Book Review: Atlas Shrugged

 

Ayn Rand discovered a few plain and precious truths:

1. Money is made.  Money is simply a way of trading the worth of your goods for someone elses.  It doesn't matter what your goods are - it matters if others are willing to trade theirs for yours.
Money is not finite, because all money is based on the worth of something your produce.  The more you produce and the better you do it - the more money is made.  Everyone can be rich at the same time.  There is no such thing as "one person became rich, and that made the rest of us poor."  There is no "pie" so when one person has a "bigger slice" it doesn't detract from anyone elses ability to make money as well. 

2.  Mercy cannot rob justice.  Both can be met - but never one at the expense of the other.

3.  Those who "produce" with their minds are often worth far more than those who "produce" with their bodies.  A blacksmith could make a steel beam in about three days.  But if someone develops the technology, that same blacksmith can use equipment and engineering to produce 100 steel beams in three days.
The blacksmith does the same "amount" of work - yet produces 100x more.  Who gets the profit?  The blacksmith doing the work, or the inventor who made it possible?
 - the answer is both.  Everyone benefits and makes more.  But her point is that - If no one has ideas, then muscle and production are pretty useless.  The metal and glass used to make an iPod probably cost about $15 as raw materials. - so why do we pay $300 for them?  And why don't those profits go to the makers of the glass and metal, or the workers assembling the iPods?  They make money - but they are not the reason the final product is worth so much.  It's worth so much because of what it can DO - what the inventors programmed into it!

The problem with Ayn Rand is that once she discovered these truths - she stopped searching.
She thought she could sum up the purpose and motto of life in one sentence:

"I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

She assumed she found the only truth there ever was - and she took 1168 pages to explain it.  The only moral principle is that of production.  There are no morals other than the moral of doing the best job you can do - nothing more, nothing less.

She openly mocks sexual morality in her book.  Caring for others, love, religion - there is no purpose to any of that.  There is no truth there, no morality, nothing.  You either produce or you don't.  That is your worth.

That is what destroys her book.  She realized something great.  She pointed out that you don't have to limit "the big guy" to make room for "the little guy."  If one person succeeds, that doesn't mean others fail. Profit is not evil.  It is those who produce who feed the rest of us. Corporations are not bad - they employ people and make money and products that all of us want and use.
Laborers aren't any better than thinkers.  It doesn't matter how you produce or contribute, it matters that you do - and that you do it well.

She is right - But she thinks you must ONLY produce.  You cannot be nice.  You cannot care about what happens to others.  You cannot love and you cannot live by standards.  You cannot believe in God.  There is one standard and one God to her - that is production.

The part that really disturbed me was her understanding of sex.  To Ayn Rand - sex is a prize, a reward to be given to the best producer and the most genius mind.  Literally.  Her protagonist sleeps with one man, then finds someone smarter and richer and starts sleeping with him - then finds the smartest man ever - and sleeps with him.

Then she tries to show all three men being perfectly happy and content with this arrangement.  The first two say "you found someone smarter and richer, I'm happy for you and still love you, and go have all the sex you want with the new guy instead of me - he deserves it."

That's just wrong on so many levels - I can't talk about it anymore.

Then she makes a rather glaring mistake in her book: She realized another truth, but refused to admit it.  She discovered that once people are independent, self sustaining producers - they gladly share and collaborate with others of their caliber. 
She writes vehemently that human beings should NEVER give each other ANYTHING.  Everything must be purchased, even between the closest of friends.  Yet - she shows them giving new-comers things for free, knowing they'll be able to produce on their own later, and pay back all the generosity shown to them.

Ayn Rand realized that motivated and driven people can be kind, and caring, and generous, and can give things freely to others of the same mind.  She ends her book with people risking their lives and fortunes to save those they love - but she just tried to cover it up and never admit it openly.

Some of Rand's characters are deep and real - but those characters are few and far between.  Most of her characters are uni-dimensional, artificial, and ridiculous.  They are over the top, overzealous, and they make the book feel like a parable instead of a good story.

This book does make you think.  It makes some great points - but it gets so bogged down teaching the same lesson 47 different ways, that it really isn't worth recommending.  If an abridged version exists - try that.  It wasn't worth the 1168 pages.


