Isn't It Obvious

Phil asks if gyms are unhealthy. K Sera dislikes gyms. Micah discusses the gym of life (mixed zoning laws, civil engineering, the detriment of suburbs, and more).

Note: This episode was originally recorded in the Summer of 2022, one year prior to the publishing.

 

Show Notes: N/A

 

K Sera's after thoughts:

Welp.   Yeah, gyms are not for me. I'd rather be outside. Or just sitting. For me, exercise for the sake of exercising just doesn't give me that rush of dopamine. I love going for walks and being out in nature (so long as the flies and bees stay the heck away).   I do think gyms have the potential to be sacred spaces. For the folks who want a dedicated and safe place to go to move and strengthen their body, a gym can be great. You pay for access to special equipment to use for whatever strengthening goals you may have. So long as everyone is polite, sanitary and they pick up after themselves, gyms are awesome. There is a lot of potential for active community activities and forming health-focused social groups.   Most of my experiences with gyms have been of boredom and disgust, however. I don't personally like being around a bunch of sweaty people. I don't like the smell. I don't like being stuck inside, moving my body on a stationary piece of equipment with unchanging scenery. I definitely don't want to pay membership dollars for any of that, either. But that's me. I don't have to like it. These spaces are not built for me. Gyms are for the people who want to use them ... and can pay to use them. (Let's not forget capitalism!)   I also just really dislike the obsession people have about weight loss. If exercising brings you joy, do it. If you are doing it to justify eating brownies and ice cream, or because you think you're supposed to, or because someone else thinks you need to "be healthy" - whatever the fuck that means - then maybe have another think about the why of it. There is this constant conversation about weight and health that I'm just... kind of tired of having. I don't care if I'm thin. I don't care if you are either. Granted, I'm also not trying to attract a partner, either, so maybe my lizard-self is creeping in again.    There's so much unsaid meanness and shame surrounding the conversation of diet and exercise. It's obsessive and mentally unhealthy. It's frustrating to listen to people I know talk about how little they ate that day, or how their clothes aren't fitting right, or how embarrassed they are to not be a supermodel. It's okay to want to look nice. It's normal to want others to look at you with admiration or appreciation. It's also normal to want to be able to move easily and be strong enough to take care of yourself and house chores and whatever activities might require some physical exertion. I think if you are balanced and the choices you are making aren't coming from a place of shame, you are on a positive path.   Anyway, gyms. Can't do it. Not today.           Phil's after thoughts: Since starting my new job I have access to a free gym. Because of the "work-remote policy" this gym is rarely busy and most of the time much of the exercise equipment is freely available. There are times where it is busy and people do not wipe their equipment, but I do my best to make sure that everything is clean around me (before and after I use it). The nice part is that while the gym itself isn't super fancy or anything, it has all the stuff needed to stretch, warm up muscles, and do light cardio workouts. It also has showers, towels, and lockers; and for some reason it is not busy (I bring shower slippers) and each shower has their own individual door that offers a lot more privacy (and spacious enough to change in/out of in the shower stall).   I have come to realize that I only go to this gym because I have two options: either stay at work and do more work OR for an hour I can combine all my breaks and workout for 1 hour right in the middle of my shift. Honestly, I feel like this is equivalent to some strange "tobacco smoke break" but instead of contaminating my lungs with fumes, I am inhaling air from other people who are working out. Also, this facility (worksite) highly discourages people from coming in sick (the culture has definitely shifted on this, before if you didn't come in sick, you were considered not a team-player. Now it is extremely rude to come in sick). Also the production shift people (who may not have the luxury to work from home) aren't using the gym hours as the support staff do, typically because they cannot combine their breaks together (the perks of an office worker).   So why am I mentioning this? Because given the alternative of staring at a screen and doing more work, I can actually go move around and do something physical. And in this case, gyms are healthier for me. I still don't like the idea of going to the gym after work or late night hours, but at least in this case it isn't so bad. I still agree with you (and Micah) that gyms are gross and that the motivation behind working out is usually coming from an obsessive and mentally unhealthy space. And, the better alternative is to enjoy nature for a nice long walk (which my campus is next to a nice green park), so that is also an option (although not this summer since most of the time it is either too hot or too polluted with wildfire smoke).   So my conclusions that GYMS are still unhealthy remain valid with some caveats: people go to the gyms for the wrong reasons. It is mentally unhealthy compared to enjoying green space alternatives. It is also mentally unhealthy because of the motivations and desires of "being fit" for no other purpose of social pressures and compounding shame. Being healthy also includes being brain-healthy, and people that are obsessed are not exercising (ironically) moderation. In my belief, people need to reduce pain and suffering, and that includes ensuring that our brain, body (and apparently luxury bones like teeth) are in good condition, or at least maintained often).   Long story short: Gyms can be very bad for many strong reasons. But in some situations, it is better than the alternative. Just like a Big Mac.

