Lessons from the Crucible.

About a year ago, I was in the middle of directing a play called The Crucible. It's one that I had wanted to do for a long, long time, and there had been a lot of work leading up to it. But I wasn't ready.

The show looked incredible on stage, thanks to a wonderful cast and some great crew. But behind the scenes, there was a lot of mess. And most of it, I didn't know how to deal with. 

I'm not writing this post with the intent to blame anyone. I think we did what we could with the situation we had, and the tools at our disposal, and things turned out okay.

What I want to do, rather, is think about the lessons I learned from that experience. What to do, what not to do - whether these points are for future me, or for another arising director, hopefully my trial by fire will be of some use. 

Lesson #1 - Get Help. 

I meant to do this. I planned to do this. But I really didn't.

As a director, the jobs that can fall to you are many and varied, and will change depending on the production you're in, the team you have, and what theatre group it's being done by. But there can be a lot to do. 

And I can almost guarantee that there will be things that you need to get done, that you won't be good at. Or that you won't have time for. And this is where you need to get help. 

When you start off, being the director, you get to assemble your team. Get more people than you need. At least two or three more. Because undoubtedly, things will happen, and suddenly this person won't be available, or something will pop up that's urgent and/or important - and you'll need those extra people. 

Get extra people on board early on, and delegate jobs that you don't feel able to do or don't have time for. Ask for help from people if you need it, help isn't a dirty word. We need to use it more often. 

Don't get to the point where one person has three jobs, and another has two, and you've got at least six. That's not sustainable.

Share the load.

Lesson #2 - Communicate Everything. Twice. 

This one bit me on the bum a few times, that's for sure.

As the director, you have a million things going through your head. It's all planned out inside, and it all looks perfect and beautiful and amazing, and it all slots together like you wouldn't believe.

But if you don't get those ideas in your head to people that are outside your head, things are going to go nowhere fast. 

You can often think that you've already communicated things somehow, or that it will be obvious, because it's obvious to you.

But you've been studying this script, this show, for weeks, months, even years - they haven't (usually). And so what's obvious to you won't be to others.

Sometimes, you'll have communicated something quite early on in the piece, and expect people to remember it later on - don't bank on those expectations.

Communicate effectively, efficiently, and often, to everyone. 

Lesson #3 - People Are Precious.

In multiple ways. Some good, some less so.

The backstage drama in theatre productions is almost legendary. Actors and their egos, right?

One of my main goals going into The Crucible was that we wouldn't have any actors leaving partway through. And, thank goodness, we managed that, though possibly by the skin of our teeth. 

But the more important goal was that it would be something that people would enjoy, have fun with. That we'd have a great vibe together, and there would be good camaraderie between cast members and the crew.

And while we had that to some degree, it was nowhere near what I remember experiencing in other productions. We didn't get together after shows. We didn't have an afterparty. There weren't really speeches, or awards, or anything like that. A couple of people would show interest - but we were never able to make anything work.

I find it difficult to put my finger on exactly why that was. There's a lot that I still don't know about all that happened, because a lot of things were being communicated between others or in channels that I wasn't a part of.  Chances are, it was probably a few things. Differences of opinion, clashing personalities, just plain old being busy - we had all of that and more. But whatever it was, it was hard. Seeing some friendships that sparked up from The Crucible continuing until now, and many of the actors going on to do other great shows, has been encouraging. But it would have been great to get it right the first time.

The show is important, yes. And breaking even is important, sure. But people are precious. Relationships are precious. Put in the hard yards to keep the ones you have good. 

Lesson #4 - Start Clear. 

It will get murky later. So start clearer.

I'm not good at having things set in stone. I like things flexible, moving, malleable, particularly when I'm being creative. I can be very "pie in the sky" kind of thinking.

But that's not always helpful when you're working on something concrete. And real. That needs a specific outcome. And that messed things up for us something crazy.

In addition to this, we had a lot of voices contributing to making The Crucible, even just from a directorial standpoint. And that's what I wanted, because I was inexperienced, and knew I needed help and input from others. 