* * * * * * * * * *


Here are some good quotes from the book:

What's the most depraved type of human being? The man without a purpose.

"I've hired you to do a job, not to do your best—whatever that is." 

"You are an unusual, brilliant child who has not seen enough of life to grasp the full measure of human stupidity.”

Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth—the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. 

Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it.

“Miss Taggart, I can proudly say that in all of my life I have never made a profit!"

Her voice was quiet, steady and solemn: "Mr. Lawson, I think I should let you know that of all the statements a man can make, that is the one I consider most despicable."

Do you know the hallmark of the second-rater? It's resentment of another man's achievement. Those touchy mediocrities who sit trembling lest someone's work prove greater than their own—they have no inkling of the loneliness that comes when you reach the top. The loneliness for an equal— for a mind to respect and an achievement to admire. They bare their teeth at you from out of their rat holes, thinking that you take pleasure in letting your brilliance dim them—while you'd give a year of your life to see a flicker of talent anywhere among them. 

"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Anconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce."

Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made—before it can be looted or mooched—made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced. 

Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it. 

When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing—when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors—when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you—when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice—you may know that your society is doom.

All your life, you have heard yourself denounced, not for your faults, but for your greatest virtues. You have been hated, not for your mistakes, but for your achievements. You have been scorned for all those qualities of character which are your highest pride. You have been called selfish for the courage of acting on your own judgment and bearing sole responsibility for your own life. You have been called arrogant for your independent mind. You have been called cruel for your unyielding integrity. You have been called anti-social for the vision that made you venture upon undiscovered roads. You have been called ruthless for the strength and self-discipline of your drive to your purpose. You have been called greedy for the magnificence of your power to create wealth. 

“If you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater his effort the heavier the world bore down upon his shoulders—what would you tell him to do?"

"I . . . don't know. What . . . could he do? What would you tell him?"

"To shrug."

 

Robin Hood is remembered, not as a champion of property, but as a champion of need, not as a defender of the robbed, but as a provider of the poor. He is held to be the first man who assumed a halo of virtue by practicing charity with wealth which he did not own, by giving away goods which he had not produced, by making others pay for the luxury of his pity. He is the man who became the symbol of the idea that need, not achievement, is the source of rights, that we don't have to produce, only to want, that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does. He became a justification for every mediocrity who, unable to make his own living, has demanded the power to dispose of the property of his betters.

There's no such thing as a lousy job—only lousy men who don't care to do it.

What were they counting on? Those who had once simpered: "I don't want to destroy the rich, I only want to seize a little of their surplus to help the poor, just a little, they'll never miss it!"—then, later, had snapped: "The tycoons can stand being squeezed, they've amassed enough to last them for three generations"—then, later, had yelled: "Why should the people suffer while businessmen have reserves to last a year?"—now were screaming: "Why should we starve while some people have reserves to last a week?" What were they counting on? 

Man cannot survive except by gaining knowledge, and reason is his only means to gain it. 

The name of this monstrous absurdity is "Original Sin." A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality.

'The public,' to you, is whoever has failed to achieve any virtue or value; whoever achieves it, whoever provides the goods you require for survival, ceases to be regarded as part of the public or as part of the human race. 

Every man is free to rise as far as he's able or willing, but it's only the degree to which he thinks that determines the degree to which he'll rise. Physical labor as such can extend no further than the range of the moment. 

The Scientific Process IS the Revelation Process

This week I got to hear a Pharmacist speak about how great science is, and how it's always wrong.  Sometimes it's completely wrong, and sometimes it just needs to be tweaked.  It moves us in the right direction.  But usually we find out that we knew a little - and assumed a lot.

We make theories, we test them, we analyze results, we make new theories.  Every once in a while a breakthrough is made.  We find something out that we'd never thought of before.

For example - We went from seeing the atom as a random mixture of particles, to realizing it was a condensed mass of positively charged particles in the middle, surrounded by negatively charged particles circling around it.  Later we found particles with no charge were also in the middle.