Micah asks if having an "abstain/present" vote should be removed as an option. K Sera and Phil ponder the questions while also doing their very best not to get side tracked into other conversations.

Note: this episode was originally recorded last year (from publication) in mid Summer of 2022. Things have changed, obviously.

 

Show notes: N/A

 

K Sera's after thoughts:

In our podcast pasture, the sheep dog has adhd!

  One correction: Talisker isn’t the ‘only’ distillery on the isle of skye, but it is the oldest! My 18-year is still in my booze closet, and I think I’ll have a sip or two tonight for some reminiscence.   Now, abstaining on a vote, I think, is definitely a government official passing the buck, but I think there are things that the government doesn’t actually need to rule on. Some things are moot. Some things are not worth enshrining in law. Some things don’t need to be decided immediately, especially if more information and fact finding is necessary. Abstaining from a vote should be allowed.   I do think it is frustrating, however, and I would agree that it isn’t a great look for our representatives showing up consistently to not work or make decisions on the things we elected them to decide on. If you choose to abstain, maybe you could make it annoying for the abstainer by requiring an explanation, similar to the way a Supreme Court judge writes dissenting opinions? I don’t know.       Phil's after thoughts Our poor sheep dog is either exhausted from chasing our errant thoughts or has given up on life and found a bottle of scotch. Rest well, Sheepy.   When I re-listen to this episode I think of the classic line from an old satire movie Dr Strangelove where someone shouts "There is no fighting in the War Room!"   Playing the "PRESENT" or "ABSTAIN" vote is 100% politics. It is playing politics IN POLITICS at PEAK POLITICS. About a year later after the initial recording of this episode, Krysten Sinema ended up leaving the Democratic Party and becoming an independent. She shrewdly played her hand and now the Democratic party must face a difficult election: either they attempt to present a Democratic challenger (where Kyrsten Sinema will inevitably split the vote and have a Republican candidate enter the Senate) or support Krysten Sinema in Arizona in order to reduce the GOP voting power in government. Either way, her "ABSTAIN" and "PRESENT" votes were signals to Senate leadership AND to her voters (as many of AZ politics plays center/independent compared to the rest of the nation). Long story short: she is playing politics. The sad thing is that they had better primary candidates for the Democratic party when she was ultimately elected, and if they would have went with ANY OF THEM they would have avoided this whole mess. But that is what politics are, and unfortunately it will be a sad day when major life-saving laws "could have been enacted" but weren't because she wanted more power and sway.   The only way to mitigate this is to increase the voter motivation to actually care what is going on in their local and federal elections (and who is just playing for power, and who is actually representing Americans). I think we have gotten there in Minnesota at least, and it is my hope that other states realize that passing laws that only protect the rich while also binding the rest of us is no longer "good politics" anymore.   A human can dream, after all. 

K Sera discusses about subscriptions, access to digital multimedia, ownership versus license, generational differences, and the wider trends that will shape our future. Micah adds the capitalism perspective and how our current economic systems are accelerating the demise of the middle class. Phil goes a bit overboard with subscription lightbulbs.

