One of the most underratedly hard parts about the second semester of any high schooler's senior year is finding ways to cope with inevitable senioritis. It's true, everyone gets it, but not everyone deals with this crippling disease the same way; some people embrace it and get comfy while they watch their motivation (usually in tandem with their grades) drop to record lows, while others drive themselves crazy trying their very hardest to stay on task and not soil their last seven semesters of hard work. My approach, I'd like to think, has been sort of in the middle, where I'm not totally blowing work off, but to say I'm still investing 100% of my best effort would just be a blatant lie. My guiding motto lately has been, "it doesn't have to be good, it just has to be done." Is this the anthem of a slacker who realizes what it takes to work just hard enough? Probably. But does that mean it's an inherently bad principle? Honestly, I don't think so. It's probably pretty widely accepted that the "don't work, don't care" perspective isn't something to strive for but, to play devil's advocate, I think there are situations where this sort of "not good, just done" mindset is necessary and beneficial.
Any cliche, out of touch teacher/parent/motivator will tell you that you should always shoot for perfection, because if you think your work is perfect, what more could you ask for, right? Wrong. There are quite a few problems that you can run in to if perfection is always the end goal. First and foremost, you will likely drive yourself into insanity if you're always struggling to achieve perfection; someone with a healthy work ethic problem wants to minimize their time spent struggling at all. If perfection can be achieved without any sort of struggle, then there probably needs to be some sort of paradigm shift or redefinition of what "perfect" really means. Perfection, by nature, isn't supposed to be easily attainable, and not everything a person does is supposed to be considered perfect. There should be some distinction between good and bad, which necessitates a certain allotment for things that are bad. This allotment is healthy, productive, and relieving, and the "not good, just done" mentality tolerates bad work as part of a greater whole (that we're assuming is also composed of good, maybe even some perfect work). For people really under the gun with expectations, or just in their eight semester of high school, this mentality offers a nice respite from the need to be perfect or always invest the best effort.
Beyond the fact that perfect is simply just not always a viable option, sometimes it genuinely isn't an option at all. Take for example my college decision, something that's been plaguing my thoughts for weeks; as of now I can either choose to attend the University of San Francisco or New York University next Fall, both of which are great choices, but neither of which really is perfect. I've been back and forth between the two relentlessly over the past few weeks and I've boiled the decision down to the notion that either outcome will be amazing, but part of what makes the decision so tough is that neither one jumps out to me as being the obvious, clear-cut "perfect" choice. In this, and many other similar scenarios, there really isn't a perfection to strive for, it's just choosing between the better of two goods (or the lesser of two evils if you're a pessimist). Framing the decision with the mantra, "it doesn't have to be good, it just has to be done" again is a source of respite; in the end whatever choice I make doesn't have to be the best because there may not even be a best, but ultimately a deadline will come (in a mere two days in fact) and a decision will have to be made. It might not be the best, but it doesn't have to be, it will however have to be done. That's what I really like about this mentality (at least for now, while I can still afford to like it), it doesn't hide the fact that there is a task at hand, but it takes the pressure off of finding the most supreme solution to the task. I recommend giving yourself a break once in a while and adopting the mantra for your own use, when you realize that perfection can be totally unrealistic or just a lie, then you can thank me. After, of course, you make sure that whatever it is you need to do is in fact done.
Monday, April 28, 2014
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Welcome to Nature! Check Out is at 10:00
As we finally are transitioning out of winter into longer, warmer days, the heat of Spring Break has dawned on a lot of people over the last few weeks. More so than any other time of year, people feel compelled to travel, explore, go somewhere exotic during this week off. Spring Break is often seen as an opportunity to go somewhere exotic, somewhere more natural than the environments we're accustomed to living in on daily basis. If we search out nature and try to make it a point to "experience" something more natural while we have a week off of work, are we really accomplishing our goal, or are we simply gawking at places we're glad we don't actually live, potentially contributing to their destruction in the process? Maybe when people take off for the far flung corners of the world to some exotic, natural destinations, it defeats the purpose of nature entirely and jeopardizes its existence.