Then we found that electrons can be transferred.  We found that neutrons can be added to change the weight of elements.  We found that the number of protons determined what element an atom was.

We discovered the element Helium not by finding it, but deducing it from the Sun.
We found a way of releasing energy through nuclear reactions.

These particles only scratched the surface. 


Will cold fusion ever work? How about string theory? What do we know about quarks?
What about gravity?  We still don't know what CAUSES gravity.  We know large objects attract smaller objects.  But it isn't by mechanical force, or magnetic force, or electrical force.  It's by some gravitational pull that we all see and recognize and can describe, yet we have no idea what it really is.

Religion, Revelation, Prophets, Faith - it all works the same way.
The Scientific Process is much the same as the Revelation Process.

I believe all God has revealed, all that he now reveals, and I believe he is yet to reveal many things.

People seem to have this belief that God just gave us knowledge. *poof*  It just descended upon the people and prophets like dew in the morning, and after 4000 years of progressively teaching and revealing, It all stopped.

God said, "No more. Good Luck. Do with what you have. Oh, and pray all you like, there is nothing new to discover."

How does that make sense?

How did Moses get the 10 Commandments?  Did he just sit on his throne next to his adopted brother Ramesses until God dropped the stone tablets at his feet?  No!  God first gave him a wake-up call.  Then Moses worked for them.  He worked to gain knowledge.  He practiced using God's power.  He practiced talking to God.  He practiced getting revelation.  He prayed, he worked, he thought, he taught.  Eventually when he received stone tablets with laws and revelations that would help a people ready for them - the people weren't.  So Moses broke those tablets and asked God for something the people could handle.  They were the 10 commandments.  They were a great "discovery."  They would advance mankind and be a guiding map for centuries to come.  They are still recited, read, and used today.

Were they the end all, beat all, immutable law?  No.  They were a step.  They were the simpler law, the one the people were ready for then.  God had something better in store, but it would have been like giving electricity to cavemen - they'd have no idea what to do with hit.  So then Christ came and explained - There is much more.  There is more to being morally clean than just "not having sex with a married person."  There is more to brotherly love than just "not killing other people."

The scientific process is usually not about seeking better answers, but asking better questions.

Joseph Smith never planned on starting a new religion.  He didn't pray to ask how he could change the Methodist church or reform the Presbyterians.  He asked God which church was right.  He asked a new question, a better question.  God then told him  -None of them are right.  They all come close, but none are correct. -  Over the next 15 years Joseph kept praying, kept studying, learning, reading.  He worked on projects to learn how to receive revelation.  He translated an ancient book of scripture into English.  He read the Bible over and over again.  He pondered about passages that didn't seem to make sense.

1. Why does 1st Corinthians 15:29 talk about baptisms for the dead?
2. Why does 2nd Corinthians 12:1-4 talk about a third heaven?  How many heavens are there?
3. Why does Jeremiah 1:4–5 talk about God knowing us before we were born?  Did we exist before birth?
4. Why does 1st Peter 4:6 talk about preaching the Gospel to those who are dead?  Can we still learn and progress and be converted after death?

To find better answers, we have to ask better questions.  Joseph Smith was not the first nor the last to ask better questions.  We can all ask them.  There are so many things we don't understand.

Look at the world around us.  Could you explain to someone who lived just 100 years ago how cell-phones work?  How about the internet, microwaves, atomic energy, space travel?

The key to spiritual knowledge and revelation is much the same as the key to physical and scientific knowledge.

Book Review: Life of Pi

Grade: B -

Why: It's a fun tale with a good twist, but it used a gimmick to gain popularity.

The Life of Pi did make me think - which is the ultimate test of a book.  It made me consider, ponder, evaluate.  I liked it for those reasons.

It was also long, boring, and I fell asleep multiple times while reading it.  Like the author says at one point: "The hours last forever.  You are so bored sink into a state of apathy close to a coma."
Yep - that describes the story, and how it feels to read it. But the ending was unique and intriguing - so it was worth it.

The author has great knowledge of animals, the sea, zoos, survival needs, etc... These made his tale realistic and insightful to read.

Sadly - his idea for a book was only a good idea - he had to throw in a gimmick to make it "go viral" and be selected for schools and book clubs etc.

