Episode 19: Fairness

Welcome to Wisdom from the Aerial View, the podcast for those who wish to learn how to crush their anxiety and find meaning and purpose in their lives. It's for those who imagine a world with less contentiousness and more harmony. Wouldn't that be nice? It's a place to come for a dose of optimism and 30 minutes of tranquility. This is not a spa. Learning to access the aerial view has changed lives. It just might change yours. It does sound like we're doing a spa day here, but... I'm joined today by Dr. Mark Klein, who wrote the book about whose podcast we speak. But today we're going to talk about a basketball player from the University of Florida. And he's seven foot nine inches. Now they made it to the final four and that's good, I guess. But my team, whatever that would be, has players who didn't make it because they're not that tall. So naturally we didn't go that far. And you know what? Now, that's not fair. But fair doesn't mean equal, even though equal opportunity for equal benefit is the central theme to what this all means. Fairness doesn't mean that everyone gets what they want. Rather, it means that everybody has equal opportunity to benefit. Is that true? I mean, is that right? I mean, it's not fair that the guy, he's seven, nine, right? That's not fair. Let's talk about fairness. That's for sure, but what?

Well, it wouldn't be fair if he's playing against you and me, that's for sure.

Let us really talk about fair. What is, you know how kids always say, that's not fair. Let's talk about that.

Yeah. So I love this topic. And I think what I'm going to talk about, at least, I'm going to guess a lot of people are not going to agree with. And that's perfectly fine. People are entitled to their opinion. But I would hope that it would at least create a crack in the door, meaning that maybe what I was thinking about my theory of fairness was maybe not complete enough. So what is fair? Well, fairness, as it turns out, is in the eye of the beholder.

of fairness is maybe not complete enough. So what is fair? Well, fairness as it turns out is in the eye of the beholder. What one person thinks is fair may not

What one person thinks is fair may not jive with what another person thinks is fair. And we see that every day. So we talk about fairness as if it's, again, came down on the the tablets from Mount Sinai. But there was nothing in there about fairness. There were only 10 things in there and none of them said, this is fair. This is what fair is. And the reason is because fairness truly is a malleable, changeable entity.

We see that every day. So we talk about fairness as if it's, again, came down on the tablets from Mount Sinai. But there was nothing in there about fairness. There were only 10 things in there, and none of them said, is fair. This is what fair is. And the reason is because fairness truly is a malleable, changeable entity. Over the course of history, what people thought was fair has changed. Not only that, you're

over the course of history, what people thought was fair has changed. Not only that, depending on which side of the fairness issue you're on, you'd have a different perspective. There's no such thing as absolute fairness. It's what we decide is fair. And we make all kinds of rules. So for instance, we don't have a rule that if you're seven foot nine, you can't play. But we did make a rule in the 19... I'm going to say, let's see if I can get this right. Probably 1970s, I'm going to guess for a while, 60s, 70s.

depending on which side of the fairness issue you're on, you'd have a different perspective. There's no such thing as absolute fairness. It's what we decide is fair. And we make all kinds of rules. So for instance, we don't have a rule that if you're seven foot nine, you can't play. But we did make a rule in the 19, I'm say, I'm get this right. Probably 1970s, I'm gonna guess, for awhile, 60s, 70s, where.

where when Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, who at that point was named Llew Al-Sinder, came into the NBA, they got rid of the dunking rule. Oh no, it was college. Got rid of the dunking rule. I think NBA was still there, but in college they got rid of the dunking rule. think I might be getting this wrong, but definitely there was at some point you were not allowed to dunk in college. Why? Well, it wasn't fair. He's seven foot two. Everybody else is a lot shorter. That's not fair. Well, if you're Llew Al-Sinder now, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, you go, well, what do you mean it's not fair?

when uh... kareem abdul jabbar who at that point was named lu al cinder came into the nba they got rid of the dunking rule or no it college got rid of the dunking rule think nba was still there but in college they got rid of the dunking rule i think i might be getting this wrong but definitely if there was at some point you were not allowed to dunk in college why well it wasn't fair he's seven foot two everybody else is a lot shorter that's not fair well if you're lu al cinder now kareem abdul jabbar you go what do mean it's not fair

It's not my fault that I grew this eye. And there are a lot of 7'2 people in the world who can't shoot a basket or play like I can. What do you mean it's not fair? And of course, they eventually got rid of that. They decided, well, maybe we were wrong. Maybe that is fair. So that changed. Right. So we have all kinds of rules in sports. I know you love sports. They change all the time. What's fair? You know, there's this thing now in football, the tush push that the Philadelphia Eagles use to push their quarterback like a yard, either over the goal line or to get a first down.