But, as you can imagine, that very quickly resulted in conflicting ideas, and confused actors. Whose instructions do I follow? Which one is right? Who do I listen to? I had wanted to avoid a bottleneck where all suggestions needed to come through me, because I knew that would be both annoying for people, and also very slow.

But what I should have done at the start was establish a very clear framework that I was working within. Giving people a clear picture - or as clear as I could manage - that they could draw from and work within. 

The picture that I gave them was very murky; and the framework that I established was very loose. I shouldn't have been surprised when things started falling down.

So start clear. Crystal clear, as much as you can. Because things always get murkier. 

Lesson #5 - Be On The Same Page. 

Or you won't be doing the same show.

I remember when I asked my assistant director to come on board, and the first meeting we had. It was quite strange, because many years before, he had been my director in my year 6 musical. I'd been the Devil! We'd both changed a bit since then. 

I remember thinking that he'd be perfect for the job, and that there wasn't anyone else I'd rather have with me. But I also remember really not communicating well with him about what I expected of him in his role. I wasn't really sure what it would look like, more than supporting me in my role. 

It turned out that it looked like taking one group of the cast while I would work with another group (The Crucible is a big play - over twenty in the cast, which made things that much more challenging); helping to build and plan out much of the set; and being the stage manager, because we never ended up finding someone for that position.

He did an incredible job, but I never spent the time with him that I should have, communicating (yes, that again!) my vision and ideas across to him, so that he could direct effectively and faithfully to that vision. Recently, I've started a minor role in another production - and that director and assistant director have been meeting once a week for months in advance, talking through every aspect of the show and having it all planned out. And our show was a fair bit bigger (in terms of cast size) than this one. I should have been doing that even more, but I didn't. And it showed.

Get on the same page with your core team. Or the direction you give will be all over the place. 

Lesson #6 - Be Healthy. 

Or the show won't be.

It's somewhat ironic, me suggesting this. I'm still not healthy, and I don't know if I ever have been, or will be. I'm not just talking about physical health, though - I'm talking about mental health, emotional health, psychological health. A structure will fail at its weakest point, and if that's you, it's going to fall like a house of cards. 

I wasn't in a healthy mental space during at least part of the time I was working on the show. Part of that was potentially because of the show, towards the latter end; but it was due to other things too. And again, I didn't get the help I needed, not until much later. 

And that affected the show, because it affected the amount of energy that I could put into it. There were days that I just wasn't able to do much at all - but where there was an expectation and need for me to do things, sometimes even quite small things. And I didn't do them. And that had an affect, that was felt by everyone. 

Not everyone on the team knew that I wasn't doing well. It's quite possible that they could read this now and only just find out. I didn't communicate that to people, and perhaps I should have. Perhaps I was afraid they would take the show off me. In a sense, they did, towards the end. Like I said, it was all rather dramatic. 

There were even brief times, near the end, where I contemplated giving up, and leaving it. Because it felt like too much. I don't know if I could have, but the thought certainly entered my mind. 

Thankfully, though, I didn't. I persevered until the end, but my word, it was a hard fight.

If you're going to direct a show, be healthy. Not just for your sake, but for the sake of everyone in the show. Because it will make it worse. Stress has a way of doing that. 

---------------

I think those are the main ones. It's been a long time now, and although time gives you perspective, it also helps you forget. Our memories are never perfect, and always quite biased. I've probably painted things here quite differently to how others would, and I'll acknowledge that.

If I were to give a last piece of advice - it would be to breathe. Whether a show is going well, or going terribly, it's just one show. It will fade, in time, and end. And there will be another, and another. We have a tendency to make mountains out of moments; but they are only moments. They, too, will pass.

So keep breathing. 

Life - Strange, Wonderful, and Heartbreaking

I haven't done a review in quite some time, but this needed one.

Over the last few months, I've been working through the game Life Is Strange; and following that, it's prequel, Life Is Strange: Before The Storm. The two games are story-driven RPGs (probably one of my favourite genres), each with female protagonists (something we need more of), and some really interesting mechanics. But more than that - great characters, writing, worldbuilding, sound, and art.