(SPOILER ALERT) I'm going to pretty much give away everything but the twist at the end.
It's a castaway story, but it's told better than most.  First of all - there is a Bengal tiger on the boat.  That's a pretty cool way to keep the story interesting.  I think the Tiger's name is dumb and a bit forced, but, oh well, it works.

The beginning of the book is great.  The tale of Pi's name, growing up in a zoo, learning from his father about animals, how zoo's work, and what respect to give to animals.

It's exhilarating, fun, and draws you in.

The next part I felt was out of place and was the "gimmick" to draw press, media, and book clubs.

Pi is a young man who starts living faithfully as a Muslim, Hindu, and Christian.  He goes to all their religious services, prays to all their gods, and believes all of them.

It's like the author thought "Tolerance is popular now. This boy ought to show that all religions have good parts, but no ONE religion is correct, and to subscribe to one alone is absurd."
He chooses to make it seem like there is no real right or wrong when it comes to religion - there is what makes you feel good. You don't have to choose one because no "one" could ever be right.

I agree there are good things in all religions. Everyone should become educated, learn about religions, seek out truth and understanding from all sources. But this reminds me of a college freshman who never picks a major and takes years of 100 level courses.  He never REALLY learns a subject, never takes tough courses, and never thinks deeply about a subject.  He also never graduates.

The author makes it sound like religions are really just buffet tables. "I like this part of Christ, and this part of Vishnu, oh, and Muhammad said something inspiring - but the rest is wrong so I'll just take what I like.  Religion is a "pick and choose" buffet.

That was my main problem with the book.  It's like the author couldn't write a great castaway story that could stand on it's own.  So he picked something that would grab media attention (like a main character who follows 3 major religions).
It was a cheap trick and it detracted from the book.
(I'll now step off my soapbox)

 - The ending is what makes it all worth it.  There is a genius twist that makes you think, and think, and think.  I loved it.

I can give this recommendation: Read it if you have time and can borrow it from someone.  Don't go out and buy it.
Here are my favorite Quotes:

"It is on the inside that God must be defended, not on the outside."
"The main battlefield for good is not the open ground of the public arena but the small clearing of each heart."
"A castaway’s worst mistake is to hope too much and do too little."

Creation by Evolution?

How old is the earth?

That's easy - Adam lived 4000 years before Christ.  So take 2013, add 4000 years, and that makes 6013 years.

Oh, and Adam was created on the 6th day, so add six days.  It's that simple.  Next question.

Wait.  I've taken Biology, Genetics, and most importantly, Geology.

I know the earth is 4.54 billion years old.  There are a few thousand ways to verify that the earth is at least millions of years old, and plenty of ways to confirm it is billions of years old.

It was part of the forming solar system which revolved around the sun.

Water formed on earth about 100 million years after that. Then there were amino acids, lipids, and the building blocks of life emerged.  First were the prokaryotes, then the eukaryotes, oxygen, moss, plants etc...
The atmosphere changed, animals developed in the water, then on the land.  Eventually there were dinosaurs etc...

About 85 million years ago primates formed, and separated themselves from the other mammals.
The first Homo Sapiens evolved about 300,000 years ago, with minor changes leading up to the human form we know now.

Yeah - that's a really simplified version, but you get the point.  The two stories seem quite divergent.

Now is when I should stand on my soap box and yell "The Dinosaurs are a hoax.  Man was created from the dust!"

Which begs the question - how is anything created?

What if we simply change the word "create" to "make."  Things might make a lot more sense.

Is it possible to make sharp cheddar cheese?

Sure, ask the folks at Tillamook.  You take milk, salt, and culture enzymes, and combine them correctly in the right environment with heating and cooling and drying - and leave them there for a few years and you'll have delicious sharp cheddar cheese.

Can you make a diamond?  Sure.  Bury some coal about 89 miles deep in the ground and leave it there for 2 billion years.

Can we make things that seem to defy reason?  Sure - What if I told you I could make water boil using no heat source.  I could put a cup of water in a box, make the water boil, and you could put your hand inside the box and touch the sides and feel no heat.  What would you say?

