This is a weird post, but this is the kind of thing I ruminate on in the bathroom.
Why are switches around the world different? And I mean so vastly different?!
In the United States, there's a standard switch used in all buildings which looks like it was designed in the 19th century. Dimensions-wise, they're about the size of a 1.5" french fry made of plastic that moves up and down. Pathetically ancient looking, not aesthetic at all and doesn't seem to be good from a safety perspective either since it looks like someone with wet fingers could have an accident quite easily when using on of them. (picture to follow when blogger fixes its picture upload bug).
In Germany, the switches are these ultra modern looking panels. Each switch is a square plastic piece of 3" dimensions. While it looks nice and is easy to operate, it does become difficult to have more than two switches together side by side. There is simply not enough place on the wall! Thankfully, most German rooms I've been to aren't particularly large, thus necessitating just one switch to operate the light.
In India, the switches are plastic rockers, rectangular about 2"x.8" in dimension. This allows for quite a few switches to be placed together in one location on a wall. The switches are terrible looking though...cheap manufacturing techniques probably. But hey, maybe they're getting better back home - will have to check on my next trip!
I don't remember what the switches are like in Singapore or Hong Kong. Will have to make a note to check them out on my next trip to the region.
The Economist published a very interesting article in its last issue that discussed the emergence of (human) talent as a critical business issue. Part of this article discussed how a new inequality gap is emerging. Until recently, there has been plenty of discussion about how the rich are privileged and are able to provide the best of opportunities to their progeny, hence boosting them to further riches. And quite the opposite happens to the poor, whose offspring are relegated to a life of poverty. Of course, the exception to this are the shining examples of how an underprivileged youngster is able to work hard or take advantage of a few lucky breaks to pull themeselves out of the lower economic rungs of society. There are quite a few examples of such people who are now famous personalities in their respective fields. I would argue that these people were not only lucky, but more importantly, smart!
This brings me to the core of the Economist article. The point that was being made was that today’s work force rewards intellectual ability more than anything else. The kinds of jobs that require brain power are rising, and it is clear that the winners will be the ’smart’ people. For example, circles of friends are beginning to emerge where everyone is of the same educational qualification or higher. These people marry similar individuals (of similar intellectual capacity and educational qualification). At the risk of generalizing, this means that their children will be of high intellectual capacity. As our workplaces demand and reward people of high intellectual capatity, those people will become the new elite in tomorrow’s society.
So does this mean that tomorrow’s society will be truly Darwinian one? Will Darwin’s ‘fittest’ be society’s smartest? Will it be true that the smartest people will occupy the highest echelons of society? Will meritocracy rule the world? Will society devolve into something that was depicted in the movie, Gattaca, where Eugenics was the norm of the day? Surely the situation portrayed in Gattaca will come to be if we continue to evolve into a meritocratic society! Won’t people want their children to be engineered smart? And does that doom the un-engineered to a life of economic mediocrity?
I have to say - I’m worried for my kids - I’m notoriously bad at standardized tests.