Earth Day comes around each year and reminds us about “living green”- a simple term for something that can be all consuming and exhausting. To hear about people who have taken on challenges towards saving the planet like the Zero Waste Home, and No impact man and countless other blogs and documentaries can be inspiring, but it can also make us feel guilty. We walk away saying “I can do this too… I’ll start tomorrow!”.  Unfortunately for a lot of us, tomorrow never comes, for one half-hearted reason or another.

It is overwhelming…

Where to start? Will anything ever be enough? Can one person really make a difference? If I insist on organic will I turn into one of “those people” that are so often parodied on Portlandia? Will anyone notice if I just eat a microwaved dinner while watching reruns of Frasier instead of organic vegetables while reading a book by candlelight?

Most of us would love to turn completely green and walk (not drive) down the street with our heads held high because we know we are doing the best we can. But we also just want to do whatever takes the least effort. To think of planet saving activities that won’t disturb our lifestyles makes us feel guilty.

Too lazy to do the big things, too guilty to do the little things. You can find yourself stuck between a rock and a chemically treated, lead painted hard-place. Below I have compiled The Lazy Persons Top 5 Planet Saving List. Doing these things will make your life, and our planet a little bit better, with the added bonus of making you feel less guilty, and is customizable to suit your level of laze.

1) Buy a house plant.

By pulling contaminants into soil, where root zone microorganisms convert volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into food, plants can remove up to 87% of harmful household VOC’s every 24 hours, according to NASA research.

• Lazy Level 1 – Buy any house plant, and keep it alive.
• Lazy Level 2 – Buy said plant from a local farmers market – and keep it alive.
• Lazy Level 3 – Double Duty – Buy an Aloe Vera Plant. It’s easy to take care of, and next time you have a minor burn you can forego the chemicals, cost, and extra packaging of over the counter ointment, and break off an Aloe Vera leaf and smear it on your skin.

2) Take a shorter, lighter shower.

Most showers can cut back nearly 50% of the water used before you even notice the difference.

• Lazy Level 1 – If you’re too lazy to buy a low flow shower head – just don’t turn the knob all the way on.
• Lazy Level 2 – Don’t walk away while the water is heating up. Showers can pour out up to 5 gallons of water a minute. If you brush your teeth while the shower is heating and steaming away, that’s 10-20 gallons of water- down the drain!
• Lazy Level 3 –  Time your shower. An ideally green shower should be 5min or less. That means if you’re listening to music 1-1.5 current songs or about 2 songs from the 60’s. Or you could buy one of these water monitoring water pebbles.

3) Spend the evening in.

Forego the transportation emissions, mass climate control, and energy use of public restaurants, bars, and theatres.

• Lazel Level 1 – If you must order in – remember if you use Seamless to make sure eco-friendly ordering is selected in your saved addresses to prevent extra paper and plastic waste.
• Lazy Level 2 – Nix the take out packaging altogether and cook at home.
• Lazy Level 3 – Cook at home using organic ingredients found at local farmers markets.

4) Choose reusable containers instead of plastic.

A single plastic bag takes about 1,000 years to break down, and they remain toxic even after breaking down. Every square mile of ocean has about 46,000 pieces of plastic floating in it.

• Lazy Level 1 – Reusable shopping bags. It can be difficult to remember to bring them to the store, so keep the in your car, hang them from your door knob, or get the little ones that fold small enough to hang on your keychain.
• Lazy Level 2 – Instead of zip top bags or plastic wrap start using good old fashion mason jars to store and transport leftovers. They can also double as drinking glasses, or candle holders.
• Lazy Level 3 – Use your mason jars at the cafe instead of to-go cups. You can even make it travel safe with lids like this cuppow.

5) Key into your local resources

• Lazy Level 1 – Freecycle.org is like a free craigslist who’s mission is to “build a worldwide gifting movement that reduces waste, saves precious resources & eases the burden on our landfills while enabling our members to benefit from the strength of a larger community.”
• Lazy Level 2 – Participate in, or host a clothing swap. One mans trash is another man’s treasure, plus you can feel superior because you are throwing a party for a good cause.
• Lazy Level 3 – Start composting. Composting returns nutrients into the soil and greatly reduces the amount of waste in landfills. Many farmers markets offer Compost drop-off, and some cities even have home compost pick up services.