 

Shownotes: N/A

 

K Sera's afterthoughts:

Subscription Hell is an apt title.   Since recording this episode, I have continued to turn this subject over in my mind.   Maybe this speaks to my economic class (and the economic class of people I spend time with), but I notice a lot of fast fashion, fast furniture, and fast meals. The clothing we buy is low quality and flimsy, but also stylish and easy to mass produce - a LOT of clothing ends up in landfills. Fast furniture has some truly beneficial qualities for the consumer who moves a lot or wants something functional, trendy, and easy to replace when they decide to change up their decor. Being made of inexpensive, light material makes these pieces super convenient for the individual consumer, but again, these pieces don't last and also end up in landfills in higher numbers and more frequently than quality pieces. They are much easier to damage and they can't really be repaired in the same way a higher quality piece can - or, the cost to repair it is actually more than just tossing it and buying a new one to replace it. The magnitude of waste is really upsetting.   Fast food could probably have its own topic. Why would you ever bother learn to cook or even care about quality nutrition when you can save time and effort by just picking up take out? Why would you make and bring a home-cooked lunch to work when you can just buy microwavable box-dinners that can be ready in less than 3 minutes? The problem is that those foods are full of so much sodium and preservatives and who knows what else, which will have long term health impacts that will eventually catch up with you. BUT THAT'S FUTURE ME'S PROBLEM. Also, health care? Who's she? Have we met?   I guess, my hope for the future is that we can find a balance between convenience, quality, and the long term health and environmental impacts. I hope that we continue to work towards more sustainable consumption, which, in a way, digital access to entertainment is a significant contribution. You don't throw your library containing thousands of digital books, music and movies into a landfill, after all. So, that's good. But that brings us back to the issue at hand: subscription hell.   Dividing our paychecks into half a dozen subscriptions or more on top of other bills, which are, also basically monthly subscriptions if you think about it... Where the hell is the pie slice for our savings? How the hell are we ever going to build wealth or equity if we're trapped in a cycle of endless subscriptions bleeding us slowly from a thousand cuts?   This forces a consumer with a limited pool of resources to prioritize and cut out the excess. The problem is, for a lot of people, there isn't a lot of fat left to trim, and some of the "fat we can trim" might be extremely important in other interpersonal or emotional ways that make that choice a lot harder. Entertainment might sound like a luxury or a frill, but I'd argue that a healthy mind requires at least some enrichment.    And with that, I think I need some enrichment in the form of solving shrine puzzles in Zelda: totk for an hour or so.     Phil's after thoughts: I am, right now as I type, cancelling my Comcast internet service. This is how much this episode enraged me. Comcast decided, on their own, to just double the internet price for reasons. There is no speed improvement, or data quality or higher consistency or anything that actually makes it worth double the price, it is just simply: you pay us more now.   I would argue that the internet is not a luxury item, but that is beside the point. The truth is every company wants to be Comcast, and heaven forbid they start making everything that is necessary to sustain oneself as a subscription service. Perhaps it already is (depending on how we stretch the definition of Subscription).   So the silver lining (or positivity spin): we are training the next generation to be more aware of purchasing quality things. I had some "generation training" just yesterday about how Millennials and Gen-Z behave (stereotypically) differently compared to Baby Boomers (and Gen-X for that matter) when it comes to how we treat our health and work-life balance. Corporations realize that the younger white-collar workers will not be treated as wage-slaves and refuse to work 50+ hours a week for a job that shows no loyalty back. The fact that the younger generation is more health conscious is primarily due to the fact that they are being priced out of healthcare, so they have to "mitigate the risk" as much as they can (rather than eat the copious amounts of fast food the previous generation indulged in). I see this behavior of not eating the right foods or drinking in a healthy way in my parent's generation. More young people, for example, drink far less compared to their older colleagues.   Basically, because we are living in a two-speed economic system, the middle class is literally "showing, not telling" their children that we accept hand-me-downs as not as an embarrassing thing, but more of a shrewd and savvy thing. Parents are really "subscribing" (ironically) to the "buy-nothing culture" (on Facebook, of all places) to prevent things from piling into landfills. The children (from my vantage point) ask where these things come from, and they are tacitly understanding that the "Re-USE" part of "Reduce, Re-use, Recycle" part is important too.   Fast Fashion is of course the complete mirror opposite to the younger generation (with social media pushing out fashion tips at a rate faster than ever before), so it is not all good news here. But I do believe we are in the beginnings of a recycle renaissance because of the sheer necessity to just simply survive.   More people are cutting CABLE TV out of their lives, to the point where even FOX NEWS is concerned. It is only a matter of time before "going to the library to check out the DVD box sets" will replace Netflix, HBO, Disney Plus, and others. If not, the "VHS tips/tricks" of the 90's will come back, but this time with private servers, 1080/4k televisions, and networked intranet hard drives.   Oh, and the fact that "depression era recipes" like "how to cook 10 tasty dishes with rice and beans" is making a comeback means we are just speed running the 1920's, but at the same time it is going back to the roots of cooking healthier and basic proteins/carbohydrates too. Except this time we have far more convenient pressure cookers and other gadgets (which are sadly all too affordable due to where they are manufactured, but I digress) that help ease the cooking process.   And as far as entertainment goes, I find myself borrowing/lending more often. I am going to ask my old Mentor to see if he is willing to lend me a skateboard (his son is a trainer/coach/instructor). Why pick up skateboarding? Because that is what middle-age fathers do! But on a serious note, I believe that entertainment will be going back to its roots as well; which of course center around more primitive luxuries (like going to a friend's house to watch the latest sportsball). What I am trying to say is people will find a way to entertain themselves despite the massive downside/dopamine-reduction.   So as cheerful and as positive as I try to make this out to be, I feel that it is our duty as Americans to be as spiteful as possible, salut with our center finger, and relish in the great satisfaction that subscription services will die as they attempt to strangle the last of our pennies from our overtapped wallets. If the only logical choice is to trim the fat, Americans will always find new sources of free fat.   P.S. As for our digital access (not belongings, since the digital files DO NOT BELONG TO US), in the podcast it was already discussed on how to "preserve them" outside the reach of the internet. Just as farmers are hacking their John Deere Trackers to repair them (which was finally put through the courts, and the legal system admonished corporate sleaziness of locking their systems), we Americans can be very crafty in getting what we want. And if they make it difficult, the "Free Market" will have a "Grey Market" competitor. If they make it illegal, well we have a darker shade of grey for that unfortunately.  