It's not my fault that I grew this eye. And a lot of 72 people, 7'2 people in the world, who can't shoot a basket or play like I can. What do you mean it's not fair? Of course, they eventually got rid of that. They decided, well, maybe we were wrong. Maybe that is fair. So that changed, right? So we have all kinds of rules in sports. I know you love sports. They change all the time. What's fair? You know, there's this thing now in football, the push push, that's Philadelphia Eagles use to push their quarterback like a yard, either over the goal line or to get a first down.

And people say, well, that's not fair because you can't stop the play. Well, the teams that not every team can do it well enough. So is it fair? It's whatever they decide. It's what the rules committee decide. Fairness is arbitrary. So I'm going to give you a very quick introductory example. This also comes from the book, but I really like it. We'll change the names a little bit, but let's say you're in a sixth grade class and there are 19 kids in the class and

people say, well that's not because you can't stop the play. the teams that, not every team can do it well enough, is it fair? It's whatever they decide, it's what the rules committee decide. Fairness is arbitrary. So I'm gonna give you a very quick introductory example. This also comes from the book, I really like it. We'll change the names a little bit, but let's say you're in a sixth grade class, and there are 19 kids in the class. and they were going to have an election for class president. Every class we were in, I think, had a class president. So there's two people running. Let's say they're two girls. Let's just say Ann and Janet.

they were going to have an election for a class president. Every class we were in, I think, had a class president. So the vote, there's two people running. Let's say they're two girls. Let's just say Ann and Janet. We use very simple names because I'm a simple thinker. And so the election occurs and Ann gets 10 votes and Janet gets nine votes. So Ann becomes the class president for the year. So she got 10 votes.

Janet got nine votes, she only missed by one vote. It was almost 50-50, almost half the class wanted one or the other. But yet Janet becomes president for the year. So one of the kids pipes up and says, you know, teacher, this isn't fair. You know, it was so close. How about if we do this? The school year is nine months long. So how about if Ann is president for five months and Janet is president for four months? That really reflects the will of the class.

You know, it was so close. How about if we do this? The school year is nine months long. So how about if Anne is present for five months and Janet is present for four months? That really reflects the will of class. So which is fairer? Should Janet be present for the whole year or should she be present five months? mean, Anne five months and Janet four months. Which is fairer? Neither. The one who got... Well, that's right. That's right.

So which is fair? Should Janet be president for the whole year or should she be president five months, I mean, and five months and Janet four months? Which is fairer in it?

There's no such thing, right? Because some people say, well, this is fair. So, know, so what are going to turn to God? God, can you send us down a little edict, which is fairer? Well, God's not going to answer this one. So it's whatever we decide. class, so the teacher could say, because the teacher is the supreme ruler, teacher could say, you know, that is a really good idea. I like that. That does sound fair to me. And then Ann says,

Some people say, well, this is fair. So what are you going to turn to? God? God, can you send us down a little edict? Which is fairer? Well, God's not going to answer this So it's whatever we decide. The teacher could say, if the teacher is the supreme ruler, the teacher could say, you know, that is a really good idea. I like that. That does sound fairer me. Because that's why they invented the PTA. So the mothers in the PTA could scream, because that's not fair. Right. That's right.

Yeah, that's right. So Anne's mother finds out about this and goes crazy, right? And Anne comes home weeping, I won the election, I only run. Whatever, it doesn't matter. The point is that there's no absolute rule about fairness. I'm going to give you another one. This one's probably going to set your hair on fire. yeah, I love this. right. So there's this discussion in this country for years about the electoral college, right? And is the electoral college fair?

That's right. I know what it is and it did already. I read it in the book. Go ahead.

You have to go back to the origins of the country of why they decided to have the electoral college where it is. And there's a couple of different reasons. A, they didn't trust the people or B, they didn't want the larger states to dominate the smaller states. Same reason they have the Senate. So there's a lot of different reasons that people can argue. But the point is, that's the way it is. And people go, well, that's not fair. That is not fair. It should be one person, one vote, period. So this whole idea of giving states votes, states aren't people. Why are states getting votes?

they decided to have the Electoral College where it is and a couple different reasons. A, they didn't trust the people. Or B, they didn't want the larger states to dominate the smaller states, same reason they have the Senate. So there's a lot of different reasons that people can argue. But the point is, that's the way it is, right? And people go, well, that's not fair. That is not fair. It should be one person, one vote, period. So this whole idea of giving states votes, states aren't people. Why are states getting votes? It should be one person, one vote. And I have a

It should be one person, one vote. And I have a member of my family who's probably one of the smartest people I ever met who's a constitutional scholar and says, yep, I agree, one person, one vote. So then you go, okay, I hear that. So then you look at the electoral map. Let's go back four years to 2020 when President Biden won the election. He won the Electoral College and he won the popular vote. So that was easy. But then if you look at the map of the United States, the voting map of the United States by county,

my family who's probably one of the smartest people I ever met who's a constitutional scholar and says yep I agree one person one vote. So then you go okay I hear that so then you look at the electoral map let's go back four years to 2020 when President Biden won the election. He won the Electoral College and he won the popular vote. That was easy. Then if you look at the map of the United States the voting map of the United States by county so I'm gonna show you all the counties in United States are a thousand

So say, okay, I'm going to show you all the counties in the United States. are thousands of them. And I'm going to show you the electoral map. turn the Republican, the Trump's county's red and the Biden county's going be blue. And here's the map. And I encourage people to Google this because it'll blow your mind. And the map is almost completely red. I mean, there's a little blue in California, a little blue in New York, a little blue in like Chicago and Atlanta, know, places around the country. But the first thing that strikes you is that this is redder than red. It's almost all red. You go.