If you keep simple things like these in mind while you are going about your day, you will start to notice how quickly the small things that require very little effort can add up. Even if you still have an occasional microwave dinner in front of a Fraser rerun every now and then.

The Big Scary Question

If you are like most people, this simple question doesn’t have such a simple answer. Trying to develop or define your own style causes many people intense anxiety. You see plenty of people who might be at least attempting, but maybe not succeeding as much as they’d like, at curating a style. Then there are those who are so daunted by the concept of style that they shun it altogether, resigning themselves to the fact that maybe they have no style whatsoever.

There is an overwhelming number of reality shows, magazines, and personal shopping services that are dedicated to making over the people who are are too busy or confused to tackle the task themselves. However, the media attention given to fixing these unfortunates only further perpetuates the myth that style is so complicated that it requires a coach rather than being something that inherently resides in us. 

Your own personal style is nothing more than a compilation of things you like. You like polka dots mixed with plaids? That’s part of your style. You like to eat your M&M’s one color at a time? That’s part of your style. All of the little things that you like combine to become a manifestation of your style. It’s there, whether you know it or not.

We are living in one of  the most accessibly visual times in history. By using apps like Pinterest, Tumblr and Instagram we are able to curate our interests and express our style to others in a way that we never have before. But this act of constant curation, an act that an ever growing number of people engage in, is not given the importance it deserves.

The Digital Shift

Look at your Pinterest boards or your personal Instagram feed. What does it say about you? You may have posted that pic of last night’s dinner because you were proud of what you created, but when you take a step back, you might realize that 90% of your pictures are about food. You may have pinned that bookshelf because you love reclaimed wood, but then you realize that the last 5 bookshelves you pinned were all full of leather bound books. By curating images you can tell others about yourself, but you may also learn quite a bit about your personal style in the process. 

Does this mean that everyone who likes the same picture of the newest textured nail polish, or the video of the puppies climbing the stairs has the same style? Probably not, because the picture is just one in the sequence of the aesthetic DNA you’ve built up over time.

By curating a collection, even though our boards or Tumblrs may contain similar items, overall they will be as different as our fingerprints. The more we add to them the more unique they become— that’s just math, but what makes our collections truly ours is the way we interpret them. Why we like one thing or another will never be identical to another person. The intention behind it, more than anything, is your sense of style.

So the next time you are blogging, posting, tweeting, or pinning, take a step back and look at your self portrait that you have compiled. What does it say about you? Maybe there is something you ought to be expressing.

Sylvain Labs is very close to me and the way I see the world. In no way is it my reason for being (it’s still work after all), but the company undoubtedly channels my perception of the way things work. 

And when Sylvain Labs turned 3 years old on January 26, 2013, I couldn’t help but feel that we crossed a profound milestone. We achieved what feels like a corporate puberty. And with that comes many of the natural questions that come with adolescence. Why are we here? What is our purpose? And how are we changing the world around us?

The answer begins in January 2010 when Sylvain Labs was founded. I was hit with a rare bout of courage when I saw others, less-capable but better- resourced, start successful companies. Often, they were dispassionate people, with a penchant for cruelty. They were just mean – belittling people and making them cry. I had friends leaving their work in worse shape than when they got there.

I knew from my experience at Mother that the workplace could actually make us better. I felt that if we could combine talent (creativity, experience, etc.), with a simple sense of respect and humanity, we would have something valuable. Or at least different.

As a result, we’re three years old, complete with a collective purpose and a mutual respect. That’s what fuels our work – our thinking, our recommendations, our products, our reputation, our point of view, our style, etc.. 

So with Sylvain Labs I hope we’re creating a company that’s a bit more human. A company with a soul. (And a brain. Oh, and balls. We definitely have balls. All of that – a bouillabaisse of soul, brain, and balls). 