As a quick rundown of the games themselves - each one focusses on two main characters. The original has Max and Chloe, and the prequel has Chloe and Rachel. The first game has you playing as Max Caulfield, who you quickly discover has the power to rewind time - and thus, change it. But what will you change? Those are the choices that the game asks of you, and what it revolves around. Who will you trust? Who will you suspect? Who will you save? And why are these crazy events happening? It's a combination of adventure, mystery, and drama.
The prequel, Before The Storm, instead has you following the path of Chloe, as she navigates school life after the death of her father and the departure of her best friend Max. Chloe doesn't have any superpowers, so you only get one chance to make your choices this time! (Unless you cheat and go back to the previous save.) But the game still revolves around the choices you make, and how they affect you and the people around you.

Technically speaking, you've got some really interesting elements that each game plays with. First, there's the whole time rewind element, and figuring out how all of that works, which is quite an interesting process. Then there's an extra dimension where Max is a photographer, and so you're trying to go around and take these nice photos in each chapter of the story. Chloe, on the other hand, tries to argue her way through character interactions, and that's a mechanic that you have to learn as well; and she might not be a photographer, but she is a mean graffiti artist. The note of you having some choice in what the graffiti ends up being is a nice touch, and these graffiti and photo spots are great for completionists playing the game.
Art-wise, it's quite a beautiful game. There are a number of specific environments that you spend time in, and some that you'll come back to a number of times - but the game is good at making little changes each time to keep you interested. The menu is like a journal, which you actually have. And then, there are specific points in the game where you can't open it because of various physical restrictions - or perhaps your journal looks very different all of a sudden.
The music is a lovely underscore and background to what's happening. It's a wonderful combination of unobtrusive backdrop to the action, and also something that's at times directly referenced or chosen by the characters.
The only issue that came up for me with the game was in the original; the main way that you interact with items in the game is by clicking on them, and then dragging the mouse over to what you want to do (usually out of up to four options in the cardinal points). Depending on screen resolution, PC performance etc, this can get a little buggy at points and break you out of the immersive experience. Thankfuly, for the prequel, they elected instead to have you press W, A, S or D after clicking, which worked much better.

But the main player, by far and above, is the story. And that's what made me want to write this review, and get the prequel.
The story pulls you in very quickly. The game is played in chapters, each lasting about 1-2 hours (depending on how much of the detail you like to take in), and focusses on a couple of girls going through high school in America. (And, speaking as someone in Australia, it did a great job of reminding me why I'm glad I'm here rather than there.) It immerses you in the environment and the story fairly quickly. At the beginning of the story, I was making choices that I thought were honest - Max said that she might get in trouble, but I wasn't attached to her yet. Cut to half an hour later, and I was fully in her shoes.
The story is very good at going between light-hearted commentary and banter straight into heavy emotional gut-punches, so I wouldn't recommend it if you're not up for an emotional rollercoaster. But, it is a rollercoaster that is completely and totally worth it. It will leave you hurting, it may leave you shaking, it may cut you deeply - but it is also incredibly beautiful. It deals with issues like drug use, suicide, bullying, drinking, and even kidnapping and murder. It looks at difficult and deep emotional issues, makes you question the morality of the choices that you'll make (and perhaps even ones you've made in other games!), and make you wonder if this is really a "game", per se. It's not for the faint of heart, and it's not for people looking for an action-packed thriller. This is an intense emotional experience, but also an evolving story that you have a part in constructing.
The prequel fills in much of the backstory, and helps you understand the character of Chloe so much more - and also introduces you to the person you heard so much about, but never met, Rachel. Again, be prepared for an emotional rollercoaster - right until the very end. This game really doesn't pull any punches at all.

Parents - this game could be a great way to talk to your kids about a whole range of issues, experiences, and problems, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone below 13; and would probably say that 15 up would be better. But this is really going to depend on your kids and their maturity, and what they're dealing with. I'd definitely encourage you to go through the game yourself in advance, just to get an idea of what's coming, so that you can have a better idea of whether it's right for your child.