I'm going show you the electoral map. I'll turn the Republican, Trump's county's red and the Biden county's blue. And here's the map. And I encourage people to Google this because it'll blow your mind. And the map is almost completely red. I mean, there's a little blue in California, a little blue in New York, a little blue in like Chicago and Atlanta, know, places around the country. But the first thing that strikes you is that this is redder than red. It's almost all red. You go, wow, how is that possible? So Biden won the popular vote.

Wow, how is that possible? So Biden won the popular vote, and he won the electoral college, but all these counties are red. And so the people in those red counties would say, you know, we don't think the system is fair, because we have different needs and wants than the people in the big cities. Just because there are millions of people congested in a city. For instance, I think Washington, D.C. and New York City, they're like 94, 96, 98 % Democrats. So something in that range. So you take a city like New York with 8 million people, 90

anyone in electoral college, but all these counties are red. And so the people in those red counties would say, you know, we don't think the system is fair because we have different needs and wants for the people in the big cities just because there are millions of people congested in a city. instance, I think Washington DC and New York City, they're like 94, 96, 98 % Democrats. So something in that range. So you take a city like New York with 8 million people, 93, 94, 95 % of people are Democrats and they all

3, 94, 95 % of people are Democrats. And they all have the same, not all the same, but they similar needs and wants in their community. And the rural people say, well, that's nice, just because there's more of them in that little congested area. What about all the rest of us all over this red map that's the United States, the counties of United States? What about us? Yeah, so there's few of us in each place, but you could make the case that those consolidated areas with very dense populations with lots of apartment buildings.

have the same, not all the same, but they similar needs and wants from their community. And the rural people say, well, that's nice, just because there's more of them in that little congested area. What about all the rest of us all over this red map that's the United States, the counties of the United States? What about us? Yes, there's fewer of us in each place, but you could make the case that those consolidated areas with very dense populations, with lots of apartment buildings, where people all generally think the same and want the same things.

where people all generally think the same and want the same things, why should they dominate this sea of red that you can see on this map? And you go, hmm, that's a good point too. So what's fair? Should we count by individual people? Should we count by states? Should we count by counties? How should we do this? Well, people go, well, one person, one vote. No, no. One person, one vote is an option. And you may think it's the best option. You're entitled to your opinion, but you...

Why should they dominate the sea of red that you can see on this map? And you go, hmm, that's a good point too. So what's fairer? Should we count by individual people? Should we count by states? Should we count by counties? How should we do this? Well, people, well, one person, one vote. No, One person, one vote is an option. And you may think it's the best option. You're entitled to your opinion. But it is absolutely not the only option. You can look at that map and go,

It is absolutely not the only option. You can look at that map and go, hmm, those people do have a point. I don't know if I agree with them, but they certainly have a point. What's fair to them is not what's fair to the people in the cities. So that's the problem with fairness. Until we understand that fairness is an arbitrary manmade concept, then we're fighting over things that we shouldn't be fighting about. There is no definition of fairness. It's what we collectively decide. And it changes over time.

Those people do have a point. don't know if I agree with them, but they certainly have a point. What's fair to them is not what's fair to the people in the cities. So that's the problem with fairness. Until we understand that fairness is an arbitrary man-made concept, then we're fighting over things that we shouldn't be fighting over. There is no definition of fairness. It's what we collectively decide. And it changes over time. So we used to say, if you're born into a royal family, into a...

What? Right. So we used to say, if you're born into a royal family, a noble family, you get to keep the land. Right. And not only that, but the firstborn son will inherit the land and the second son and every daughter is screwed. They're not getting anything. Right. But that went on for centuries. Right. Is that fair? Well, now we look back and go, no, no, that's not fair. But it seemed perfectly fair to them. Right. That's just the way it was. Right. You know,

noble family, you get to keep the land. And not only that, but the first born son will inherit the land and the second son and every daughter is screwed. They're not getting anything. But that went on for centuries. Is that fair? Well, now we look back, no, no, that's not fair. But it seemed perfectly fair to them. That's just the way it was. People get into Harvard and...

