One of my faithful readers sent me an article about Stupidity (actually it was my brother, who said it was meant as a learning aid). The gist of the piece was that the author claimed there were a lot more stupid people around us than we think
Carlo Cipolla posited that if most people thought about what they were doing, we would be less ‘stupid’. People would or should consider whether what they were doing would benefit themselves, benefit others or conversely, harm themselves and others. The permutations of this gave Carlo his Laws. Of course, there were some people who were just plain stupid and did things that benefited no one – including themselves – and actually harmed themselves and others. Then then there were a few people who simply just buggered up everything they touched because they were totally inept or stupid at everything they tried. Uncle Bob comes to mind.
The people who rated best on Carlo’s list were those who are altruistic doing good for the whole (community) while benefiting themselves without harming others. I was thinking doctors of all stripes, even dentists, who although reaping rewards for their service, did us all a service. Then I recalled reading of doctors who denied science lately, and of course, there are the inept ones who taint the reputations of the good ones and the stupid label comes to mind.
Briefly, I thought of politicians, who for small pay, try to do the best they can for all of us. Of course, subjecting yourself to taunts, abuse from protesters, slurs from other politicians for little reward does sound a little stupid when you think of it.
Then there are those who are only in it for themselves, and although they do nothing to harm the rest of us, they contribute nothing to the commonweal. Carlo seems to think that we all should be here to improve our lot or at least not be a drain on society, so he gave them a D minus on the Stupidity report card.
The closest example I could think of was my cousin Bert who makes a living selling stocks on commission. Bert says that he doesn’t care if his clients make or lose money; he just provides a service for a fee. It’s his clients who may be stupid.
We have been told that crime does not pay, and although we know of examples where this old saw appears false, Carlo claims that these stupid people are the second worse in our society. They harm others for personal gain: robbers, kidnappers, murders, drug dealers, and their ilk commit crimes for their own benefit without thinking about either their victims or the consequences to themselves if they are apprehended by the law enforcement officers. They not only harm their targets but society as a whole by imposing a high financial cost on the rest of us as we try to lessen the effects these stupid people place on society.
Carlo gives the worse score for stupidity for those people who do things, including their work, without potential gain for themselves and at the same time, harm others by their actions. It is a lose/lose situation when these people bumble through life doing nothing to improve their lot in life and at the same time harm others by their ineptitude or decisions. They are a drain on society’s resources without any benefit to society.
Some of the people in this category may have mental defects but others live this seemingly meaningless lifestyle without effort to improve their lot or diminish their cost to society. Habitual drug users come to mind. Unsure where the voluntary homeless fit in the Laws.
Throughout his Five Laws of Stupidity the author continually reminds us that there are so many stupid people, in all of his categories, because we do not think.
Take for instance, the truckers and their protest supporters.
Although they may have had faith in their cause, believing that their idea of Rights trumped those of the majority, did they really think this through – that they could change the Canadian and American border crossing regulations? Did they conveniently forget they were subject to American laws/regulations on vaccinations or were they simply stupid? Did they forego earnings (harming themselves and their families) while gaining no benefit? Did they harm others (people in Ottawa or Canadian consumers whose lives were disrupted at a cost) and the country as a whole when Americans realise that we are an unstable trading partner subject to trucker’s whims?
Although most of us realize that the trucker’s protest was co-opted by the rogue political ‘party’ in Alberta, did the truckers (and their supporters) not think that there would be repercussions after they returned from their blockades? With cameras everywhere, did they think they were anonymous with the truck’s name emblazoned on their rigs? Would you, if you had a truckload of goods, perhaps perishable, in need of assured delivery, hire a trucker who might decide to cherry pick the laws or make up his or her own mind along the route and take a few days to protest or slow traffic to a crawl? Would you, as an insurance company, want to insure a rig, without extra premiums, whose owner is apt to put the vehicle and its contents into harm's way? Will the US Border Service want you driving in their country (except maybe Texas)? Did the truckers think the law enforcers in Canada do not have your number, identity, pictures on file, waiting for you to be pulled over? And about that bank loan . . .
The same stupidity laws apply to those business owners who supported the Protest (I refuse to say Freedom). How short do you think your customers’ memories are? Did you never hear about shooting yourself in the foot? And the politicians who supported the protest? I fear the repercussions of the border blockades are going to be with us long after your term expires. Sorry about that, citizen O’Toole.
Oh, and by the way, Justin is still in power. If you want him out, try voting in the next election. It’s how we do things in Canada. Holding up obscene signs just doesn’t cut it up here in the Great White North. Just saying.