But I really can't recommend this game enough. If you love story, if you love RPGs that care about choices, if you love a bit of difficult morality and art that doesn't shy away from difficult issues, if you're okay with being taken on an emotional rollercoaster - then this is for you.

On Provision.

I'm currently on my honeymoon, and so you'd think I'd have better things to do than this. But I like writing, so there.

I've been reflecting recently on the tension between God's provision, and God's calling.

The Bible is quite clear, in numerous places, about how we should trust in God to provide for us, rather than worrying about it ourselves. The classic verse is when Jesus is talking to his disciples, in Matthew I believe, using illustrations of the sparrows and the lilies, and how we are more important to God than them, and so he will take care of us in greater ways when we trust in him.

The Bible is also clear on how we should follow where God leads, or calls us to go. That we are called to do his work, each in different areas and ways, but each following him. 

I've never found it too difficult to know the things God wants me to do. Which of the things can be rather more difficult, because there seems to be a bit of a list. He's given me many gifts. But working out the provision side of things I've always found more difficult. 

I've pretty much always had enough to get by, and I've mostly been okay with that, though I've certainly had stressful times. But making that call for yourself, as I mentioned in my last post (or the one before? not sure), is rather different to making that call for somebody else as well.

Generally speaking, I've found that the work that I need to do to get the money I need to get by in life gets in the way of the things I feel God has called me to do. (I should note - these aren't things that are just a slight pull or hunch in one direction, but something that God has consistently brought up with me over time.) Sometimes, that's because of the decreased time I have. Sometimes, it's because of the decreased energy I have. Sometimes, it's because work taxes me rather more than it probably should (for the sort of work I do), and doesn't leave me with much for anything else.

Many times, that has meant that things that I have felt God has called me to do - sometimes, feeling like an urgent call - are put on the backburner. And often left there. Sometimes for years. And in the meantime, though God still has me doing bits and pieces, and learning as I go, it can feel a bit - empty. Like it has little meaning or substance, and that I'm just going around in circles. 

But, am I to take the Bible's verses about provision to mean that I should leave whatever work I have, to instead pursue what God has called me to do, trusting that he will provide for me? None of the things he has called me to do provide a reasonable or reliable income, if any all. Or is that a bad reading of the Bible, and the work I have now is his provision, and I need to be patient for these other things I feel God calling me to do? 

It's difficult to know. For the record, there are three times when I've finished up with work because I felt like it's what God wanted me to do. The first was at the end of 2013, perhaps the hardest year of my life, when I was doing work that I loved but that was killing me slowly. I ended up doing Impart (a Bible college course for young adults done in short bursts, focussing on spiritual growth and leadership) the following year. The second was at the end of 2016, when God was calling me to finish up with everything I was doing at the time, and step into something new. That eventually led to me leading the music at the church I'm at now, and meeting my future wife. The third was early last year, where I was going further and further downhill in my mental health, and needed to take a break to try and take care of myself. I tried - but still ended up getting worse. Seeing a psychologist helped. When I went back to work, things got better for a bit - and then started to go down before long again.

Each time has been both stressful and helpful in its own way, and the latter two resulted in me needing to move back home again. And each was, strangely enough, quite tight financially. But God got me through. 

But, I come back to the core question. If we have a specific - not just general, but specific - calling or leading on our lives, do we just dive into that fully, trusting that God will provide? Is that what trust and faith in him are supposed to look like, or is that being irresponsible towards your partner and family, and not thinking things through? What does God ask of us? Perhaps, as with many things, it depends on circumstances. But it always seems so murky to me. 

2020, and beyond.

We're now pretty solidly into the new year. Usually, I would have done some sort of new year post by now, but things have been pretty crazy, what with a wedding coming up on Saturday and all.....mine, that is, for those not in the know! But yeah, it's 2020. (insert mandatory vision-related pun here)

And yeah, I'm getting married in two days. In hours, it's.....41 hours, as of when I write this. I believe I introduced my wife-to-be at some point to you bloggers - if you've missed the ball, her name is Thalia (pronounced the same as Tahlia, it's Greek), and she's lovely (but I'm not biased at all). After we get married, we're heading down to Tasmania for about two weeks for our honeymoon. Pretty much everything is organised, thankfully (you'd hope so, two days out!) - though it has been a bit last-minute with some things. But everything is paid for, we have a house to live in (which is also really lovely), and honeymoon is organised (well, car, flights, and place we're staying are organised - we don't really have a strict itinerary).