 

Phil asks if the library system is "too good for us" while Micah and K Sera take the conversation in strange and wonderful places. Well, perhaps not wonderful but certainly strange.

 

Show Notes: N/A

 

After thoughts: N/A

Micah discusses how a better way to make international policies is to leverage the olympic athletes while incentivizing nations and gold medalists to shape the world for a better future.

K Sera disagrees.

Phil rants about the Supreme Court, again.

 

Show notes: N/A

 

K Sera's afterthoughts:

My thoughts on this have changed a tiny bit. Mostly, I still don’t personally care much about sports. I have no stake in these competitions. As for Micah’s initial concept: still a firm and resounding absolutely not. Governing decisions shouldn’t rely on “might makes right.” 

 

For gender segregated competitions, we will definitely need to work this out with time and care, but I did have an idea that might be worth a try. Maybe we have 4 (or 5) categories for physical competitions? Particularly when there are cash prizes, scholarships, sponsorships or national recognition involved. Could we try having separate categories for bio men, bio women, trans men, and trans women? And make the cash prizes a percentage proportion of people participating in the categories? I’m sure there are flaws in this thinking, but it is a thought I’ve had. Possibly there could be a non-bianary/any person category, but the difficulty still lies with the fact we are a dimorphic species. Biological men still have a natural advantage when it comes to physical, strength-reliant competitions. Once people hit puberty, naturally produced hormones accelerate the athletic power gap. To keep up, a young girl could take hormones, but there are side effects other than strength gain that she may decide are not worth it to compete on the same level as boys her age. A trans woman (generalizing here) will more likely begin hormone treatments after puberty, because that’s when people start to figure out who they are as people, and when they have the actual means to realize any changes they want to make. Timing, socioeconomic and physiological factors can really skew the baseline fairness when applied to any competition, but this is especially exacerbated in physical competitions.