People get into Harvard and for whatever reason, they check some box or something and somebody else who's got maybe better grades or a better SAT, whatever, and they go, well, that's not fair. Why didn't I get in? So that's the problem with fairness. It's arbitrary.

for whatever reason, they check some box or something, and somebody else who's got maybe better grades or better SMT, whatever, and they go, well, that's not fair, why didn't I get in? So that's the problem with fairness, it's arbitrary. Yeah, and you and I totally disagree about the Electoral College, there's no question about that, I'm with your constitutional relative, and that's why I'm a constitutional scholar, because I think that one of the real reasons that we have an Electoral College has nothing to do with any of that kind of stuff, I think it's more, anyway.

Well, hang on a second. Let's stick with that for second. Let's forget the electoral college. What about the voting by county, by state, or by individual? Do you see that there is, that it's an arbitrary decision? It is nowhere etched in stone that one person, one vote is the right way to do it?

Let's stick with that friend. Let's get rid of the electoral college. What about voting by county, by state, or by individual? Do you see that there is, that is an arbitrary decision and there's etched in stone that one person would vote for? Yeah, but I don't know that it matters that it's not etched in stone. mean, right now we have the electoral college and we have people who are then electors who then, for some crazy reason, decided they're not even going to listen to what their people said and they decided to sway an election. I mean, there's all sorts of chicanery that goes on and we don't want to get into that here because we're supposed to be tranquil and it makes my blood boil. You did admit that Biden won that election, which is good. But I think what we really, but I guess my issue about this and I've been trying to rack my brains about, I know the discussion about fairness. My problem with this is I think it's semantics. I don't know that we should be talking about what's fair and what's not fair. I think it's more important to talk about, and again, we had a conversation a while back on another podcast about right and wrong and being right is overrated. Isn't this the same thing? Isn't it in many respects being fair and being right? Isn't that very similar? mean, aren't we just messing around with words here?

Well, I think you make a great point that it is similar, right? Because in order to give up your sense that there's an absolute sense, idea of what is fair and what is not fair, right? Then it's the same thing of being able to accept that you're not always going to be right and you have been wrong. So it's similar, but people are stuck on this fairness. Here's another good one. Again, you know me, I don't take a side in these things. I just want

Here's another good one. Again, you know me, I don't take a side in these things. I just want people to appreciate that there's more than one way to look at things. And that's what you get from the aerial view. It's an all-encompassing broad view of all of history, all of time, our purpose. It clearly outlines what our purpose is and so on. So here's another one. This is another very hot topic right now. Should biological boys be able to play in girls' sports? Now 80 % of the country or so may be

people to appreciate that there's more than one way to look at things. And that's what you get from the aerial view. It's an all encompassing broad view of all of history, all of time, our purpose. It clearly outlines what our purpose is and so on. So here's another one. This is another very hot topic right now. Should biological boys be able to in girls sports? Right? Now, 80 % of the country or so, maybe more, says no. And there's a subset of people that says yes. Okay.

And there's a subset of people that says, yes. Okay. Because if somebody wants to identify as a girl, then they can play as a So most people say, well, that doesn't sound fair. Right. And certainly, I won't tell you how I feel about it because it's not important, but I will say that, that it's not so difficult to understand both sides. Again, you don't have to agree. I do have an opinion. I do come down on one side or the other, but I recognize that these are two different points of view.

because if somebody wants to identify as a girl, then they can play as a girl, fine. So most people say, well, that doesn't sound fair, right? And certainly I won't tell you how I feel about it because it's not important, but I will say that it is not so difficult to understand both sides. Again, you don't have to agree. I do have an opinion. I do come down on one side or the other, but I recognize that these are two different points of view and it's not...

And it's not that one is quote fairer than the other. It's that we have to decide collectively how we want to operate. So it's a definition. Okay, by definition, we are not going to biological boys to play in girl sports. Not because it's not fair, because we determined that's the standard by which we want to operate, right? It's a difference. It's a difference in that sense. So because the other side can always say, well, we think it's not fair to deny people to be who they want to be.

that one is quote fairer than the other, it's that we have to decide collectively how we wanna operate. So it's a definition. Okay, by definition, we are not gonna permit biological boys to play in girl sports. Not because it's not fair, because we determined that's the standard by which we wanna operate, right? It's a difference, there's a difference in that sense. because the other side can always say, well, we think it's not fair to deny people to be who they wanna be. So they make that statement. So that's not fair either. Okay, let's get off the fairness point. Get off the word fairness. Like you said, it's semantics. Let's decide collectively how we want to operate. Do we want to let biological boys play in girl sports? 80 % of people say no. Okay, we're done. It's not a question of fairness. We just decided. What about slavery, right? So we had slaves for hundreds of years and there were slaves in the world for thousands of years. And at some point somebody said, know,

So they make that statement. So that's not fair either. Okay, let's get off the fairness point. Get off the word fairness. Like you said, it's semantic. Let's decide collectively how we want to operate. Do we want to let biological boys play in girls' sports? 80 % of people say no, okay, we're done. It's not a question of fairness. We just decided. What about slavery, right? So we had slaves for hundreds of years and there are slaves in the world for thousands of years. And at some point somebody said, know,