You would say I used a microwave.

I am a Mormon, a member of the LDS church.  I have read the words hundreds of times in our scriptures: "The glory of God is intelligence."

We are not meant to be ignorant.  Yes, we are asked to follow with faith, but we are also asked to seek knowledge and understanding about all subjects.

SO - WHAT IS MY POINT?

It makes perfect sense to me that God is the most intelligent being in the universe.  He knows exactly how to create a human body in his own image.  He knows exactly what is needed, when, and through what process you can make a human.  You start with a planet that has a heat source - the sun.
You need the water to separate from the land, the atmosphere to clear, and then you start the process of making life.  First a few cells, then more, then complex organisms, then plants which will evolve to make animals, which will eventually evolve to the form of man.  When the process is complete you have a body in the form and image of God.  A spirit can be placed in that body, and the process of creating the first man is complete.

Like the bible says: "God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

That is exactly what I believe God did.  He created man, from the dust of the earth (over 4.4 billion years) and then breathed into him his spirit, and Adam was the first "living soul" (body + spirit).

This is my idea.  I don't know if it's right - but it makes sense to me.

I don't know how it all works.  Just like 500 years ago a microwave would have befuddled everyone, so do God's miracles befuddle people today.  They would make perfect sense if we had more understanding - of the properties of matter, the laws of physics, the natural rules which govern our universe.

God knows all things.  He knows how everything works.   He knows how to create a human - I think it's through a process called evolution.

Mother's Day or Women's Day?

Is it possible to honor mothers for their unique role of motherhood?

I just read "Lean In" by the female COO of Facebook.  She works very hard in her book to point out that women are just as capable as men in business and in many other pursuits.  Women may choose to be in the home but they can succeed in everything - women have a choice.

She brought up an interesting point: Motherhood is not Womanhood.

Being a mother is something more, A LOT MORE.  It is 24/7 care taking.  It is dealing with vomit, and feces, and baby baths, and clothes and laundry and rides to dance class and games and school.  It's waking up mulitple times per night, it's hiding in the bathroom to eat your candybar so you won't have to share with your kids.  It's fearing the grocery store because manuevering a cart and 4 kids through wal-mart is harder than getting a bill through congress.  That's just motherhood, not including labor and delivery.

What will happen this Sunday? - at church we will give something special to every woman over age 18. 

Why?  Because what if someone can't have kids, or hasn't found the right man, or chose not to be a mother, or isn't there yet?  We don't want them to feel ostracized, or unappreciated, so we recognize them all.

How do we show women that we appreciate them all, and we ALSO want on one day to give a special recognition to mothers.  Whether they be adopted, step-moms, grandma's who have taken over the role of mother or whatever other version there may be: We want to honor and revere mothers.

There are days to honor the other women in our lives.  Can't just one day show that Mom's are special?

Motherhood is something more.  Let's say so.

Book Review: The Tipping Point

This was Malcolm Gladwell's first book - but it was not his finest.

Gladwell is a journalist.  He collects interesting stories and interesting research, and tries to find links between the two.

This book is an interesting look at epidemics - in disease, in social ideas, in popular products, in school shootings, etc...

What is "The Tipping Point?" - the point where something goes from slow growth to rapid exponential growth.

Can we cause it on purpose?  Can we make and idea or a product spread like wildfire?  Certainly every advertiser, every political candidate, every business owner has hoped to find the answer.

Gladwell presents very intriguing cases - starting with the shoes called Hush Puppies.  The brand was founded in 1958.  In 1994 the company sold 30,000 pairs.  In 1995 they sold 430,000.  That's 14X more shoes in one year.  How did they do it?

Gladwell says it's because a group of kids in New York City started wearing them (to be different, because no one else was).  A few key designers noticed them wearing these shoes a the coolest clubs, and decided that was "the new fashion."  They started buying them up and using them in their fashion designs.  Then it hit mainstream, and the epidemic had started.

The tipping point was when those few kids were noticed by those with widespread influence.  The kids weren't trying to start a new trend, they just wanted to be different.

There are those who try new things, then there are those who can make that new thing a trend.  Hush Puppies now had both.

