that took five billion years to evolve, and suddenly we will never see them again because of the interference of mankind."

“We're not going to have peace on Earth until we recognize the basic fact of the interrelated structure of all reality,” Garan said.

However dire the situation looks from the surface of Earth, the astronaut has hope that we can collectively evolve in consciousness and wake up and embrace a larger reality. “And when we can evolve beyond a two-dimensional us versus them mindset, and embrace the true multi-dimensional reality of the universe that we live in, that's when we're going to no longer be floating in darkness … and it's a future that we would all want to be a part of. That's our true calling.”


This article originally appeared two years ago.

From Your Site Articles
space
Badge
Cycle for Survival
Cycle for Survival
Sponsored

How can riding a bike help beat cancer? Just ask Reid Moritz, 10-year-old survivor and leader of his own “wolfpack”

Every year, Reid and his pack participate in Cycle for Survival to help raise money for the rare cancer research that’s helped him and so many others. You can too.

all photos courtesy of Reid Moritz

Together, let’s help fuel the next big breakthrough in cancer research

True

There are many things that ten-year-old Reid Wolf Moritz loves. His family, making watches (yes, really), basketball, cars (especially Ferraris), collecting super, ultra-rare Pokémon cards…and putting the pedal to the medal at Cycle for Survival.

Cycle for Survival is the official rare cancer fundraising program of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK). One hundred percent of every dollar raised at Cycle for Survival events supports rare cancer research and lifesaving clinical trials at MSK.

At only two years old, Reid was diagnosed with pilocytic astrocytoma, a rare type of brain tumor.

Pediatric cancer research is severely underfunded. When standard treatments don't work, families rely on breakthrough clinical trials to give their children a real shot at long-term survival.

When Reid’s chemotherapy and brain surgery didn’t work, he was able to participate in one of MSK’s clinical trials, where he’s received some incredible results. “Memorial Sloan Kettering has done so much for me. It's just so nice how they did all this for me. They're just the best hospital ever,” Reid recalls.

And that’s why every year, you’ll find Reid with his team, aptly named Reid's Wolfpack, riding at Cycle for Survival. It’s just Reid’s way of paying it forward so that even more kids can have similar opportunities.

“I love sharing my story to inspire other kids to PERSEVERE, STAY STRONG and NEVER GIVE UP while also raising money for my amazing doctors and researchers to help other kids like me.”

Reid remembers the joy felt bouncing on his father’s shoulder and hearing the crowd cheer during his first Cycle for Survival ride. As he can attest, each fundraising event feels more like a party, with plenty of dancing, singing and celebrating.

Hoping to spread more of that positivity, Reid and his family started the Cycle for Survival team, Reid’s Wolfpack, which has raised close to $750,000 over the past eight years. All that money goes directly to Reid’s Neuro-Oncology team at Memorial Sloan Kettering.

In addition to cheering on participants and raising good vibes at Cycle for Survival events, Reid even designs some pretty epic looking merch—like basketball shorts, jerseys, and hoodies—to help raise money.

If you’re looking to help kids just like Reid, and have a ton of fun doing it, you’re in luck. Cycle for Survival events are held at Equinox locations nationwide, and welcome experienced riders and complete newbies alike. You can even join Reid and his Wolfpack in select cities!

And if cycling in any form isn’t your thing, a little donation really does go a long way.

Together, let’s help fuel the next big breakthrough in cancer research. Find out more information by checking out cycleforsurvival.org or filling out this interest form.

From Your Site Articles
best of humanity
Education

Listen to famous Victorians having a ball recording their voices for the very first time

Getting drunk and speaking into a phonograph used to be prime entertainment.

AI generated image/Photo credit: Canva, Levin C. Handy/Wikipedia

It's so cool to listen to them ponder a future that would become our present.

The latter part of the Victorian era brought us the invention of photography, and along with it a more realistic—though not completely accurate—glimpse into what life of the time period looked like. And yet, the same can’t be said for what 19th century folks sounded like.

While technically the first recording of a human voice did happen in 1860 (very early on in the Victorian era), it wouldn’t be until the 1880s, when Thomas Edison perfected the technology with his new-and-improved wax cylinder phonograph, that voice recording would become more of a commonplace concept.

In a video created by Kings and Things, we are thrust back in time to when this device made its debut, and subsequently captured the voice of many Victorian era icons. During an evening soirée held in London, George Gouraud, an American employee of Edison, decided to delight his guests by inviting them to record their own personalized message to Edison.