After we get back, though, things will be rather different. Both of us have moved out of home before, but not into the same room as somebody else. Certainly not into the same bed as somebody else! The last time I was regularly sharing a room was 2007. I have shared a bed occasionally, but not often. It's going to be a fairly new experience for both of us. Then there's a new house to get used to - and sort through (we have a lot of stuff) - and jobs to get back to (yay!). Life likes putting lots of big things together.

We have some ideas about what life together could look like, and a fair bit of it we've talked through with each other and with friends and such. We've done premarital counselling as well, which was very helpful. But really, we're going to be making it up as we go. There are a lot of unknowns, and a lot of things that we're not sure about. Things that we'll have to find out when we get there. The future is murky, just like our view of the first sunrise of the year was.

For myself, I have work. And beyond that? I don't know. There are many things that I could do, or that I might want to do, or that I have ideas about. But it can be hard knowing which of them I might be able to do, or which I should do. Bit of a constant issue I've had, really. For Thalia, she'll be able to start casual teaching soon (well, half-way through the year), which she's looking forward to doing. She's also got a big prac coming up, which is going to stretch us thin pretty early. But it will be a good strength test, so to speak.

It might be 2020, but our vision certainly isn't. (Heheh....I got there) But that's okay. We don't journey alone, and our Father sees all of it ahead of time. He'll reveal the steps as we go.

Start Somewhere.

It feels like, these days, I don't say much. I don't do much.

Not because I have nothing to say; but because there is so much to say. There is so much to do.

I look out into the world around me, and many days, it is hard to find hope.

Fire ravages our land.

Greed rules our leaders.

People keep dying, every day....

So many feel broken, alone, lost, helpless, or hopeless.

So many struggle to get through each day.

Many days, that has been me as well.

And yet.

Yet I know that there is hope.

I know that there can be more than this.

And I know that I have much to give, much to share, to help and to heal - to bring hope.

To bring light, and life.

But where do you start, when there is so much pain?

So much hurt?

You start somewhere.

Anywhere.

Because that is infinitely better than not starting.

And, if in doubt -

Start with yourself.

And bring that change wherever you go.

The greatest proof of Jesus?

The other day at youth group, we were looking at the resurrection of Jesus (as you do in the lead-up to Christmas, right?). Specifically the account in Mark, which has a few interesting things about it, but it got me thinking; and I wanted to put my thoughts up here. I'm going to take a look at it, rather than through the big picture lens which we often do (Jesus died to save us, rose again so we can have eternal life etc), through the view of the time.

The Pharisees and other religious leaders of the time (including the Sanhedrin, which was the Jewish High Council) had been hearing about this Jesus guy for some time now. He'd been making quite a stir. Performing miracles, teaching many, and had a large number of followers. He was becoming increasingly popular with the people, particularly the lower class. And, worryingly, he was speaking against them, inciting the people to distrust them and what they said.
Things came to a head when he came back to Jerusalem for the Passover. There were always a large number of people that came for the festival, and so a large crowd welcomed him, spreading out cloaks, waving palm leaves, crying out to him - and he came in riding a donkey! The nerve.
It was reaching a fever pitch, and something had to be done to right the balance. Particularly as it was coming to Passover, and they couldn't have a disturbance during that time. It needed to be done before that.

Jesus needed to die. Then his followers would fall away, afraid, and the Pharisees and religious leaders would be restored to their rightful place. His words would be dismissed as heretical and blasphemous, and then that would be the end of that.
Miraculously, things fell into place. One of Jesus' own followers came forward as being willing to betray him, and with just enough time before the Passover to make it happen. So it did. Jesus was captured and brought before an emergency meeting of the Sanhedrin. He was taken before Pilate, and Herod, and the high priest. The crowd was swayed, and he was pronounced guilty - Pilate agreed to let him be crucified! It couldn't have been better. He would be publicly humiliated and scorned, and they wouldn't see anything of him or his people ever again.