If anything, that’s why we’re here (unless you’re a client, in which case we’re here solely to solve your problems). And this is what we’re reflecting on our third anniversary.

With the growing specter of global climate change looming larger each 50 degree January day, there is a lot to talk about when considering our environmental future. 2012 was the warmest and the second most extreme in terms of weather in recorded history for the contiguous United States. Plausible deniability of Climate Change is all but impossible for any legitimate scientist. As we begin to truly have conversations about it, we discuss things like our “energy future,” the impact on farming, and crops like coffee beans— which may now become scarce— and these are important conversations to have. But we don’t often talk about some of the more day-to-day logistical impacts of an increasingly warm world. How will this impact our concepts of fashion and our cultural outlook on body image, and what is an appropriate level of coverage in a world on fire? In case you’re wondering where this is going, let’s spell it out— how is climate change going to affect our professional dress codes?

Addressing The Obvious Solution

The simplest answer is that it won’t change our dress at all. You could make this assertion based on the wonderful technology of air conditioning and climate control. We can keep our offices around the country at a nice cool 71 degrees, with the humidity perfectly monitored and maintained at 47%. We can work in a climate-controlled Eden while we pound away on our keyboards.  

This is a nice vision, isn’t it? But there are things we now know to be true. We know that energy is only growing in cost, and that air conditioners are very energy intensive. We know that the world is getting warmer and that as a result the energy costs to make our offices cooler will only increase. We also know that these air conditioners are part of a negative feedback loop where the energy air conditioners consume create more carbon, which drives up the temperatures, which requires more air conditioning and so on ad infinitum.

So what are some other potentialities that might arise as a result of rising temperatures this summer? What else could happen to make us cooler assuming that turning up the air conditioning as an option is off the table?

Read this next phrase in the most fabulous voice you can possibly muster in your mind— TOTAL FASHION OVERHAUL!

Undressing Business Culture

The culture of business, with some exceptions, is not the most practical when it comes to summertime apparel. Pants, in the summer, are less than ideal. You need your legs, among other things, to breath. Your ankles were built for thermo regulation— also walking, but stay with me here— for air to pass over all the vasculature that runs to your feet and dissipate some of that heat. Women do have a few more options in this category, skirts are admissible in some circumstances as well as dressy shorts among other options, but this is not always the case. And for men options are generally fairly limited. One of two scenarios can happen. 

Scenario 1:

Textiles in the fashion industry go through a dramatic transformation. There are fabrics today that people wear on occasion which have been designed to breath better in the summer. Linen is a good example. But most pants are designed to be year round pants, especially denim and chinos.

There has also been a lot of experimentation with textiles in recent years (though this could just be marketing). UNIQLO comes to mind as an example of using technology with their heat-tech and cool-tech lines, meant to trap or expel heat as necessary. However, It’s hard to imagine wearing poly-cotton blended pants. While I imagine they’d be terribly comfortable, it would look ridiculous for men to return to the days of wearing polyester pants. Disco is dead and it took stretchy pants with it. 

Scenario 1 has potential, but seems to have some issues with feasibility and likelihood of adoption. 

Scenario 2:

In this scenario the social mores around work-appropriate attire shift based on a seasonal dynamic. Bermuda is a great example of a culture that has already adopted this behavior. They invented their own shorts, aptly named the Bermuda Shorts, for people to wear in the hot months of the year when pants would feel like a form of self-flagellation, a sweaty prison of propriety.  

While this might be a difficult step to take for American businesses, to modify what is deemed appropriate to wear in a professional setting, there is something that might motivate business leaders more than anything— money. 

For example, if you allow your employees to wear tank tops and shorts to work, while still demanding a level of quality and presentation in their attire, companies can allow the temperatures in their offices to be set closer to 80 than seventy degrees. According to carbonrally.com, air conditioners are responsible for 16% of the average homes energy costs. Now imagine the costs in office buildings, which are typically much more spacious and as a result more expensive to cool. The transition begins to seem like an extremely reasonable cost-cutting measure.