That's not fair. Well, people could say, well, the Southern plantation would say, well, of course it's fair. You the North doesn't have this problem, but we can't possibly survive economically without slaves. So it's not a question of fairness. Now it becomes a different thing. Can you enslave people? Is it right to treat people, enslave people, and command them to do what you want them to do?

that's not fair well people say well it's the southern plantation say well of course it's you the north doesn't have this problem we can't possibly survive economically without slaves so it's not a question of fairness now it becomes a different thing can you enslave people is it right to treat people and slave people and command them to do what you want them to do and and to control the lives that's a different story we don't have worry about whether it's fair we can just say it's ethically and morally wrong

and control the lives. That's a different story. We don't have to worry about whether it's fair. We can just say it's ethically and morally wrong. Then we get off to fairness question and we get on to another question that's more important. How do we want to treat people? We talk a lot about in this podcast. How do we want to treat people generously, kindness, empathy, compassion? We believe that's the right way to treat people, not only because we think it's right, but because

Right? Then we get off the fairness question, and we get on to another question that's more important. How do we want to treat people? We talk a lot about it in this podcast. How do we want to treat people generously, kindness, empathy, compassion? We believe that's the right way to treat people, not only because we think it's right, but because that's what you need to make the evolution from selfish to selfless, and get with that with focus, and move along in the path.

That's what you need to make the evolution from selfish to selfless, from inward to outward focus and move along in the path of your mission and your life. So if we get off the word fairness and we don't get stuck on it and we recognize we're making a collective decision together for the benefit of all, that's a much better way to do it. And you can do the same thing with, you know, with politics, with the electoral college or the red map, whatever. You can say, OK, well, I see that we decide collectively. This is how we want to do it. We want to have one person, one vote.

your mission in your life. So if you get off the work fairness, if you don't get stuck on it, and we recognize we're making a collective decision together for the benefit of all, that's a much better way to do it. And you can do the same thing with, you know, with politics, electoral college or the red map, whatever. You can say, okay, well, I see that we decide collectively, this is how we want to do it. But let's talk about that. let's talk about that. How do we decide collectively? if we don't have, I mean, what's the, how do you do that? And if you, we have people in this country, we're split, maybe it's 50-50. Obviously we had the last election, pretty close. So what's the collective nature of it? How do we, you keep saying we're gonna decide collectively. How do we do that? How do we do that? By vote? Okay, okay, so.

Very close.

Well, know, instance, yeah, sure, by vote. That's really the we don't have or we don't have to have to vote about everything. can get together, small groups can get together and say, yeah, I see your point. I think, OK, let's settle on this one. Not that it's fairer. It's just that what we decide, right? It's true of all these things. What, you know, what if we're stuck on the idea of fairness, we're going to get nowhere. Right. Because my definition of fairness is different than your definition of fairness. Good luck with that.

Yeah.

We got to get off that idea that the fairness, understand fairness is in the eyes of the beholder. It's an arbitrary concept. So we have to make decisions based on other things like kindness, generosity, compassion, those kinds of things. Those will lead us in the right direction, right? So the fairness idea is, again, to use that term overrated, it's not helpful, right? Because there's no definition of fairness etched in stone.

Right, because it doesn't mean equal. I fairness doesn't mean equal, does it?

So getting back to you, know how you say you want one person, one vote, you think the electoral college is crap and that's a totally legitimate. Okay, that is a totally legitimate argument. But I would hope that you could understand those, all those people in those red counties that completely dominate the electoral map of the United States, that they have a point that they don't want to be told what to do by large groups of people concentrated in small areas that all have the same needs and wants or similar needs and wants different than theirs.

I do.

So at least you have to say, okay, I see their point. Now, collectively, we decide, is it one person, one vote, or is it an electoral college? Well, 250 years ago, we decided it was the electoral college. We've had 27 amendments to the constitution. Perhaps one day we will decide, you know what? We have decided collectively that we want to go in another direction, and we'd rather go with one person, one vote. Not because it's fairer, because collectively we have decided to change the rules. Just like we decided dunking was not allowed.

Yeah.

in college basketball, and now dunking is back again, right? It wasn't that dunking wasn't fair. We just decided arbitrarily that we wanted to go in a different direction. We can do the same thing with everything, but get off this high hill of fairness, because it is an arbitrary manmade decision, and it is in the eyes of the beholder. You need different criteria to make these decisions.

We just decided arbitrarily that we wanted to go in a different direction. We can do the same thing with everything, get off this high hill of fairness, because it is an arbitrary manmade decision and it is in the eyes of the holder. You need different criteria to make these decisions. Well, here's what's interesting, because you said we decided, let's talk about the dunking rule, which of course I didn't know about. You said we decided that Lu Alcindor became Kareem Abdul-Bajwar could do that. Who's the we? And then what happens if the rest of us, not the we, don't agree with the we's decision? Then what?