It started well. His followers did scatter, afraid. Afraid for their very lives.

But then....a few of the women following Jesus took a risk, and for the love of him, went to his tomb to put spices over his body.
But he wasn't there.
The stone had been rolled away. There had been a guard at the tomb, but they were dazed, confused, and ran off. Soon, the women were running too - after being told by an angel to tell the rest of them that Jesus - was alive!

Coming from today; we know the story. We've heard it a billion times. But often, we don't get the significance of this event.

If Jesus wasn't really the Son of God; whether he was a liar and a cheat, a lunatic, or just a figure that's been blown up into legend - the cross is where it would have ended. Just as the religious powers of the time had planned, and had probably seen others fall likewise in the past. Either he would have slipped out somehow of being crucified in the first place, or he wouldn't have come back. Nobody (that I know of, at least) has been raised from the dead by themselves, or spontaneously. People miraculously coming back after being dead for X minutes? Sure. Miraculously coming back after being dead for hours? In ancient times? Not so much.
And if that was the case - if he didn't actually die, or if he didn't actually come back - then his disciples would have known about it, one way or another. Because you can bet that the Pharisees et al. would have been jumping on anything like that, and just absolutely cheering. And his followers would have melted away, hid in their pockets and clumps, and quietly died off. And that would have been the last we'd heard of Jesus of Nazareth, with barely a mention in the history books if he was very lucky.

But that's not what we have happening. Instead, we see the Pharisees et al. still scrambling around trying to shut this thing down; spreading a lie that Jesus' body was stolen by his followers, and repeatedly telling his followers not to talk about Jesus in public, often whipping them to discourage further talk. But it didn't work - his followers became increasingly vocal and more widespread and numerous, even after sustained persecution, and many members being killed or tortured. It then spread outwards into surrounding countries, no longer being just a 'Jewish sect' known as The Way, but becoming something new. And, in time, Jesus' followers started to be called "little Christs" - Christians. Today, we have millions of Christians worldwide, and the Bible available in a large percentage of language and dialects that are spoken. All this leads us to conclude - that Jesus actually died, and actually came back. Which, to any logically-thinking non-religious person, seems absurd, because people don't do that. That can't happen. But it did.

Now, you could argue, of course, that the Bible is an unreliable source. That trusting in what it says is silly, because it's a biased and religious document. Okay, in that case, we have other historical sources talking about the death of Jesus. Even ones that aren't Jewish, or Christian. Have a look on this website. Yes, we don't have an exhaustive number of other primary sources. But we do have reliable, well-used and cited alternate, non-Christian sources who say that Jesus actually lived, and actually died (or at the very least, that is what they know and believe to be true). And after that - history is the record of how quickly Christianity spread and grew, particularly after becoming the "state religion" of Ancient Rome, a significant turning point.

I'm not saying this is a foolproof, ironclad, unsinkable proof that Jesus died and came back to life. But it is worth seriously considering, given some of the circumstances.

One final thought that I'll leave you with. Mark's account of Jesus' resurrection - as well as the other gospel writers - specifically have women first discovering the absence of the body in the tomb. We don't notice this as much, but at the time, this was very strange. Women were seen as lower-class, as unreliable witnesses, and typically wouldn't have been listened to. And yet - here we see each of the gospel writers saying that the first people to discover that Jesus wasn't in the tomb were women.
This isn't what the disciples would have done if they were making up a story to fool people into he had come back. They would have said that men had discovered it - probably Peter, or John, or James. But no. Women do. They hurt their case; or perhaps, just maybe, they were telling the truth.

I'll leave you to decide.

On Learning How To Work Again.

The last few months have been both interesting and difficult in various ways. Things have been getting better in general, which has been good, but there have been obstacles as well. So I thought I'd talk a bit about some of that process.

