Month: November 2022

Nature’s Inefficiencies are Good. Why?

Like so many inspired join-the-dots exercises that I find myself on, this one starts with a nature documentary. Beginning of The Green Planet (2022) the third episode, a woodpecker bird does its thing on a maple tree in a Canadian forest. Most of the maple syrup from the wounded tree gathers up, dribbles down to the forest floor below. So much syrup lost. The bird gets only a little. But what gets down to the forest floor is not wasted. There are fungi, plants, and other animals which subsist on the maple syrup. The ecosystem thrives. So the inefficiency of the maple tree to protect its own syrup allocates resources to other members and sectors of the ecosystem.

A tree produces many fruits. Very few of them will survive to become seedlings, and fruiting trees. The vast majority of fruits become waste; organic fertilizer back to the soil. If a tree was a machine, it would have been destroyed at the schematic stage. But Nature works differently. The fruits serve not just the tree but also insects, birds, the soil…the entire ecosystem. Ecosystems have this waste-as-product capacity. A capacity that our human and physical systems lack because we rarely see the areas of intersections, the ripple zones…

Nature has found a solution using inefficiency. Inefficiency is how Nature distributes vital resources for the overall wellbeing of the ecosystem. This realization stumped me because we humans too have our own versions of Inefficiencies in our systems. But, unlike Nature these inefficiencies do not serve the larger community. However, we can learn from Nature to turn self-serving inefficiencies into general good inefficiencies.

For that we shall first explore our very own human systemic inefficiencies. In Physics no system is 100% efficient. Friction, resistance, break down of parts makes systems inefficient. But it seems Biology has a solution, in the joints, junctions, and intersections, frictions, resistances, and breakdowns serve a larger, scaled up life-supporting purpose.

Let us observe Meritocracy, a human system. It is said that cream doth rise to the top, but how true is it for us humans. Speaking for Kenya, I will say meritocracy doesn’t work. Maybe it works elsewhere but not in my country.

Let us observe Learning and Teaching. From my experience learning topics which are a bit beyond my understanding makes me retain things long-term. An example of an inefficiency that works. If at first I am not getting it, yet the interest remains, I know that in a matter of time I will master it. It is paradoxical I know but it seems anything interesting beyond our comfort zone, the discomfort needed to get it is a good inefficiency. It makes me teach the topic better because I understand all the discomforts and challenges to acquire it.

So why doesn’t meritocracy work in Kenya? First because mediocrity is the grease that enables our systems. The problem with mediocrity is that the benefits if any do not ripple. Mediocrity serves only a few people, unlike the maple syrup dripping down that tree in the Canadian forest. The benefits are for the few. The common cartoon for this is politicians getting fat and diabetic on the high table while the common mwananchi, starving and malnourished salivates for crumbs. The crumbs are not enough.

Is the self-serving inefficiency a product of our modernity? There are farming communities which leave sections of land to lie idle and regain fertility. Some hunting communities intentionally avoid killing the strongest member of the herd. Herbalists and foragers do not gathet all the herbs, and mushrooms for the season. They leave behind for the next season. Some fruit farmers know they will lose some fruit to the birds; the same birds who pollinate the orchards. Hence, humans can incorporate inefficiencies to serve the general community and for long-term benefits. And for a reason, all these examples are non-modern. A return to nature rather than a discovery of something new.

Leave a comment. I’d like to know what you think.

Should men open up to women?

Men are being encouraged to “open up”. Is this a good idea?

So women have it this way. They share their doubts and insecurities with a man they first trust, and secondly, a man of strength who can give some assurance. Under no circumstances should a man adopt a woman’s insecurities to be his own, and neither does the woman expect him to. The man must remain a lighthouse to the woman’s wayward yet harmless tide sporadically crawling upon and away from the lighthouse.

About the best times to open up, men may open up to women but only after finding a solution to their problems, and in a manner showing the man knows what he is doing. To get that load off the man’s shoulders, but only for a while as he must bear it until he finds a place to unload it to his advantage. A man must not open up to a woman so that she can come up with solutions to whatever is eating him up. Opening up to women should be only for comfort. But you have to face the discomfort alone; no amount of comfort will will it away. Men have problems to solve; but women interpret men’s problems as doubts and insecurities.  A man with doubts and insecurities is the last thing the woman wants, because she gets that enough from her friends and herself.

After some time of listening to a woman’s doubts and insecurities and often coming up with solutions, a man is lulled into thinking this is a two-way street. So he starts mirroring the woman, telling her his problems which she automatically peels off the packaging to reveal “doubts and insecurities” of the man be they real or perceived. The power dynamics shifts because she realizes her man of strength has weaknesses. The man knows nothing about the hidden connotations only realizing some things change. Respect and the balance of the relationship dwindles, among other things.

Of course this does not apply to mothers, sisters, and relatives. Open up to them all you want. They are on your side. They will offer comfort, wisdom, and some tactics you would have never thought about.