This novel form of entertainment would always start the same way—Gouraud would first toast the guest before prompting them to speak. Needless to say, things would quite quickly turn into drunken fun.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

But there was also a bit of unintentional foreshadowing that came about. Composer Sir Arthur Sullivan, for example, all but predicted the kind of impact this technology would have on music.

"For myself I can only say that I am astonished and somewhat terrified at the results of this evening's experiments: astonished at the wonderful power you have developed, and terrified at the thought that so much hideous and bad music may be put on record forever,” he said.

Gouraud would hold many demonstrations of the phonograph, both at his home in London and at other social events with elite guests, hoping to record the “voices of the great of all nations, to include alike someday the voices of the living and the dead” so that they might be available for future generations.

Getting that kind of extensive archive, however, wasn’t always easy. Even today, many of us get choked up at the thought of talking on the telephone. The nerves were understandably similar, if not worse, for Victorians not only interacting with a daunting device for the first time, but also the concept of their voice being immortalized.

“It is curious to see how the most distinguished speakers behave when they find themselves in front of the photograph and speak into it,” Gouraud noted. Even the famously confident stage actor Sir Henry Irving apparently became "frightened out of his own voice.”

Eventually other “recordists” were brought on to replicate Gouraud’s work of demonstrating the phonograph. And one of them recorded one of the most well known and influential Victorians of them all, the founder of modern nursing herself—Florence Nightingale.

Here’s what the Lady with the Lamp had to say:

“When I am no longer even a memory, just a name, I hope my voice may perpetuate the great work of my life.”

Other notable recordings include politician William Gladstone and Queen Victoria herself—though her recording was replayed to the point of damaging the quality, and it’s hard to accurately detect whose voice it might belong to. It would be much, much later that any of the recordings could be replayed without any degradation.

This entire video is a great reminder that while we might not ever be able to truly time travel (although here’s hoping!) , that doesn't mean we won’t continue finding new ways to experience the past. It’s also interesting to think what folks a hundred years from now will think of the many, many questionable recordings of ourselves that will live on forever via the internet.

Check out more of Kings and Things' content here.

From Your Site Articles
cool history
Education

A story about two pairs of boots illustrates how rich people get richer in ways poor people can't

It’s got nothing to do with bootstraps.

Photo by Maxim Hopman on Unsplash

The Sam Vimes "Boots" Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness explains one way the rich get richer.

Any time conversations about wealth and poverty come up, people inevitably start talking about boots. The standard phrase that comes up is "pull yourself up by your bootstraps," which is usually shorthand for "work harder and don't ask for or expect help." (The fact that the phrase was originally used sarcastically because pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps is literally, physically impossible is rarely acknowledged, but c'est la vie.)

The idea that people who build wealth do so because they individually work harder than poor people is baked into the American consciousness and wrapped up in the ideal of the American dream. A different take on boots and building wealth, however, paints a more accurate picture of what it takes to get out of poverty.

Author Terry Pratchett is no longer with us, but his writing lives on and is occasionally shared on his official social media accounts. Recently, his Twitter page shared the "Sam Vimes 'Boots' Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness" from Pratchett's 1993 book "Men At Arms." This boots theory explains that one reason the rich are able to get richer is because they are able to spend less money.

If that sounds confusing, read on:

Pratchett wrote:

"The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet."

In other words, people who have the money to spend a little more upfront often end up spending less in the long run. A $50 pair of boots that last five years essentially cost you $10 a year. But if you can only afford $10 upfront for a pair of boots that last six months, that's what you buy—and you end up paying twice as much over a five-year period.

There are so many areas in which this principle applies when you're poor. Buying in bulk saves you money over the long run, but you have to be able to afford the bulk cost up front. A reliable car that doesn't require regular repairs will cost more than a beater, but if the beater is all you can afford, that's what you're stuck with. You'll likely spend the same or more over time than if you'd bought a newer/higher quality car, but without the capital (or the credit rating) to begin with, you don't have much choice.

People who can afford larger down payments pay lower interest rates, saving them money both immediately and in the long run. People who can afford to buy more can spend more with credit cards, pay off the balances, build up good credit and qualify for lower interest rate loans.

There are lots of good financial decisions and strategies one can utilize if one has the ability to build up some cash. But if you are living paycheck to paycheck, you can't.

Climbing the financial ladder requires getting to the bottom rung first. Those who started off anywhere on the ladder can make all kinds of pronouncements about how to climb it—good, sound advice that really does work if you're already on the ladder. But for people living in poverty, the bottom rung is just out of reach, and the walls you have to climb to get to it are slippery. It's expensive to be poor.

