if you were never aware of what was around you

two separate things today, entirely unrelated apart from the relative proximity of time in which the two ideas occurred to me.

first, the thing which i thought of second, but given that it is a less concrete idea, i shall put down first to avoid forgetting. it's an old topic really, but one i don't think i've considered in a while owing to the fact that it seems like an issue so much more relevant in singapore than in chicago. i think we in singapore like to think of our country as a very secular place, when in fact we are so much more religious than say america. that sounds like a silly, unsubstantiated thing to say, but let me elaborate a little:

religion is very much in line with the singaporean mentality of not taking responsibility for one's own actions. it's so convenient to have a higher power be the determinant of one's fortunes than to look inward to find answers. religion is good at absolving blame, or directing it towards something that is external. either god will forgive you, or you could do something in future to redeem yourself. things like that. esoteric concepts that ultimately skirt the fact that life pretty much has little rhyme or reason, that we are all hurtling towards something that is neither concrete nor definite.

it's very much akin to the singaporean condition in a way, this reliance on a higher tribunal as some sociologist puts it (was it simmel?). we are so conditioned to see everything as a consequence of governmental action, or a bureaucratic outcome, that we no longer subscribe to a concept of responsibility. but of course, this conclusion might be hard to square with the fact that many of the brightest people i've met in my life also turn out to be among the most religious. people who seem so self-assured are also at the same time so reliant upon their religious beliefs.

but perhaps it's not that contradictory. perhaps we live in a society that is so conditioned to accept a higher power that we would seek additional control when we shake off other yokes. that those who are the most able also find it impossible to operate without some form of dominance. whereas in places where there is a much more established tradition of accountability, of one's control over one's destiny, religious belief has a very different complexion and atheism is so much more common.

well, that's some amateur sociology for you. moving on to the second point, which is a little more concrete and perhaps amusing.

so all this week, i've been using this automatic paper towel dispenser on the first floor bathroom of the civil service college. my remark towards such an invention is simply that if one has hands to wipe, surely one has hands to pull their own paper towels. this has largely been rebutted by the argument that such a machine promotes hygiene, and perhaps oddly enough, the rationing of paper towels by the machine is environmentally friendly.

but then this point has nothing to do with the purpose of such a machine, but rather how complex the system might be. since the paper towel roll is slowly depleted with use, the machine would have to compensate in some way for the dwindling diameter of the roll which affects how much it has to rotate in order to dispense a single sheet of paper.

in my head, this is a relatively complex problem. conceivably, the machine could have many ways of monitoring how much paper is left on the roll. it could do so by weight or some kind of optical method which measures roughly the diameter of the roll. the former seems relatively simple to implement, except different quality of paper would dictate a recalibration of the machine to ensure accuracy; the latter seems a little harder to do, involving sensors and the like but would be much more accurate.

of course, that's assuming that the machine works by rolling the tube of paper towels so that a single sheet is dispensed. it could well approach the problem in another way which entirely avoids this problem. it could in fact pull off a certain length of paper from the end of the roll using mechanisms akin to a conveyor belt. this would ensure a uniform amount of paper be dispensed out each time the sensor is triggered. this system, however, would have to be relatively delicate given the material being handled, and i can't help but imagine that such a system would increase the propensity of paper jams. also, such a system might still require a certain degree of coordination between the dispenser mechanism and the roller mechanism, thus negating its benefits.

finally, it's also highly possible that no such consideration was taken into account, hence explaining the imprecise nature of the system and the propensity for it to dispense an amount of paper which is inappropriate given the location of the perforations.

honestly, i don't quite care about how the system actually works. it's just amazing how something as simple (and perhaps unnecessary) as an automatic paper towel dispenser contains such a high degree of perfectibility. it's amazing all the problems we have solved as a species, but sometimes, one wonders how many of these problems in fact require solutions. nonetheless, the value of progress appears to be indisputable, if only for its value in broadening the horizons of human possibility.