Okay, so in college basketball, they're like anything. There's a rules group and there's an oversight board. The NCAA, for instance, would be in that situation. And they would get together and say, okay, we think dunking should be outlawed because it's not fair because we've got all these short kids and they can't compete with Llewellyn Cinder. Exactly. And then five years later, they go, yeah, we don't think so.

They would get together and say, okay, we think something should be outlawed because it's not there for the other short kids and they can't compete with Lu Alcindor. So Muggsy Bows can't compete with Lu Alcindor. Exactly.

Dunk, now there are more tall people playing and dunking is really fun and people love watching it. So we're to change that rule. So now it's fair. Now it wasn't fair five years ago. Now it's fair. No, it was always the same. It was always dunking. We just decided collectively that we want to go in a different direction, not because it was more or less fair. It nothing to do with fairness. Llewellyn Cindy would have said, this isn't fair. Why are you discriminating against me? Right. And, and five years later, it's a different story. So

I do.

You see my point. have to be. So in terms like something like the dunking is not that important. mean, it important to people in college basketball and fans certainly. But the electoral college and how we vote, that affects 350 million people. So we have this rule in place. I want people to understand that they may not like the electoral college, but it is not less fair. It's just a different way to look at it. It's just a different approach.

In terms like something like, thunking's not that important. mean, you important to people in college basketball and fans certainly. But the Electoral College and how we vote, that affects 350 million people. So we have this rule in place. I want people to understand that they may not like the Electoral College, but it is not less fair. It's just a different way to look at it. It's just a different approach.

somebody else's opinion, we can change it. Even that is not a nudge and stone. We've changed the Constitution 27 times. If the people collectively decide, you know what, we want to go in a different direction, not because it's more fair, because it's not more fair. It's fair to it helps a different group of people. So right now, the people in smaller rural areas or certainly smaller states, know, give an example, Delaware, tiny little state, they have two senators, right? They have three electoral, I think it's

somebody else's opinion we can change it it's not even that is not national we change the constitution 27 times if the people collectively decide you know what we want to go in a different direction not because it's more fair because it's not more fair it's just it's fair to it helps a different group of people so right now the people in smaller rural areas are certainly smaller states you know give an example Delaware tiny little state they have two senators right they have they have three electoral

I think you one congressperson, whatever, something like that, very small number. And for people who don't know, the number of electors for the electoral college, the way you get that number is you take the number of state's, number of your senators every state gets to, and then the number of members of the House of Representatives. So a state like Texas or Florida or California has lots of representatives because there's a lot of population. And representatives are proportional to the population. Senators are not proportional to the population. So a small state like Delaware gets two senators, just like a giant state like California.

you have one congressperson, whatever, something like that, very small number. And for people who don't know, the number of electors for the Electoral College, the way you get that number is you take the number of state senators and state kids do, and then the number of members of the House of Representatives. So a state like Texas or Florida or California has lots of representatives, there's a lot of population, and representatives are proportional to the population. Senators are not proportional to So a small state like Delaware gets two centers just like a giant state like California. You'll go, well, how's that fair? Well, was fair. It wasn't fair, but was at 250 years ago.

People go, well, how's that fair? Well, it was fair. It wasn't fair, but it was at 250 years ago. Well, California wasn't there then, but out of the 13 colonies, Virginia was the largest one. Virginia and New York dominated and smaller states said, a minute, you know.

California wasn't there then. But of the 13 colonies, Virginia was the largest one. Virginia and New York dominated. And smaller states said, a minute, you know, we're not going to let Virginia and New York tell us what to do. You know, if we're going to join this union, we have to have some autonomy. We can't we're not going to be subjugated by these other by these two or three giant states. No, no. So that's where they came up with the Senate. And that's how they came up with the Electoral College. And they tried to make it quote fairer. But it wasn't that it was fair. It was fair to the smaller states and maybe less fair to

We're not going to let Virginia and New York tell us what to do. You if we're going to join this union, we have to have some autonomy. We can't, we're not going to be subjugated by these other, by these two or three giant states. No, no. So that's where they came up with the Senate and that's how they came up with the Electoral College. And they tried to make it quote fairer, but it wasn't that it was fair. It was fair to the smaller states and maybe less fair to the larger states. But the larger states weren't going to get a union. You weren't going to have the United States until you made that compromise.

to the larger states, the larger states weren't gonna get a union. You weren't gonna have the United States until you made that compromise. So people have to go, you can't just look at it today. You gotta go back and see what they were thinking 250 years ago. There was a good reason they did this. So now if we don't like it we wanna change it, we can change it. But not because it's more fair. It's just a different perspective. Yeah, it's interesting. Years ago we had this thing in broadcast, they call it fairness doctrine. We don't have it any longer. But that's a whole nother story. One of the-

Right? So people have to go, you can't just look at it today. You got to go back and see what they were thinking 250 years ago. There was a good reason they did this. So now if we don't like it we want to change it, we can change it. But not because it's more fair. It's just a different perspective.