Is The Climate Right?

Ultimately, this coming summer, as things start to get hot agin, what is likely to happen in office parks across America? Companies will crank their air conditioners and we’ll continue to exist in that climate controlled Eden, occasionally being forced to throw on a sweater because it’s “a bit chilly.”

But as we begin to think about the need for broader changes, in a world growing increasingly aware of it’s environmental sins, cultural changes like this can have a massive impact. Change is hard, especially institutional change, but if we all realize that something as straight forward as changing a dress code could cut our carbon output by 10% or more, as a conservative estimate, what is really holding us back?  

Newton explained it best with his first law of motion— objects in motion stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. I guess the question is, can we muster enough force to get out of our own way? It might take momentum, but in the face of so many other obstacles around the world, changing a dress code seems as easy as changing clothes.

You can find Joey Camire on Twitter.

To complain that Hollywood is biased or historically inaccurate or offensive or controversial is exactly what Hollywood would say they are there for, and it doesn’t seem like they have ever pretended to be anything else. On the other hand, people should find inequality and the history of slavery in the United States offensive. It wasn’t that long ago and some would argue we haven’t ever really dealt with it as a nation. Is the problem then that we’re unable to deal with uncomfortable subjects in film? The fact that something makes us squirm, even if it was true, is more than we can handle?

If proper respect for the event and the people it affected are the goal, the fact that this film causes controversy could be a positive outcome. It’s possible that a few people may actually go seeking further context, encouraging greater debate, maybe even developing an interest in the topic of slavery and the civil war as a result of the cultural revival, accurate or not. Lincoln is in theaters, and Hell on Wheels is a successful show also close to the topic. 

The same people who find this movie offensive would likely not argue against the statement that the majority of US citizens lack a deep or accurate understanding of slavery and US history in general. By that rationale, if a crazy spaghetti western by a controversial director gets even a modicum of dialogue going about our nation’s history and the cultural and emotional impacts still present, could this be positive for the subject overall in light of its shortcomings or the offense taken?  And rather than attacking Tarantino, would we be better off directing the attention at the actual topic at hand and furthering the debate?  

The intention of this post is not to belittle the argument about the movie in any way, some people may have a legitimate argument. However, it seems that without further context and exploration for more people, the validity of those arguments may be lost or buried. Let’s take a deeper look, pump in some fresh air, and get more people involved. 

Here are a few suggestions on what to do about Django:

1. See the movie and join the debate

The controversy:

• http://www.wtop.com/1060/3179977/Off-the-Hook-Genius
• http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-django-unchained-controversy-20130102,0,6205870.story

An attack:

• http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/01/04/tavis-smiley-on-quentin-tarantino-s-django-unchained.html

From Jamie Foxx:

• http://movies.about.com/od/djangounchained/a/jamie-foxx-interview.htm 

From Quentin:

• http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/12/09/quentin-tarantino-on-django-unchained-and-the-problem-with-roots.html?obref=obinsite

2. Read about the Civil War

• http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/682804.The_Killer_Angels

(I have read this book, it has as some have argued probably done more to educate people on the civil war than many other efforts having sold millions of copies.)

3. Read about race relations and emancipation from famous black authors

 DuBois, Douglass and Wilson would be recommended, 7, 5 and 9 on the list. 

•  http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmarshallcrotty/2012/02/18/10-african-american-authors-everyone-should-read/2/

4. Watch Roots, see if Tarantino was right in his criticism. 

• http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Roots/70019709?locale=en-US

 5. Watch a 2 min episode of drunk history, also entertaining with mild historical accuracy.

The Evolution of The Driver

 “The driver slowly vanished, her body evolving into mechanical and electrical devices. Her hands were replaced by high precision steering mechanisms, her feet by networked cruise control. Her eyes were replaced by sensing actuators, such as GPS chips, proximity sensors, local mesh networks, or video cameras. All that was left was to replace her brain.” - Tim Maly ‘Driving Blind’ 