The natural beauty of places like The Maldives, The Everglades, or the islands of Fiji usually don't include resorts and travel organizations, but these are often what actually draws eager travelers to these destinations, not the innate natural experience. We're constantly bombarded with messages to "get out there," and experience something new; the fact that a list describing the best places to see before they disappear exists should be a testament to the fact that we hold natural, scenic places in high regard. But it's unlikely to think most travelers to these destinations would make such excursions without the luxury of resorts and hotels to tame these wild, natural places and make them livable. Does this count as tampering with nature? Unfortunately, the answer is more of a resounding yes than we'd like it to be. The fact that this list, of ways to "green your travel," exists should be a testament to the ecological hazards posed by travel, and how making pilgrimages to gape at these locations might serve to destroy them in the long-term. This potential for destruction, combined with the zoo tactics that a lot of hotels and resorts employ (look all you want but don't touch, just enjoy the ruggedness of nature from a deck chair) begs the question, is traveling as worth it as we think?
Obviously there is an incredible amount of room for interpretation to answer this question, and travel is by no means the same experience for everyone, but it seems rare to consider the environmental implications people can have just by visiting a different environment. Maybe the common attitude towards traveling needs a slight adjustment to realign itself with the world's increasing emphasis on environmental consciousness and sustainability. This doesn't mean that instead of taking vacations people should just go completely Walden and immerse themselves in natural wilderness (as entertaining as it might be for that to become a travel fad), but it should ask for a certain sense of increased awareness. If the motivation to travel far and see nature is just simply to see nature, people might want to consider staying home and resorting to Google Images; it's possible that simply the act of going somewhere exotic could do more harm than good for the existence of that place. It's becoming more and more important to adopt a new attitude towards traveling; either make a concerted effort to take a vacation from normal living and emphasize sustainability while your off the regular work schedule, or realize that is is in fact your vacation where you're free to indulge yourself, but do so responsibly, understanding the importance of ecological consciousness. If plane travel alone can account for almost 5% of global climate change, it's clear that the effects of traveling are more than meets the eye. If we're going to allow ourselves to continue to make destinations out of naturally beautiful places, then we'll need to realize the dangers we pose to these places, and how to ensure the enjoyment we get from them isn't causing their destruction in the process.
The natural beauty of places like The Maldives, The Everglades, or the islands of Fiji usually don't include resorts and travel organizations, but these are often what actually draws eager travelers to these destinations, not the innate natural experience. We're constantly bombarded with messages to "get out there," and experience something new; the fact that a list describing the best places to see before they disappear exists should be a testament to the fact that we hold natural, scenic places in high regard. But it's unlikely to think most travelers to these destinations would make such excursions without the luxury of resorts and hotels to tame these wild, natural places and make them livable. Does this count as tampering with nature? Unfortunately, the answer is more of a resounding yes than we'd like it to be. The fact that this list, of ways to "green your travel," exists should be a testament to the ecological hazards posed by travel, and how making pilgrimages to gape at these locations might serve to destroy them in the long-term. This potential for destruction, combined with the zoo tactics that a lot of hotels and resorts employ (look all you want but don't touch, just enjoy the ruggedness of nature from a deck chair) begs the question, is traveling as worth it as we think?
Obviously there is an incredible amount of room for interpretation to answer this question, and travel is by no means the same experience for everyone, but it seems rare to consider the environmental implications people can have just by visiting a different environment. Maybe the common attitude towards traveling needs a slight adjustment to realign itself with the world's increasing emphasis on environmental consciousness and sustainability. This doesn't mean that instead of taking vacations people should just go completely Walden and immerse themselves in natural wilderness (as entertaining as it might be for that to become a travel fad), but it should ask for a certain sense of increased awareness. If the motivation to travel far and see nature is just simply to see nature, people might want to consider staying home and resorting to Google Images; it's possible that simply the act of going somewhere exotic could do more harm than good for the existence of that place. It's becoming more and more important to adopt a new attitude towards traveling; either make a concerted effort to take a vacation from normal living and emphasize sustainability while your off the regular work schedule, or realize that is is in fact your vacation where you're free to indulge yourself, but do so responsibly, understanding the importance of ecological consciousness. If plane travel alone can account for almost 5% of global climate change, it's clear that the effects of traveling are more than meets the eye. If we're going to allow ourselves to continue to make destinations out of naturally beautiful places, then we'll need to realize the dangers we pose to these places, and how to ensure the enjoyment we get from them isn't causing their destruction in the process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)