Earlier this year, I wasn't doing well at work. There were signs of depression that were starting to show, and while I had good people to work with and a good place I was working in, I was struggling to find fulfilment or interest in the work that I was doing at the time; though there were certainly good parts to it. And so, I finished up at work. And tried to get healthy again.

But I wasn't really sure how to do that. A couple of different medications for depression had little effect, and it felt like things were going downhill, not uphill. I started to see a psychologist, and that was beneficial. As this was happening, I wasn't getting much income, and so I had to move back home. I got bits of work from one friend here and an odd job there, plus the consistent eight hours at church.

Then a couple of months ago, an opportunity came up, somewhat out of the blue, for a position with a startup that I'd had some interaction with before. They actually specifically called me to see if I'd be interested in the position (funnily enough, because of the work I'd done in Salesforce, which had just been an extra thing on the side in my previous job), which was a bit crazy. Everything worked out, and I got the position, working some hours in the office and some from home, which was nice and flexible.

However, it had been a while since I'd had regular work. And so it felt like I was learning how to work again - particularly with depression, and figuring out how that would fit together. Over the last couple of months, it feels like I've learned more about my preferences with work than I have over the last few years.
I like working in collaboration with people, not doing work by myself.
While most people like socialising during lunch and morning tea breaks, for me, that's my retreat and refresh time, to energise again (particularly if I have been working by myself).
Working in at the office can be worse than working at home, because at the office, you're expected to be working for that whole block of time, whatever it may be. That's just not how my mind works, and I find that extremely difficult. When I'm at home, I can break up the work with doing other things - which can still be productive, not necessarily watching videos/playing games (though that can be a thing as well), but just doing something different. That's not an option in the office.
Motivation can also be a massive issue, particularly if I'm working alone. I'm terrible at self-motivation, and so I have to utilise things that I know I want to do/enjoy doing to help me do things. That can be quite difficult with work, depending on the work that's being done.
I do some things very quickly, and other things very slowly. And they're not typically the things that other people do quickly or slowly. Also, if I have too little work, I can find that a drag. On the other hand, if I have a lot of tasks that I feel like all need to be completed at once, I can find that overwhelming and just not be able to do anything.

If the last couple of months have reminded me of anything, it's that I'm not good at work, or at least the world's idea of work. It's not something that I fit into well, even with various accommodations or allowances being made. I can often have a lot to contribute or bring - but I also bring a fair few difficulties and issues along with that. This is why I kinda hate the world that we live in, where you have to work to actually even live. And if you don't, people often treat you like you're less, and inferior. "What, you don't have a job?" "Don't you do any work?" "Lazy!" The systems that we have in place for people that don't have work - physically disabled and seniors aside - is built upon the assumption that you're trying to find work. It's a temporary measure until you can get work, and you often can't get the money if you're not actively and repeatedly looking for work, which is often an intensely draining and demoralising activity.

As I come towards being a married man, and starting a family (not as in having kids, that's still a discussion that's a while off yet!), this has become ever more the forefront in my perception. I'm not just looking after myself anymore - often when I was, I'd be happy to get by with just whatever, and had no issues with living on fairly thin means. But when I have someone else who is also relying on me to provide for them at some level, that changes the game. Unfortunately, we live in a world and a time that is unkind and expensive. And that doesn't look to be changing any time soon.

Apologies for the depressive post. I was getting better. Or at least, I thought I was. Now I don't know. Life is complicated. Having people around helps. It's just when I'm by myself that I tend to get like this. Not sure where to go from here, or what the next steps are. But we'll get there somehow.

500 Scientists UN Letter: A Response

NB: Long post.

Recently, I've seen a few people posting about a recent letter, apparently sent from 500 scientists to the UN on the same day that Greta Thunberg made her speech to the UN Climate Action Summit in New York, with the letter saying that there was "no climate emergency". This raised alarm bells for me, so I did some searching. I quickly found that a grand number of sites were reporting on this, and going, "Oh goodness, isn't it amazing! People are ignoring real science! Look at this!" ....which is basically a good clue to dig a little deeper. There is an actual letter that was sent, it is real (as far as I can tell). I'll include a copy of the text below, in fact (which seems to be identical on all sites I've seen thus far).