Team-LUX exhibits a driverless car at the Science Museum in London 
Chris Young/AFP/Getty Images

This year Google reached 300,000 miles of automated-driving testing, and promises to deliver autonomous cars for all within 5 years. Nevada, Florida, and notably California (the state with the most cars) passed laws permitting autonomous driving and have already issued permits to driverless cars. 90% of the over 33,000 traffic deaths recorded in 2010 were due to human error, and with the only accidents occurring during Google’s testing caused by human error, the life-saving possibilities alone are making the rapid adoption of this technology alluring. Legislation is being proposed in states across the country, and the Obama administration is about to launch its own initiative to determine the safety and reliability of automated driving, realizing the needs to fundamentally rethink the way we evaluate auto-safety. With a J.D. Power and Associates study showing that 1/3 drivers would buy an autonomous car, it seems the market is already primed for this automotive singularity. At this point, more than ever, leisure and comfort innovations will begin to take precedence.

But what does this all mean for the consumer? This has far sweeping implications, but not the least of these a reshaping of the concept of ‘the driver’.

The car’s great contribution is mobility, yet its current use requires constant attention from the driver. Product integration as a result has involved passive solutions for drivers, or has focused on passengers alone. Additionally, the automobile has traditionally been something of a laggard in the adoption of modern tech for the sake of purchase value. Yet as automation becomes more integrated, the driver’s attention becomes liberated. Free from the demands of driving, drivers will become passengers themselves, something closer to a navigator than a pilot.

The vehicles of the coming decades may no longer be a car as we know it (the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers predicts self-driving vehicles will make up 75 percent of the traffic stream by 2040). With the current and ongoing integration of so many infotainment products, by the time this driverless shift occurs, the vehicle itself will have already become something of a multi-functional space. The adoption of tech unrelated to driving will shift from a want to a need based on how people will spend their time in the car.

The modern car has arisen from the convergence of functionality and comfort (power steering, cruise control, climate control, SAS brakes, radio, satellite radio etc.), creating a certain degree of standardization. This is how cars have developed, but those needs won’t necessarily be the relevant needs of the future. With the rise of autonomous vehicles, we will begin to notice the divergence of these two principles, as driverless products based on comfort alone will become entirely different than those produced for the functionality of driving itself. This transition will be an interesting one, since it will be the first time consumers will witness such a drastic split in products and communications within the automobile industry since the SUV. As driverless cars become prevalent, the act of driving will transition from a necessary skill to a hobby. On one side you’ll have early adopters who’ll enjoy the freedom of a self-driven car and the unique experience that will produce. On the other hand you’ll have traditionalists and enthusiasts, sticking to a driven car in the way some music puritans stick to vinyl. 

As companies explore different product directions, the vehicles of tomorrow could show a variation markedly increased from the still relatively formulaic traditions of today. One can imagine sleek road-gripping/body-molded designs for the driving enthusiasts; or modular rooms for the commuting suburban household that roll away from the home and drop family members at their destinations.

The Emergence of Lifestyle Efficiency in Vehicle Design

In this coming era, products and services, rather than existing as binary solutions between private (motorcycle) and communal (bus), personal (ZipCar) and professional (Über), there will also emerge a variety of offerings based across accessibility and social needs. 

For example, meal-times may become synonymous with driving: rather than having a family breakfast, and then dropping the kids off, families could enjoy communal meals whilst they are commuting. The vehicle may in fact exist as an attachment to the home, as if the garage grew wheels and drove away. After dropping everyone off the vehicle could return home, or possibly be shared amongst friends and family. Only to return hours later to pick the family up for a moon-lit dinner along coastal country roads. 

ATNMBL – mikeandmaaike.com

Indeed since driving is no longer a chore, and the vehicle could be a space not dissimilar to a living room, we might see further reaching changes. Could we see longer feasible commute times? Would the Connected Car increase the distance between the rural areas people choose to live and the urban center they have to work and study in? Will transit behavior mimic household behavior beyond breakfast or make-up in the car?

