Josh Allred's Blog

Sometimes, the difference between right and wrong is in the eye of the beholder. It’s exercising the benefit of the doubt. When someone who is going hungry steals bread from the market, it is now justified behavior. (To some, Aladin became a hero; to others, he was a street rat.)

This complicates ethics—the balance between the rule of law, justice, peace, and quality of life. The fine print isn’t helpful when no one reads it. Second, third, and fourth chances don’t matter when someone lacks the knowledge or resources. Our justice is not the same as someone else’s. A person in a position of power, of advantage—can do a better job of understanding. Not be annoyed when someone is doing something we couldn’t imagine themselves doing.

Remember: you might have been taught to wait on the marshmallow, knowing a second one is coming. Someone without resources may find it very reasonable to take what’s before them.

While it may be tempting to be the bystander, police, judge, or jury—we are seduced to believe we can wear all hats at the same time—it is far more effective to wear just one. And if we have to choose one role, perhaps the best role we can be is the kind of citizen who spreads empathy. It is not near the glamor since there isn’t a title, but it is far more potent of a position to take.

Or “liability,” “risk,” “exclusion,” or even “mental health.” These words have often become buzzwords to halt discussion or discord. If perfect safety were the goal, we would never leave the house, drive a car, keep ourselves in bubble wrap, never raise our hand, and just stay low. And it gets worse: with or without bubble wrap, no one makes it out of here alive. (COVID pointed out that this isn’t how we can sustainably live.)

The question shouldn’t be, does this purpose risk, uncertainty, or danger? Because the answer by default is always Yes. We have now created a place to hide when this tension arises. A better question, or at least a more productive one, is to ask: What kind of risks are we willing to take? We have swung the pendulum so far that, like much of our culture, we have turned the decision-making over to someone else. We don’t want to be risk assessors or takers, so we can stay, no, play it safe, and we won’t get in trouble, we won’t get sued, if we exclude everyone, there can’t be a problem for someone to complain. By avoiding problems, we inherit new ones. The answer can’t always be, “What’s safer?” Instead, we can adopt this posture (and perhaps have the bravery) to ask, “What’s better?”

Recently, I talked to a 3rd grader who was disappointed they couldn’t even put a book club together in their school. The principal said there were problems in the past; someone could be excluded, so it wasn’t an option. Of course, you don’t need a school to start a book club, but we wonder why the culture feels off when we are too afraid that someone might be offended. Multiply this a million times across the culture, and we are faced with a mental health crisis in our hands. In the short run, staying home and putting kids in front of a screen feels safer, but that doesn’t mean it is actually safer in the long run. In the words of Hunter S. Thompson, “All the hallmarks of a dangerously innocent culture.”

Ultimately, no parks would ever be built if everyone had to agree beforehand what they should look like or how much they should cost. But we don’t want to live in a world without parks either.

Diet or zero-sugar sodas seem like an outstanding market response: our customers are getting fat or developing diabetes, so let’s create a soft drink that limits the harm.

Instagram is now unrolling Teen Accounts. “Sorry for causing so much harm, but here are some guardrails.”

As consumers, we have to start taking control back into our hands. The response shouldn’t be “Well, this isn’t good for my mental health, but here this other thing that is a little less harmful.” A warning sign around an electric fence should be enough of a cue to follow but often it isn’t enough. It’s still harmful. Until we stop clicking or paying attention, the market will find a way to make a dollar. And if we can’t make companies accountable (no easy feat), we must make ourselves accountable (also no easy feat either).

Let’s at least start calling it what it is: Diet soda is still soda. Instagram Teens is still social media. An e-cigarette is still a cigarette. “Eco-friendly” doesn’t mean it is good for the environment.

It is worth pointing out that there is this false sense of comfort in harm reduction.

Which is scary to think about, but worth understanding. The temptation to do things against our self-interest is easy in a moment of weakness. Which is why we can continue to consume junk food media, even though we know it isn’t good for our mental health. The same can be said about saving for retirement. The list of examples is endless. But why do we do it? Because in the end, when willpower fails, we tell an underlying story that says, “Just this one time.” Of course, one time throughout many times adds up. It is difficult to imagine what tomorrow looks like without certainty. It is, however, more challenging to see what is happening in the moment. Ultimately, one piece of candy doesn’t add up to much. Making the moment much more tantalizing to bargain with.