I'm making by the way, I'm making no progress with you by this political stuff

No, you're not. No, no, actually we don't have it anymore. There is no more fairness doctrine, which is either a good or bad. But one of the things you did talk about was you talked about compassion and talk about kindness and kindness or doing good. It means putting other people's needs kind of before our own. And maybe that's more in keeping with fairness. Maybe that's what fair is about. Fair means maybe putting other people's needs above our own. I maybe again, I get back to this whole notion of isn't everything sort of just about a definition? Is it right? Is it wrong? Is it good? Is it right? Is it fair? I don't know. I mean, we have a tendency to maybe overthink about things that we ought not to, that might be more simple than we sort of make things more complex than they ought to be.

That is a pure, we're not in the same room, otherwise I would hug you at this moment. So have to take a virtual hug. But that is a pure aerial view perspective. That's it, right? That these things are not, there are no absolutes. we know from, the reason I like modern physics and I don't know a ton about it.

Okay.

But I like modern physics because it impresses on us that there's not possible to know anything with absolute certainty. There's nothing in the universe with absolute certainty. And when you generalize that to our more mundane lives, you get out of the physics, it's very healthy. And what you just said is exactly right. That you don't have to be right. Your definition of fairness is not the absolute definition. But if you put other people first, if you consider other people's needs ahead of your own, that

like modern physics because it impresses on us that it's not possible to know anything with absolute certainty. There's nothing in the universe you with absolute certainty. And when we generalize that to our more mundane lives, can have enough physics, it's very healthy. And what you just said is exactly right. That you don't have to be right. Your definition of fairness is not the absolute definition. But if you put other people first, if you consider other people's needs ahead of your own, then we don't need those definitions.

then we don't need those definitions. We're going to act in a great way and we're to great personal lives because we will make that personal evolution to complete our mission. And we will create wonderful societies in which we all want to live. That's the whole point, right? Put other people first. So we get off these dogmatic positions of right or wrong or fair or unfair because what you said is correct. They are just words, right? If you focus on taking care of each other, putting other people first, then everything works out and you don't need those definitions.

We're going to act in a great way, and we're going to great personal lives because we will make that personal evolution to complete our mission. And we will create wonderful societies in which we all want to live. That's the whole point, right? Put other people first. So we get off these dogmatic positions of right or wrong or fair or unfair because what you said is correct. They are just words, right? If you focus on taking care of each other, putting other people first, then everything works out. And you don't need those definitions. You that's right. you you're talking about people in Delaware, you and I are originally from New York, where we thought the world began and end. I mean, that's, you know, the epicenter of everything. But it doesn't mean that we don't have compassion or kindness for the people who live in Kentucky or in Kansas. And so I think we lose sight of the fact that while we who have everything, and we do, is it fair that the people in and Appalachia don't. No, it's not, I don't know if it's fair, but it's certainly not right and it's not good and it's not kind or compassionate. So I think you're right. If we look at it from the aerial view and I hope that we do that, depending on even what we call it, we look at things in a different way. We look at it with more compassion. I am lucky, I am blessed to have all the things I have, but it doesn't mean that I ever lose sight of those people who don't, who are not as lucky as I am. who live with the indignity of aging and not a healthy aging. And I think maybe that's where we are. Maybe it's, is it fair? Is it right? It doesn't matter. Is it compassionate? Is it kind? That's what matters.

There you go. Exactly. It's not about fairness. So you and I were born in the United States. Bang, we won the lottery. Right? Bang, right away. Right away we are way ahead of the curve. Not only that, we grew up in families where our parents actually loved us and cared for us. We grew up in communities that fostered a sense of community. We grew up in a system where education was valued and

care for us. up in communities that fostered a sense of community. We grew up in a system where education was valued. And you you joked that you weren't one of the smartest kids in the class. Well, you're as smart as anybody I know. In retrospect, we grew up with a lot of smart people. Because that was the culture, education was important. We supported each other, the community was, in a sense, unified. We got super lucky. Is it fair that we were born the way in the United States with

You you joked that you weren't one of the smartest kids in the class. Well, you're as smart as anybody I know. In retrospect, we grew up with a lot of smart people. Why? Because that was the culture. Education was important. We supported each other. The community was, in a sense, unified. We got super lucky. Is it fair that we were born the way in the United States with intact nuclear families, et cetera, in great communities versus in, you know, Bangladesh? Well, it's not a question of fairness.