When people talk about how hard it is to climb out of poverty, this is a big part of what they mean. Ladder-climbing advice is useless if you can't actually get to the ladder. And yet, far too many people decry offering people assistance that might help them reach the ladder so they can start taking advantage of all that great financial advice. Why? Perhaps because they were born somewhere on the ladder—even if it was the bottom rung—and aren't aware that there are people for whom the ladder is out of reach. Or perhaps they're unaware of how expensive it is to be poor and how the costs of poverty keep people stuck in the pit. Hopefully, this theory will help more people understand and sympathize with the reality of being poor.

Money makes money, but having money also saves you money. The more money you have, the more wealth you're able to build not only because you have extra money to save, but also because you buy higher quality things that last, therefore spending less in the long run. (There's also the reality that the uber-wealthy will pay $5,000 for shoes they'll only wear a few times, but that's a whole other kind of boots story.)

Thanks, Terry Pratchett, for the simple explanation.


This story originally appeared two years ago.

From Your Site Articles
culture
Parenting

What do you keep in your ‘car kit?’ Parents reveal surprisingly practical must have items

An ice cream bucket with a lid.

Photo credit: Canva

Parents reveal 'must have' items to keep in your 'car kit'

Once you have a baby it doesn't take long for you to realize that you're no longer able to just quickly leave the house. There are a million and one things you have to toss into a bag before you can even grab the baby and head out the door. Eventually the diaper bag is down to a science where certain things just "live" in the bag after months of experience learning the most needed items.

But kids don't need diaper bags forever. They eventually eat without spitting up, no longer need a binky or their extra lovey to carry with them everywhere. So the bag gets a little smaller until you realize, bigger kids still need a bunch of crap that is infrequent enough that you can leave it in the car but frequent enough that you can't leave it at home. That's when you graduate from the diaper bag or toddler backpack to having a parenting "car kit."

A parenting car kit contains all the essentials that your child might need while in the car for road trips and trips around town. Since every kid and family are different most car kits will be different but there are a few common items that parents swear by on keeping handy. If you're a newer parent just heading into that in between age of not quite toddler but not quite preschooler, you may want to grab a pen to jot down some ideas if you don't already ave a car kit packed.

Start with the essentials

Depending on the type of car you have, you may want to use a tote bag, small duffle bag or a shallow plastic tote to keep everything contained. Since the kit's permanent home will be in your vehicle it should be in a container that is not in the way but is large enough to fit your needs. Aside from something to put the items in, the most common item to keep inside it is a first aid kit, which can be restocked as needed. Other parents on weighed in on what they felt like were important must haves to keep on hand.

brown duffel bag beside white and brown wooden chair Photo by Erol Ahmed on Unsplash

Car sickness and stomach bugs happen so it's better to be prepared

Vomit happens when you have kids, so several parents insist on keeping items in your car to make your life a little easier. One parent writes, "We use an ice cream bucket (and have a lid in case we have to use it). My kids get sick way too often, so we also keep an extra change of clothes for both, disinfecting wipes, Febreeze, soap to clean the bucket in a bathroom sink."

Other parents suggested gallon Ziploc bags or the vomit bags in the back of airplane seats but instead of...borrowing them from an airline, someone suggests ordering them online, "We learned the hard way. You can order them on Amazon, they're not expensive, and they're worth every dime when you're not cleaning vomit out of your car vents with a toothbrush."

vomiting season 21 GIF by The BachelorGiphy

Don't forget the changing seasons and extra shoes and...more

One mom shares that she swaps out clothes depending on the season and is sure to keep a spare pair of shoes, "I have a toddler, I keep....Change of clothes, cheap flipflops for spare shoes, I rotate out summer/winter things (sunscreen/hat/bubbles/bathing suit/towel and winter hat/gloves/sweater/snowpants), books (Especially I-spy books), bandaid's, wet wipes, chalk, extra little cheap toys/entertainment encase stuck in traffic for a long time (have previously been stuck in traffic 4 hours because there was an accident on the hwy. I learned my lesson, bring things to entertain the child.), coloring book/crayons, extra blankets, inflatable ball to play pass with, toilet paper, fold out potty."

Schitts Creek Comedy GIF by CBCGiphy

Picture it, the theme is wet wipes

If you were curious if parents thought you needed wet wipes, you can't stop worrying because they do. They say you need all of the wet wipes or baby wipes. "Baby wipes, no matter how old they are. Towel, hair brush, 1st aid kit, spare clothes for all of us, pocket knife, coloring books, crayons, regular books, and a gallon ziplock filled with old party favor extras in case of emergency," one parent says.