The shifting consumer requirements during travel will begin to dictate the development of these new automobiles. Family-use vehicles could see shared media and planning. Businesses may apply work functionalities, creating something akin to a mobile conference room that picks up and drops off employees. Similarly for education, where a ‘school bus’ morphs into something like an after-school care space or a home room. 

The Adoption Question 

The main reason why we aren’t seeing driverless cars all over the road already is in part a cost issue (estimated market price of $3k for the additional tech), but mainly one of driver mindset. “There is no technology barrier from going where we are now to the autonomous car,” says Jim McBride of Ford Research and Innovation. “There are affordability issues, but the big barrier to overcome is customer acceptance.” Gradual introduction is already at play though as automakers are offering autonomous driving functions in some vehicles: GM is bringing collision mitigating breaking systems into non-luxury vehicles, Ford Motor Co. is pushing its park assist option, BMW positions its “active” cruise control system as ‘self-driving’, and Volvo reports its low-speed collision avoidance system has led to fewer accidents. The auto industry has already developed all the technology necessary to create truly autonomous vehicles.

With convincing proof points able to minimize consumers adoptions barriers, and a slew of innovations bringing new autonomous concepts to life, the roads of tomorrow may host a veritable carnival of varied vehicles. But what’s interesting is who the car owner of the tomorrow may be. Even though the J.D. Power report found that male drivers between the ages of 18 and 37 and people who live in urban areas were the most interested in fully autonomous driving, it is still drivers themselves that are most reluctant to give up the act of driving. Instead let’s look at the fact that fewer young Americans are getting driver licenses, a trend that is also true in Sweden, Norway, Great Britain, Canada, Japan, South Korea and Germany. Rather than a product for existing drivers, maybe the autonomous car of tomorrow is a solution to capture what is a growing consumer segment currently lost to the automobile industry— a generation “not driven to drive”. 

Some food for thought:

1. You won’t need a license to own and use a car
2. Manual driving could become forbidden in certain areas
3. Foreseeable rise in ride-share solutions for closely entwined communities
4. Street food, or ‘mobile cuisine’, may reinvent itself
5.  Anything you can put wheels on can become an autonomous vehicle—cars, bikes, maybe even strollers .

Now, thousands of years after the dawn of mankind, technology has finally caught up with humans’ endless curiosity. Thanks to the internet, we now have 5 billion gigabytes of information at our fingertips, waiting to be uncovered. With the swipe of a finger, we can indulge any interest, ponder any question and be drawn into a web of knowledge that could feed our curiosity for days. 

But, the question remains — will this unparalleled access to information lead to a new Golden Age for curiosity? Or, could it actually lead to curiosity’s demise?  And, most importantly, as the purveyor’s of the world’s information, do search engines control curiosity’s fate? 

Search engines currently approach curiosity like engineers, oftentimes treating it as an ailment that needs to be cured. With ruthless efficiency, they diagnose a searcher’s problem, providing a speedy answer so they can be on their way. But, as rapid answer providers, do search engines risk squelching curiosity? Could their quick-fire results actually lead people to see information just as a functional tool to achieve some external goal, rather than a pleasure in itself?  

Better yet, to ensure the future of curiosity, would it be better for search engines to start acting more like philosophers than engineers — treating knowledge as an open-ended journey rather than a finite destination — romancing questions, instead of just providing answers? To do this, search engines could start taking inspiration from other players in the digital space like Wikigame, a learning entertainment platform that asks people to find the thread connecting different pieces of information. Or, Qwiki, a platform that presents information in small multimedia bites.

Consider this. A child turns to you and asks, “What’s a star?” Is it better to offer a fast, succinct answer, ”A star is a ball of hydrogen and helium held together by gravity”? Or, is it better to invite the child to explore the intricacies and wonder of the solar system in all its glory?

With curiosity’s fate in their hands, it’s time for search engines to start rethinking how they serve up the world’s information. Do they continue acting as an antidote for curiosity, trying to cure it with quick, direct answers? Or, do they start acting more like a vitamin, nourishing curiosity to continue to push mankind to question, explore and discover?

