Doing things simply because we can

LIMITS: People often crash because they go too fast - why not limit the power of cars to reduce the road toll?

Many years ago, a musician acquaintance told me about seeing a bluegrass band perform a blistering set.

Talking to them afterwards, he asked: "Why do you play everything so fast?" The band members looked at each other as if this should be completely obvious and replied: "Because we can."

This phrase summed up not just the technical satisfaction for those musicians but captures a human trait for doing things because they can, rather than because they need to be done.

This ethos is evident in the way we use new technology. Why send selfies to each other? Technology has made it possible so, regardless of the ethical questions of where those images might end up, we do it because we can.

In so many areas of contemporary life, we simply accept things should be done because we can, rather than questioning why. Nations and the international arms industry spend billions developing arsenals of sophisticated weapons and countries buy and use them because they can.

Corporates using social media platforms hoover up huge amounts of data about our personal likes and dislikes - because they can.

Facebook recently conducted an "experiment" on users to manipulate mood. There was never a satisfactory answer given for why they thought this was morally acceptable - it would appear they did it just because they could.

In a similar way, multinational companies shift their earning around the world avoiding taxes that support health, education and infrastructure in the countries they operate in ... because they can. This behaviour could be restrained by setting up an international transfer tax. It has been talked about by economists and is seen as a workable solution but this has been hindered and resisted by vested interests because, with their legions of lawyers and huge financial clout, they can.

Government surveillance in New Zealand tracks every move of its citizens. The technology is there and so they do it. Questions of why and what it is all for are dressed up with fear to conceal the loss of basic freedoms.

As consumers we adopt and adapt because we can. A faster, shinier, flasher thingiwhatsit offers more stuff we didn't know we needed and so we buy it because we can. We accept being available 24/7 because the technology tells us we can do this.

We buy cars that can go at tremendous speed even though we have speed limits on our roads. People often crash because they can go too fast but, for some reason, we miss the next step that asks why not limit the power of cars as a means of reducing the road toll?

On a slightly different tack, it was disappointing to read Chester Borrows grumbling about changes to the disclosure rules for MPs. He seemed to think it was ridiculous for members of parliament to have to reveal all their pecuniary interests.

In fact, the revelation that a significant proportion of MPs (from all parties) have considerable investments in property is important. It could be perceived as potentially influencing housing policy decisions to safeguard their own interests.

There is no proof that this has happened but, if our elected representatives have huge sums tied up in property, it could influence their enthusiasm for things such as a capital gains tax, tackling the massively over-priced housing market or the creation of affordable social housing to reduce the risks associated with overcrowding.

It seems some MPs would prefer to hide these interests and have done so for a long time ... simply because they could.

Terry Sarten is a Wanganui-based writer, musician and social worker - feedback: tgs@inspire.net.nz