Gladwell's book builds on it's own momentum until about 2/3rds of the way through the book.  Then he starts reaching - making comparisons and conclusions that just don't pan out or make any sense. 
It's like he had 5 or 6 great ideas, but was told by the publisher he needed 8 or 9. 

His first great point is about what makes something grow epidemically.  It needs to be "sticky," something that makes a real impact, it needs those few right people to get it going, and it needs the right environment to grow in.

Environment: Sometimes it's not about the people involved, it's about the circumstance. (see this blog post about circumstances determining behavior rather than personality or character)

If the environment is right (like the American colonies on the brink of war) and message is right (the British are Coming!) - you still have to have the right messenger.

The night of Paul Revere's Midnight ride - there were actually two messengers: Paul Revere and William Dawes. 

Revere and Dawes both rode hard, telling people all night along about the impending attack - but only one is remembered, because only one was able to rouse the troops and get people to listen.

Revere knew the towns, he knew the people - he knew who to talk to, and he knew how to spread the message to people who were already in bed.

Dawes tried - but he had no such connections.  He'd knock on doors, give warnings - and everyone would just go back to bed.  He didn't have the influence, the social network, the reputation with the people. 

It's not just about the message, or the environment, it's also about the messenger.

Throughout this book Gladwell gives some great advice - about how to gain real power, how to find the "connectors" (those people who know everyone, and can spread ideas quickly).

He also teaches us about "Mavens" - Those people who are ridiculously passionate about something.  The people who actually call the 1-800 number on the back of Ivory Soap to tell the company about their experience with the product - because they really know all about every kind of soap, have tried them all, and care enough to give feedback.

"Just as there are people we rely upon to connect us to other people, there are also people we rely upon to connect us with new information. There are people specialists, and there are information specialists." - p. 59

There are people like that.  People who care. They aren't doing it to make money, or to sell their information or advice.  They want to share it with everyone - because they've researched it deeply, and they know.

Who do you go to to ask about cars?  or computers?  or investing?  or which school to send your kids to?  Do you know an expert, that person who knows every detail about something that no one else in the world could possibly care that much about?  These are the people that companies want to find and please.  If you can influence the person who everyone else goes to for advice, you'll have the best word-of-mouth advertising in the world.  Money can't buy that.  We all see ads, we all hear about products from friends, but who do we listen to.  Who could make something into an epidemic?

Do we want new information - better information?  Then we need contacts outside our close friends.

"When it comes to finding out about new jobs -- or, for that matter, new information, or new ideas -- "weak ties" are always more important than strong ties. Your friends, after all, occupy the same world that you do. They might work with you, or live near you, and go to the same same churches, schools, or parties. How much, then, would they know that you wouldn't know? Your acquaintances, on the other hand, by definition occupy a very different world than you. They are much more likely to know something that you don't... Acquaintances, in short, represent a source of social power, and the more acquaintances you have the more powerful you are." - p. 54

Overall - This book gets a B+.  It is creative, original, and makes you think.  But it is too long, tried too hard, and should have been 60 pages shorter.

Character or Context - Why do we do what we do?

 

Are people evil or good?  Are there really people who are always honest, and people who always lie?

Does one’s character mean you can predict their behavior in most situations?

In the 1980’s and 90’s – Crime in New York City plummeted.  The authors of Freakonomics would tell you this is because there were less low income teenagers on the streets because abortion had been legalized about 15 years prior.

Malcolm Gladwell would say it’s because the environment changed. 

In 1984 Bernhard Goetz boarded the Subway like he did most mornings.  He was white, and sat down next to four young black men, with most other people sitting at the other end of the subway car.  The four young men were being rowdy, and soon asked Mr. Goetz for $5.  Then they demanded it.  Then one of them pointed at the suspicious bulge in his jacket pocket and smiled.  Mr. Goetz reached into his own pocket, pulled out his .38, and shot all four young men. 

He turned himself into police a week later, and was acquitted of all charges other than carrying a concealed weapon.  Some called him a hero, others called him a monster.  Was he a criminal?  Was he a vigilante?  Was he a murderer?  He had no criminal background while all four of the young men had criminal backgrounds.