For the past 12 months we’ve found ourselves in a seemingly endless, seemingly urgent, seemingly substantive cycle of non-stop information about the election. We had a bunch of spikes in our dosage from primary candidates rising to a precipice and their inevitable subsequent fall from grace. It was action. It was a real life soap opera unfolding before our eyes. What would they say next? Who will be the front runner after the next public assassination of character?

The race for the presidency no longer seemed like a race, it seemed like an arena, a gladiatorial battle to the death. Each of the 21 debates became a sort of pay-per-view prize fight closer to tuning in to the Hunger Games than a debate club.

We are slightly more than one week away from the election now and the propaganda of the most expensive election of all time is nearly unavoidable. The tension is palpable. This battle of attrition has left us with the two final candidates in, what pollsters would lead us to believe, is a coin toss election. We are on the edges of our collective seats. Marketers are feeding in to it. The media is feeding in to it. And as much as we say we hate it, we also love it. Life seems to have an urgent battle that requires our attention, a battle that we’ve been told could dramatically change our lives. So even if it’s frustrating and we want it to be over, our minds and our bodies can’t help but respond to this increased stimuli.

Do you feel it? Have you been feeling it for a while?

You’ll wake up on the morning of Wednesday, November 7th. Now what?

The climax has happened, but the afterglow isn’t quite the same. There is a hollowness there where a battle once was. There is no measured run down from this. It’s over. You’ve been fed an information drug—sensational news etc.— that has created a response in your body of increased alertness and stress for the past 12 months, a response that has been building in intensity up until now, and it’s over. Your body is going to respond to that. It likely won’t be the cool calm of a Sandals Beach Resort commercial. No, if you’ve been following the election with any level of intensity, you are in for a crash— a post election depression.

Maybe your candidate won’t win and you might blame your dysphoric feelings on that, and sure that isn’t going to help anything, but look into the eyes of someone whose candidate did win— you’ll see that same listless gaze you see staring back at you in the mirror.

I’d recommend drinking water if I thought it would help. A greasy breakfast, maybe. Something to help your body balance out more quickly, to return to your homeostatic levels from before the election, but there probably aren’t any easy home remedies for an Election Hangover. Well, that’s not necessarily true— an all inclusive paid trip to one of those Sandals Beach Resorts might do the trick. But if that isn’t forthcoming, let’s all just try to go easy on each other that next day, maybe a flood of memes of “Resignation Face” will help fill the void or at least make us smile. If that doesn’t help, just remember, you won’t be getting all those emails and robo-calls, and that has to be worth something.

Julia Bluhm, center, started the petition against Seventeen Magazine

In the news recently you may have heard about one young girl’s battle against photoshopping that took the form of an online petition to Seventeen Magazine. The results were covered all over the news and in the twittersphere, “A VICTORY FOR WOMEN!” it was proclaimed. Seventeen agreed to publish what it called a “Body Peace Treaty.” It’s very true, Seventeen’s response not only counts as a victory for a new generation of women who inevitably consider their own bodily image when reading the magazine, but a win for those women to feel empowered to take actions into their own hands. However, with all of the coverage in all of the news outlets around the web, television, radio and so forth, everyone forgot to cover the other group that will also benefit from this— the next generation of young men.

It’s often the standard, when talking about victories for women in a feminist context, to extract men from the scenario. This is logical— Feminism after all is about creating a balance of power and respect between the genders, and in the movement away from a more Patriarchal society, it can be very strategic to keep men out of the discussion. But in this case, in a discussion of building a generation of women who have a healthier body image than several of the generations prior, it seems appropriate to discuss the impact on young men. If these women continue to stack up victories by demanding control of the imagery they consume, young men will have a healthier outlook on what a woman should look like as well! 

Part of achieving some sort of balanced gender dynamic needs to be about educating and empowering men with better constructs as well. This “victory” seems like an opportune moment to broach that discussion. What will the future these women inherit look like if they’re simultaneously taking control of their media, and also educating their future spouses and lovers? What does the world look like when not only young women feel good about themselves because they have an accurate construct about what is realistic and beautiful, but the men in their lives also have a similarly realistic outlook?

