If I have said it once, I hope I have said it a thousands times. This is
a fact: americans are pampered by the big, affordable selection of
quality magazines. Or at least they should be spoiled if they do read
them -- I am still not yet convinced they do, after living in the states
for a decade. This abundance of goodness is in contrast to selection of
daily newspapers; which are -- relatively speaking -- not that much to
write home about. It's almost immoral how much good stuff you can
actually read from refined-tree-based non-daily print products, for a
very modest fee. My specific selection of such Great Magazines contains
three exemplars -- Scientific American, Fortune
and National Geographic
-- but I suspect I could easily form many more such triplets and still
make similar statements. My choice of three is not limited my economics
or supply problems, but by time constraints: I can barely keep up with
these three, as things are.
But I digress. After being inspired by one of many outstanding articles
(it'll be the last one I mention in this entry, so more on that one
later on), I thought it be fair to review one interesting and relevant
article from all three. So here's Tatu's October 2009 American Magazine
Article review.
1. How American Auto-Industry was Put In Its Proper Place
(aka "The Auto Bailout: How We Did It" by Fortune)
Of articles chosen, this is the most close-to-earth one. It's a
condensed story of how GM/Chrysler cleanup project was done by the "Team
Auto" of the US government. It's easy reading, and outlines how well
difficult tasks can sometimes be managed, with combination of good
people, right timing and perhaps bit of luck. If you had asked me to
predict how well process could possibly succeed -- I mean, all the facts
were there, and odds did not look very good -- I think I would have
thought it unlikely that end result could be as good as it seems to be.
And this not so much based on the story, which mostly explains what was
done and how, but based on my thinking of how these things tend to go
(with the level of business acumen that a software engineer can possibly
possess, whether that's above or below average banker's talent).
I really like Fortune for articles like this: it's not a dumbed down
version (there are weeklies that can dumb it down a notch; and then
newspaper that take it to almost imbecil level; and finally TV shows
that do the retard-a-versions for actual illiterates), but manages to be
very easy reading.
But that's not all: Fortune also manages to be a good magazine due to
its contrarian spirit. For a business magazine it has very independent
spirit, and viewpoints presented are varied and if possible even
something I'd call fair. It also tackles relevant and non-easy issues --
it's not just yet another WSJ (which itself actually may be one of few
examples of good newspapers; nonetheless, it's much more predictable and
thus less interesting with respect to non-daily news; but I guess that's
only fair for a DAILY newspaper).
Anyhow: that's a good read, enough said.
2. Living On a Razor's Edge (by National Geographic Magazine)
And just so as not to get too well grounded with day-to-day (or
year-to-year) living, it's good to mentally teleport into another time
and/or place. National Geographic offers multiple articles for doing
that; learning about other countries, cultures, flora and fauna, and all
combinations thereof. Picking something to showcase is not easy:
multiple articles could qualify.
But all things being equal, reading about Madagascar is always a safe
bet for learning something new and unusual. But even within those
expectations, the story and especially pictures that illustrate it stand
far apart. I mean, how would one even imagine natural constructs like
these cathedral-spire lookalikes? And things that live and grow on,
around and under them. Whoa. Besides, it's somewhat of an uplifting
article too, for once human development is unlikely to directly threaten
the thing (indirectly climate change can of course affect it, perhaps
destory, but that's still better than gone-in-next-five-years odds many
other exotic places are given)
3. The Rise of Vertical Farms (by Scientific American)
(see http://www.verticalfarm.com
for more)
And finally this is the article that got me inspired to write about
stuff others write about. Article itself is sort of mind-blowing: the
idea of having skyscrapers used for growing our food sounds decidedly
futuristic, somewhat like the old (and for a while now, obsoleted)
future predictions of how everyone by 2000 flies around by a jet pack
and eats food pills for energy. But when you read the article and think
about it, the first questions should be "would it really work?", "why
didn't *I* think about it?" and "isn't that obvious now that I
read it?"
I like the creativity aspect of the idea; as well as its immense
fashionability. One of more surprising current undercurrents of
progressive (and I don't mean politically leftist label here)
forward-looking thinking is that agriculture is actually not a thing of
the past, declining "industry", but something that is both very
essential for humankind and also something that is part of the future
and current, as well as past. The only thing that has been declining
wrt. farming has been amount of population it employs; but its
importance hasn't really reduced over time, nor will it significantly be
reduced any time soon. So although there has been steady pace of R&D
over the years, it is only becoming obvious now that farming is a big
thing; there are lots of things wrong with it, but with all the
challenges there are also gigantic opportunities. This along with more
mundane trends of organic-food-is-cool, bundled with
finally-at-last-here american environmentalist awakening is really
making farming Cool with a capital C.
And this is where this idea becomes sizzling hot: hey, not only can you
produce fresh food locally (where are the consumers? in cities dummy!),
it can be both economically beneficial, good for your health (no, not in
the "good vibes" sense of organic food but with regards to actual
reduction of use of pesticides, less time for spoiling etc. etc. etc.),
AND good for environment (less land used, less water, can recycle waste
water and perhaps even solids; less energy for transportation). Oh yes,
and also good tasting due to freshness -- fresh produce year round.
4. Common Threads (or Exercise in Deep Thinking by an Amateur
Philosophist/-logist)
One more interesting thing about the "Big Three" is that they often
converge around similar topics, somewhat aligned thinking, same threads;
sometimes it might not be trivial to even know which magazine had any
given article if you weren't shown it. And I don't mean this in negative
way -- it's not that magazines are identical, or lack identity, but
rather that they are varied and topic selection thereby overlaps (but is
not lemming-like approach of daily news). Of course, some could call
such convergence zeitgeist; different entities talking about similar
things, threads that connect things that seem unrelated (like
environmentalist/naturalist NG vs. business-talk of Fortune vs Geeky
SciAm). And cynics would claim I am just missing weekly-paced
groupthink. Perhaps this is part of the thing -- there being thoughts
floating in time (as much as I hate the word, I guess I better use it...
memes).
But I also think there's something related to sort of national way of
thinking (what is the word for that again? Volkgaist?). Beyond temporal
similarities (wars are more relevant when they are going on, obviously;
significance of most events is time-bound), there is this common
solution-oriented approach, and choosing of similarly current topics
(not just fashionable, as in discussing stupid crap like celebrity
gossip or politician's marital prolems) is something these magazines
share. And most importantly: there is always this underlying faith in
things improving over time. I suspect this is something profoundly
american; something more genuine than stomach-revoltingly-plastic
flag-waving variety of americana.
What I mean is that many articles talk about how things could be
improved; it is actually quite rare to read an article where the overall
tone is negative, much less something where things are pointed out to be
hopeless. One could of course claim that's just good business sense (who
would pay to read about bad stuff), but that's easily rebuked: selling
social porn and doom-and-gloom is the business of TV networks, and quite
a profitable plan at that.
Anyway, enough soap-box philosophizing (is that a word? can make it one
if not?). Thank you for time. And please consider subscribing to some of
these great affordable american magazines, if you don't already. I'd
rather they be around during my lifetime, and maybe even my children.
There'll be more time to read when I retire. :-)