Another parent writes, "My youngest is 10 and our eldest is 25. Is still always have baby wipes. Super convenient!" While someone else shares, "Mine are 3 and 5 year old boys. I have a pack of wipes (you ALWAYS need wipes), change of clothes for both kids, emergency portable potty, and two empty metal water bottles (because we often go on spontaneous adventures and we sometimes buy drinks that they want to split)."

Happy Wipes GIF by Huggies BrandGiphy

Or you can opt out

Not all parents are interested in keeping extra things in their car for "just in case." Just like all car kits are individual to each family, so is the need for one. Some kids are excellent in cars, never getting car sick or having accidents, while others require more, with one parent saying, "I’m baffled by this 'parent kit' stuff. Like my kid is 9 and we’ve survived a lot without most of this stuff."

Several parents share that they prefer not having additional things in their car and it has worked out fine while others explain that they didn't think to keep things in their car and other parents saved them in a pinch from their own car kits.

"These had never crossed my mind before. And then, when he was 2, my son suddenly threw up as I was carrying him into a restaurant and this random mom was immediately at my side with vomit bags and wipes. That woman is still my hero and I now always have an extra vomit bag in the car at a minimum," one person says.

Parenting is such an individual thing that heavily depends on your child's personality and physical needs. But if you do have a car kit or want to make one, it might just be you who is coming to the rescue of a flustered mom still learning what her child needs available while in the car.

From Your Site Articles
traveling with kids
Science

Carl Sagan's irrefutable 1990 argument for using all U.S. resources to fight climate change

He was way ahead of his time and his logic stands now.

via IslandPalm14/YouTube

Carl Sagan's keynote address at the 5th Emerging Issues Forum at NCSU.

Carl Sagan, the legendary astrophysicist and science communicator, was best known for his incredible ability to express complicated concepts in a way that the everyday person could understand. He did so most notably as host of PBS’s groundbreaking “Cosmos: A Personal Voyage" from 1980 to 1981.

Sagan was also a brilliant futurist who was way ahead of his time. In 1961, he predicted that the clouds of Venus might be home to life, an idea that has gained traction over the past few years. He also predicted many of America's current problems in 1995 and correctly claimed that one day AI would be used for psychotherapy back in the '70s.

He was also ahead of his time when sounding the alarm about Climate Change, evidenced by a 1990 speech he gave at the 5th Emerging Issues Forum. In the keynote address, he said that America should treat the climate crisis as seriously as it did the Cold War. Sagan’s speech was delivered a year after the fall of the Berlin Wall, which concluded the icy, 5-decade conflict between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

For some context, in 1990, only 30% of Americans were worried about global warming or the greenhouse effect. Today, 54% describe climate change as a “major threat” to the country’s well-being.

- YouTubeyoutu.be

“The amount of money that the United States has spent on the Cold War since 1945 is approximately 10 trillion dollars,” Sagan says, adding that with that amount of money, one could own everything in the country, minus the land.

“How certain was it that the Russians were going to invade? Was it 100% certain? Guess not since they never invaded. What if it was only, let’s say 10% certain? What would advocates of big military buildup have said? We must be prudent. It’s not enough to count on only the most likely circumstance," Sagan continues.

“I ask my friends who are comfortable with that argument, including the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, why doesn’t that same argument apply to Global Warming? You don’t think it’s 100% likely? Fine. You are entitled to think that. If it’s only a small probability of it happening since the consequences are so serious, don’t you have to make some serious investment to prevent it or mitigate it? I think there’s a double standard of argument working and I don’t think we should permit it.”



Sagan would then list the steps we can take to mitigate the effects of climate change, including eliminating CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons), increasing fuel efficiency in cars and trucks, seeking out new alternative energy sources, dealing with the global population crisis and planting trees. "A tree is an engine for taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and it does it. It’s not the only thing a tree does, but that is one of the things that trees are good for and it's especially relevant to this issue,” Sagan says.

Sagan’s solutions are the same ones we discuss today, although fears of a global population crisis have waned over the years.

Sagan concluded his address by comparing the dangers of global warming to those faced by the U.S. during the Cold War and making an argument that many support today: fighting climate change is also good economic policy.

"So, what I say to those who complain that it is too uncertain–beyond pointing out the standards that were applied to the Cold War ought to be applied here–I say look, every one of these steps makes good sense, makes good economic sense,” Sagan says. “And think of all of the industries that are implied by what I have just said, especially alternative energy sources. There is money to be made in developing a technology which will appropriately address greenhouse warming."

You can watch the entire address here:

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

From Your Site Articles
climate change
Trending Stories