It’s important to note that this discussion goes well beyond body image. A few weeks back The Atlantic ran an article by Princeton professor Anne-Marie Slaughter titled “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All.” It addressed the fact that even with the strides we’ve made in promoting gender equality, there is still institutionalized imbalances at play. This piece clearly resonated— it broke all of The Atlantic’s previous web traffic numbers. Among some of the larger topics were the state of feminism, past and present, and the role and impact women have on each other when preaching historically popular feminist tenets, e.g. “You can have it all.” But in this discussion of changing the system, a system that still has men in it, their education isn’t discussed. 

The matriarchs of the feminist movement began a cascade that has made the world a better place for women, but whomever might be considered the leaders of the feminist movement today should consider adding young men in to their strategy. With more women graduating college than ever before, at a rate greater than that of men, the future continues to look bright for the next generation of women. But what does the next generation of feminism look like? And should it be geared less towards educating and empowering young women, and more towards educating young men?

Joey Camire can be found on the internet.

Do contemporary measures in the name of health and safety do more for our minds than our bodies?

“Employees must wash hands before returning to work,” a sign as ubiquitous as traffic lights and discarded Starbucks cups, is required by law in many states. According to one compliance signage vendor, signs are “the best method to continually remind employees of specific workplace policies or safety precautions that should be taken in their daily job duties.” As a wall fixture seen day in and day out, these signs may eventually lose their potency on employees. According to a 2006 CDC study on Food Worker Handwashing Practices, “during specific work activities for which handwashing is recommended” employees washed their hands only 32% of the time. In fact, according to a study commissioned by Delta Faucet, 1 in 5 people do not wash their hands after using the bathroom. That’s 20% of the population. And it includes food workers. 

These signs could very well serve another purpose, however – a gentle security blanket for visiting patrons. One blogger writes: “Sometimes I wonder if there are people who see this sign and then go back to their table feeling much safer about eating their food.” As if such a sign could magically ameliorate all concerns of hygiene and sanitation – I will not get food poisoning, my line cook washed his hands. Who knows if employees actually wash their hands after going to the restroom (there’s a decent likelihood they did not), or that even if they do, it means the kitchen is salmonella- and vermin- free. In fact, the two may very well be mutually-exclusive given the number of B and C grades adorning the windows of New York City’s cafes and restaurants. 

 In a recent New York Times article, “The Mystery of the Flying Laptop,” Matt Richtel explores the TSA distinctions between laptops and tablets attempting to understand why travelers must remove their laptops for individual screening, but not their other devices. Debunking the common assumptions about removable batteries, thickness, and screen size, he pokes holes in the logic flow and justification of many a security expert before talking to an unnamed source who claims: “the laptop rule is about appearances, giving people a sense that something is being done to protect them. ‘Security theater,’ he called it.”

Just how strong of an effect does the idea of safety have on us? Perhaps there’s a parallel in medicine. The April 2012 Harvard Health Letter articulates: “the placebo effect is… a favorable response to a medical intervention — a pill, a procedure, a counseling session, you name it — that doesn’t have a direct physiological effect.” Part of this “favorable response” is a result of “changes in brain chemistry” due to genuine belief in and expectation of treatment. An analysis of recent research has led to a newfound appreciation for the effectiveness of placebo therapies: “the placebo effect may be an integral part of good medical care and an ally that should be embraced by doctors and patients alike.” It goes without saying: the brain is powerful stuff. 

Are dummy security cameras the equivalent of sugar pills? Are weaponless mall cops more psychologically than physically effective? Have you ever encountered a Purell station outside of a hospital that actually works? Medicine has recognized the legitimacy of placebo therapies, and it’s likely that OSHA, TSA, and myriad other health and safety organizations have followed suit. Evidence suggests that many safety measures do more for our peace of mind than anything else, but as many others have pointed out before, that may be just the point.

 Image via