 

If we aren’t careful, the messages we will send to many women will either be “you aren’t a real woman” or, “what is the point of competing at all if the odds are stacked against you from the beginning and you have to take hormones to even have a chance of winning a competition?” Why compete at all when the message is either of those?

 

If prize money, sponsorships and athletic scholarships weren’t involved, I’d say it’s no big deal, it’s just people putting their skills and strength to the test. But these prizes and sponsorships do exist, they are another factor that complicates things.

 

Really, I don’t have an answer that can wrap this up neat and tidy, but I suppose I can say with some confidence: Micah’s idea was too absurd to consider.

 

Phil's afterthoughts:

On the topic of the Olympic Athletes having a greater say of policy making: is it better than the status quo? Last year (when we recorded this on April Fools of 2022) I was so pessimistic about politics, governance, and the state of our democracy. It really felt that Special Interests dominated the seats of power and that the voice of the average American person is not just drowned out, but flat out non-existent. Fast forward to today and now cannabis will be legal in a couple of days, school lunch will be free for everyone in Minnesota, college tuition for Minnesota Residence (for those making less than 70k a year) will start in 2024, and abortion access for women is secured for the foreseeable future (in fact, we are now a state that attracts our neighboring states to come here). Of course there are other good progressive things happening here in our state too, but I am surprised how many amazing new laws are happening here in such a short time frame. So, long story short: my faith in our regional politics have been restored.

  As for trans-rights and sports... I am too ignorant (still, even after more than a year after this conversation) to provide any meaningful discussion on this case. I think that the idea of having separate categories may be inevitable, especially if scholarship and business are mixed into sports (which of course almost always is). Basically, for a sport to be fun to watch, doesn't it need to have uncertainty? Otherwise who will want to watch baseball if the Yankees win every world championship until the end of time. If transgender athletes somehow make the game "boring" then the advertising/business will become unsustainable. If the conclusion of a match is already apparent before it started, it's not a sport: it is a process. And watching a process may not be as lucrative to fund scholarships, endorsements, and other big business operations. At the same time, I agree that sadly having a separate category for "other women" and "other men" isn't exactly a good message to send to the marginalized community that they belong with us, but please go play over there away from us. I don't have an answer for this either.   On my rant on the Supreme Court: I still have very strong feelings about this but that is for another day.

Phil discusses a major requirement of being a Suburban Princess.

Micah and K Sera derail the subject almost immediately.

 

Show notes: N/A

 

K Sera's after thoughts:

Sorry! This topic fell completely off the rails like... immediately, and it just kept tumbling down into the ditch in a fiery explosion of off-topic nonsense. I feel like we should really revisit some of the topics that didn't get a focused discussion. That, and sometimes our thoughts and understanding about these things evolve. Hence the afterthoughts, I suppose.   (Also, iio, we need to listen to Phil more and stop interrupting him? Yes. Yes we do.)   Visiting Disney World is a good checkbox to include on this arbitrary list that marks a person as a "Suburban Princess" but there are other items that should be included. Like maybe your high school graduating class being larger than 500 students? Or having grown up with more than 1 TV in the household? It's not a super well defined group to lump people into, really, now that I think about it. What else would be a good marker? Growing up at least 15 minutes away, but no more than 1 hour away, from the nearest international airport? I kinda like that one.   Also, Micah may rudely laugh at my driving, but he's passing judgement when he really ought not to be throwing stones. I'm not a bad driver. My record is excellent. (So go kick rocks, Micah!)   I still stand by my statement that you do not need to experience something to know that something isn't for you. For many people, first-hand experience is necessary and helpful in their journeys of self-discovery. I do not think this is true for all people, though, and certainly not for all experiences.

K Sera discusses the future of eating meat. Micah discusses the future of protein. Phil is sad about forced Russian conscription on the ongoing war.

 

Note: This episode was originally recorded in the Summer of 2022. Things have obviously changed. Unfortunately OTHER things have not (such as the war in Ukraine). Phil is also sad about the deaths of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians, and wishes for a free and independent Ukraine as soon as possible.