So why did he do it?  Some say it was because he had been bullied as a kid, and mugged a few months earlier.  Some say it’s because he was a concerned citizen and someone had to stand up against the thugs.  After all -NYC had 2,000 murders and over 600,000 felonies in the past year.  The subways were a prime location for crime.  They weren’t respected, or patrolled, they weren’t even clean.  The subways were covered in graffiti, the token machines were broken and the tracks were cracked so the subway could only go 15 mph in some spots.

So – was it the character of this man and the four young men, who made this incident occur?  If they had been getting on a bus on a city street at 2 p.m. - would the same thing have happened?

The New York Transit Authority decided they were going to reduce crime by first cleaning up all the graffiti on the subway cars, and in the stations.  If things looked better, people would treat the Sunway better.  Graffiti was covered up, and crime dropped.  They decided to arrest anyone who didn’t pay a subway token. They did, and crime dropped.  They decided to arrest anyone who was drunk in public, who urinated on the street or broke a window, etc.  They did, and crime dropped.  Not only did those crime rates drop, but felonies and murders dropped too.  All crime decreased.

The environment changed.  Sure you could say people changed, more criminals were being arrested so there were less on the street – but not by much.  The rate in crime dropped FAR MORE than the number of criminals being locked up.  SO WHAT HAPPENED? 

The people who were committing crimes instead did other things.  The environment had changed, so they changed.

The same is true of people doing good. 

Princeton University conducted a “Good Samaritan” experiment.

Give the Seminary students a task, then on their way have them run into a man slumped over in the alleyway, coughing and groaning – and see if they stop to help him.

It wasn’t just about seeing who would stop and who wouldn’t, but if they could make people react differently if the situation changed.

They asked students from the Seminary to prepare a short sermon, and then walk to a nearby building and present it.  Some were given the topic of “The Good Samaritan” while other s prepared sermons on other biblical themes.  They also asked each student why they chose to go into Theology. Was it for prestige, to help people, for money, for God’s glory, etc?

Then right before they went to give their sermon, they told them one of two things. 

1.   “Oh, you’re late.  They were expecting you a few minutes ago.  You’d better get moving.”

2.   “It’ll be a few minutes before their ready for you, but you might as well head over now.”

You can guess the result.  Who stopped and who didn’t?  It didn’t matter why they went to school, or what their sermon was on – what mattered was whether or not they were in a hurry.

Of those in a rush – 10% stopped to help.  Of those who thought they had a few minutes – 63% stopped.

They all had the same convictions in their hearts.  They knew what was “right” and that they should help those in need.  They all had helped many people before, and will likely help many more.  But it isn’t always about the character of the person, it’s about the context.  It isn’t the person, but the place.

If I grew up with the same parents, in the same religion, but in South Central Los Angeles instead of the West side of Idaho Falls, Idaho – would I have a criminal record?  Would I have gone to college?  Would I have tried drugs?  I’d like to say “I’d be essentially the same person I am today, regardless.” – but I doubt it.

In my church there is a famous quote by a church leader that states:

“The devil knows how to destroy our young girls and boys. He may not be able to tempt a person to murder or to commit adultery immediately, but he knows that if he can get a boy and a girl to sit in the car late enough after the dance, or to park long enough in the dark at the end of the lane, the best boy and the best girl will finally succumb and fall. He knows that all have a limit to their resistance”

This year in church we are focused on the phrase “Stand ye in Holy places, and be not moved.”

I have been taught my whole life to be honest, ALWAYS.  The goal is to be perfectly honest in all situations, live your standards no matter what.

I am coming to see that this doesn’t just mean developing strong moral fiber, standing for truth and right, reading scriptures, praying, helping your fellowman, etc.

It’s about being in the right places, building the right environments.  Giving yourself time.  Not being in a hurry.

What if instead of working harder to find criminals and lock them up, we tired harder to build environments where crime was less likely?  A place where people were more likely to help, to be honest, etc.

It isn’t just about “being a good person.”  It’s about being in the right place, and making your environment the “right place.”

Context is just as important as character.  Stand Ye in Holy Places - and maybe it’s just as important to make where ever you are, a holy place.