intact nuclear families, cetera, in great communities versus in Bangladesh. Well, it's not a question of fairness, right? That's not a fairness issue. It's a blessing issue. And so then it's up to us to not only think about the people in Kentucky, but the people over the world to do what we can to make the world a better place. Now, we can't, you you have fed probably hundreds of thousands of people, if not more, maybe millions. You have fed, I'm sure you've fed millions of people in your

Right? That's not a fairness issue. It's a blessing issue. And so then it is up to us to not only think about the people in Kentucky, but the people over the world to do what we can to make the world a better place. Now, we can't, you you have fed probably hundreds of thousands of people, not more, maybe millions. You have fed, I'm sure you fed millions of people in your life through your work with Meals on Wheels, et cetera. But you couldn't feed 8 billion people.

to work with meals on wheels, et cetera. But you couldn't feed eight billion people. You don't have the ability. You've told me many times there's plenty of food in the world. That's not the issue. It's a matter of getting into that policy and so on. And as much as you've done, you have not been able to feed everybody or make sure everybody has enough to feed. And you've done yeoman's work and continue to do that. Which is why you're one of my personal heroes, because you've walked the walk. But even you could not solve all these problems.

You don't have the ability. You've told me many times there's plenty of food in the world. That's not the issue. It's a matter of getting it to them and the politics and so on. And as much as you've done, you have not been able to feed everybody or make sure everybody has enough to eat. And you've done yeoman's work and continue to do that. So, which is why you're one of my personal heroes, because you've walked the walk. But even you could not solve all these problems. So, It's not a matter of fairness. It's a matter of saying, okay, let us each focus on looking outward, of making that evolution from selfish to selfless, from inward to outward focus. As long as we're looking outward, here's what's gonna happen. A, we're gonna feel a million times better, because as you and I know, helping others is the greatest thing you can do. It makes you feel wonderful. It's cheating in a way. It's a way to get, it's like a dopamine hit, right? That's what it is. And then it also helps.

It's not a matter of fairness. It's a matter of saying, okay, let us each focus on looking outward, of making that evolution from selfish to selfless, see what that would focus. As long as we're looking outward, here's what's gonna happen. A, we're gonna feel a million times better, because as you and I know, helping others is the greatest thing you can do. It makes you feel wonderful. It's cheating in a way. It's a way to get, it's like a dopamine hit. That's what it is. And then it also helps our neighbors and helps the community, it helps the world.

our neighbors and helps the community and it helps the world and the ball just keeps moving forward. And we don't have to worry about what is fair and what is not fair. Forget it. Just think about the other people. So in any topic we've talked about today, if you apply that rule, not what's fair and what's unfair, but where is the compassion, where is our ability to help our fellow people, then if you live in a big city, you might say, okay, I kind of get why the people in those rural communities feel like

that's moving forward. And we don't have to worry about what is fair and what is not fair. Forget it. Just think about the other people. So in any topic we've talked about today, if you apply that rule, not what's fair and what's unfair, but where is the compassion, where is our ability to help our fellow people, then if you live in a big city, you might say, okay, I kind of get why the people in those rural communities feel like they want to keep the electoral college. I get that.

They want to keep you elected to college. I get that. And the people in the room can say, okay, I get why those people who outnumber us by a large number of field may be taking advantage of us. So let's see if we can do things to help each other in any way we can. Instead of fighting and determining what this isn't fair or that isn't fair, let's look at it in a different way. That's the point. That's why fairness is such an interesting topic to me, because it is a diversion. It is a diversion from where we should be focusing our energies.

And the people in the room are gonna say, okay, I get why those people who outnumber us by a large number of people may be taking advantage of this. So let's see if we can do things to help each other in any way we can. Instead of fighting and determining what this isn't fair or that isn't fair, let's look at it in a different way. That's the point. That's why fairness is such an interesting topic to me, because it is a diversion. It is a diversion from where we should be focusing our energies. Yeah, I totally agree. Again, I look at the clock, I see we're out of, just about out of time. So let me end this wonderful conversation about fairness and let me do it fairly. Fairly well, fair the way. Okay, I always end with quotes from your book because I think it's important. And this is your chapter on fairness. You write, the problem with any definition of fairness is that it reflects the mind of the observer. It's the equivalent of asking which is better, steak or lobster.

You

Our concept of fairness differs just like our tastes. Fairness is amorphous and subjective. We will be well served to substitute kindness, respect, and judging each other favorably as criteria when choosing which path to follow. These are real and tangible. Amen. Thank you. That is fairly well spoken, well said, and... No, this is a good conversation because it is about putting back and being kind and being compassionate and really caring. And let's not worry about if it's fair or not fair. What's fair is being true to ourselves and being good to other people. Tell everybody where they can reach us.

can send us an email at question at wisdomfromtheaerialview.com and we'd be happy to entertain any questions, comments, suggestions, criticism. We'll take it all. Thank you so much for listening in and thank you for another wonderful conversation. Bye everybody.

Thank you so much for listening. thank you for another wonderful conversation. Thank you, my friend. Peace.