When one is stuck, the instinct is to look for someone to escape this jam. Rarely do we think to pick ourselves. It is not because we are not capable of doing what needs to be done. It is because there is comfort without having to go it alone. When you pick yourself, there is no one else to blame. You have to take the responsibility, the consequences, and the credit.

What we can do is have enough light to take one step into the dark. Then another. And then another. Pretty soon, you will be on your way.

I don’t know how often I have given this advice to non-profit founders or clients. But there is something about the quiet assurance, “You can do this,” that can be enough to get going. It is incredible what a couple of steps forward can change our whole mindset. You don’t see yourself at one moment as doing what needs to be done, and then the next, you are that person. All that it takes to be an artist is to make art. That’s it. Go.

Indeed, humans love themselves more than any other person in this world. And yet, we care way more about other people’s opinions than our own. Wanting to fit in is a powerful cultural phenomenon with severe impacts. Thousands of years ago, if we were kicked out of the tribe, it could mean death.

Today, however, we are misaligned in that we can find happiness on our own. Happiness is shared. At the end of the day, people are all we have. But there is a reason why we care so much about what others think about us. What’s important is recognizing why and acting accordingly. Does losing this job mean I will be thrown out of my tribe? Probably not.

This idea is to have the courage to say no when there aren’t years of research to support your stance. For most of human history, that is what we have done. We didn’t have studies on parenting or the best way to raise a child. You looked at the landscape, you saw what other parents did, perhaps you had a discussion, but more often than not, you went with a gut feeling.

Recently, I came across this friction point: Do you allow a child to bring a comfort toy to school to deal with anxiety? The answer was an emphatic No. In our circumstances, we believed the best way to parent wasn’t to take a step back. Honestly, it felt like relying on a binki. This is not to shame the other parents who make this choice. Each child is different. And each family dynamic is different. I do think we are at an interesting intersection here. When we keep removing friction points for our children to overcome, when it is time for them to become adults, how will they ever have practiced this?

The opportunity to practice dealing with anxiety is right now. Perhaps the next revolution is for parents to stand up and say, “Enough is enough.”

Scarcity is defined as a relationship one feels about their needs.

For instance, shelter is unnecessary if you have a warm bed to sleep on at night.

But what if the problem is that we have grown an insatiable appetite for more?

It isn’t enough to have a warm bed; now, it must be in a two-story, 5,000-plus-square-foot house overlooking the beach.

The easiest way to begin to unwind this narrative of feeling deficient is to check our list of needs.

When we look around with what we have, it is clear that someone from just 200 years ago (never mind the Pharaohs of old), we have plenty.

Not everyone, of course. But most of us with laptops and internet connections can probably point to enough.

Markets rely on scarcity as the driving force. What would happen if the winds were to change and people realized I had enough?

Before we built this modern economic system, people relied on cooperation. Contrary to popular belief, economic life didn’t emerge from bartering with your neighbor and eventually using some kind of currency to substitute when a cow couldn’t be split two ways. The technology eventually caught up once economic forces were invented. Before, however, gift-giving economies ruled. The community came together and exchanged goods (like potlatch) to ensure the well-being of everyone else. Gift giving is now seen as archaic. We must move forward with “economic progress.” (Insert sarcastic font.)

But these forces continue to take a life of their own—literally. They are ideas that insulate themselves by creating laws to protect them. “The economy” is talked about as a living thing. Corporatism continues to invade our everyday language.

And now we continue to live with both the benefits and the consequences. We create abundant food while upholding a system that can’t distribute it well enough to feed everyone. Wants and needs are now seen together, and as a result, create slaves to the material condition. While many continue to see a path of tear down to build back up, I think of how to evolve.

Modern-day capitalism works exactly as we created it. Pointing the flow of resources for a few leaves the masses wanting more. But, it isn’t enough to say the rich need to pay their fair share. If you were to take all the wealth of the top 1%, you could fund the government for 8 months. That’s it. It goes back to what we will put at the center of our lives. As I get older, I see that we need more than ever dignity. Purpose. Meaning.

We are not here to serve capitalism. Capitalism is here to serve us. I look at my home state, Utah, which was just awarded the best economy in the United States. And my answer is, to enable what? The goal isn’t to win economics. The goal is to live a life we can all be proud of.

/rant

There’s an air in the culture: Why do we see the world as inadequate?

The reason is that we have been conditioned to believe the world owes us something.

This is the wrong framework.

Not because we don’t deserve to have all the pleasures and comforts that modern life offers.

We will be more satisfied with our lives by pursuing what we can contribute instead.