 

Show notes: N/A

This episode talks about abortion, hypothetical terrible situations, and our absolute disgust in the supreme court decision to reverse Roe vs Wade. Originally recorded in the summer of 2022, this "time capsule" of a podcast is a snapshot in time of how we felt back when the news first dropped.

 

Sadly, our feelings on the subject remain much the same.

 

Show notes: N/A

 

K Sera's afterthoughts:

I don’t have much to say except that all people should have access to healthcare, and that, to me, includes access to abortion. Women’s health is a minefield of social bullshit that people will pick at and dissect ad nauseum, looking for reasons, exceptions, exemptions, justifications, and outside interests - as if a woman can’t be trusted to make a decision for herself.

 

Being a woman is often not being listened to, not being believed, being told that their pain isn’t real or that their “primal purpose” is to have children. It is learning that your value as a person is directly related to your perceived attractiveness or how many children you have.

 

If you are a woman, you are a “failure” if you aren’t married with children by age 30. If you wear an arbitrary size 10 or larger, you are “ugly” and “unhealthy” and it is somehow also your fault. It is “normal” to starve yourself or exercise for hours to “make up” for eating. 

 

We are kidding ourselves if we think we value and view women as socially equal to men. At best, women are treated like something between human and livestock. It’s been a little over a 100 years since women could vote. It has been just under 50 years since women (married or not) could open a credit or checking account that they have sole control over. 

 

Women are going to be fighting for a long damn time to taken seriously and to have our choices respected. And in the meantime, I expect a lot of women are going to suffer and die because there are still too many people who refuse to see woman as fully human - as people deserving the same respect and rights as men.

 

Phil's afterthoughts:

I am sad and angry about this whole thing. A year has passed and the fact that women have either suffered horridly, died, and/or both because of this Supreme Court decision has me enraged. I am also sad because since recording, things have only gotten worse.

 

I hope for things to get better, but I fail to see any evidence to support wishful thinking. At some point I wonder how many more civil liberties will be stripped before the obvious question becomes the main question: "do I leave this country for the sake of my family?"

I am saddened and disappointed in this country.

Phil asks about conversations. Micah discusses the art of winning a conversation. K Sera likes conversations, to a point.

 

Show Notes:

N/A

Micah brings up an obvious need for gun control, K Sera develops a great marketing slogan, and Phil talks about controlling a gun

 

Show notes: N/A

 

K Sera's after thoughts:

The truth is humans are a dimorphic species. There is a general, observable physical difference between biological men and biological women. Testosterone plays a major role in size and strength of the human body. Biological men naturally produce higher levels of this hormone beginning in puberty. Women can put 10x the amount of effort into strength training and self-defense, but the reality is, if you put the average woman up against the average man in a test of strength, the man is almost always going to win. Even if they are of a similar height and weight. Any self-defense instructor worth their salt will tell you that if you are smaller/weaker, the best strategy is to run away. Period.

 

Having a gun in certain circumstances is a good equalizer when strength is uneven, but not every circumstance is a good one for a gun. As soon as you bring a gun into a situation, it escalates and heightens the mutual danger of everyone in the vicinity. Without training or the mental preparedness to take a life (potentially of someone you love), you are more likely to see that gun turned on you.

 

I actually really like the idea of a gun that is only fireable by the owner or whoever is in possession of the “key” mechanism that permits it to fire. Maybe we should be treating firearms more like cars. The government could create a licensing and education program where gun owners who wish to operate a firearm must pass a written exam and have a certain number of supervised hours of training with a licensed training instructor (similar to driver’s ed) in order to apply for and obtain a license and purchase firearms. Better yet, with an operational key designated to that weapon that is not easily removed from one’s person. Just a thought. Obviously, there’s a lot of loopholes with this idea. It’s not perfect. There will always be people who will break the law or circumvent security measures. A locked door won’t prevent a determined thief, but it tends to deter the lazier or heat-of-the-moment opportunists.

 

Anyway, there was a lot going on in this chat. I’m not even sure I can cover all of the tracks our trains derailed on. I will say, the company or campaign slogan “Y No Guns” is genius, even though it will never work in this country. But really, someone should steal some of our million dollar ideas and make them a reality. Someone with more energy and capital, that is.