Your Excellencies, 

There is no climate emergency. 

A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have the honor to address to Your Excellencies the attached European Climate Declaration, for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors. 

The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose. Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions on the basis of results from such immature models. Current climate policies pointlessly, grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, continuous electrical power.

We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation.
We ask you to place the Declaration on the agenda of your imminent New York session.
We also invite you to organize with us a constructive high-level meeting between world-class scientists on both sides of the climate debate early in 2020. The meeting will give effect to the sound and ancient principle no less of sound science than of natural justice that both sides should be fully and fairly heard. Audiatur et altera pars! (listen to the other side)
Please let us know your thoughts about such a joint meeting. 

There is no climate emergency
A global network of 500 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate polities should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation. 

Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming. Only very few peer-reviewed papers even go so far as to say that recent warming is chiefly anthropogenic. 

Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed at less than half the originally-predicted rate, and at less than half the rate to be expected on the basis of net anthropogenic forcing and radiative imbalance. It tells us that we are far from understanding climate change. 

Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. Moreover, they most likely exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial. 

CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crop worldwide. 

Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and bats, and palm-oil plantations destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests. 

Policy must respect scientific and economic realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, we will have ample time to reflect and adapt. The aim of international policy should be to provide reliable and affordable energy at all times, and throughout the world. 

Our advice to political leaders is that science should strive for a significantly better understanding of the climate system, while politics should focus on minimizing potential climate damage by prioritizing adaptation strategies based on proven and affordable technologies. 

The undersigned ECD Ambassadors
Professor Guus Berkhout, The Netherlands
Professor Reynald Du Berger French, Canada
Terry Dunleavy, New Zealand
Viv Forbes, Australia
Professor Jeffrey Foss English, Canada
Morten Jødal, Norway
Rob Lemeire, Belgium
Professor Richard Lindzen, USA
Professor Ingemar Nordin, Sweden
Jim O’Brien, Republic of Ireland
Professor Alberto Prestininzi, Italy
Associate Professor Benoît Rittaud, France
Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, Germany
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, United Kingdom

What was difficult to find was any response to this from the other side. I did find a post that had a look through the ambassadors list, and found a few shady characters (notably Richard Lindzen). They also found that many of them aren't really experts on the topic at all, and almost definitely have ulterior motives (i.e. being paid by the fossil fuel industry, or similar).

But that's not what I want to focus on. No, I want to focus on the points that they've made, and I want to refute them. With easily available data, that anyone can access and have a look at for themselves. (I will concede that I am relying heavily on www.skepticalscience.com, so if you consider them to be a bad source, you may think my arguments are void. However, they are very good at listing their sources, and being detailed and honest in their answers.) As a reminder, these are the basic points that they are arguing.

• Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
• Warming is far slower than predicted
• Climate policy relies on inadequate models
• CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
• Global warming has not increased natural disasters
• Policy must respect scientific and economic realities
• There is no climate emergency

Hopefully, by the end of this post, I will have shown somewhat conclusively that these are each incorrect on some level.

Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming

This is an old argument from climate skeptics. It goes something along the lines of, "the Earth's temperature has fluctuated for millennia, this warming that we're experiencing is just part of that fluctuation". 

The first part of that sentence is true. The Earth's temperature has variated quite a bit in the past, and yes, we have had Ice Ages before. What's significant about now, and why scientists are saying this is different, is the speed and amount of that change. It's getting warmer faster, and at greater levels, than anything we have records for. Here's a handy infographic that gives you an idea, with sources.

So, while the Earth does naturally change in temperature, it doesn't naturally do it as much as it is now. And the amount it is doing now is alarming.

Warming is far slower than predicted

This is a classic of Lindzen himself, actually. You can see the long version here of why this statement is incorrect; essentially, though, claiming that warming is slower than predicted is ignoring a number of factors. When those factors are taken into account, then the warming matches the predictions quite well.

Climate policy relies on inadequate models

The argument here is saying that we shouldn't base our economic plans on climate models that are uncertain or unreliable. We need concrete, definitive data to act on.

Again, read the fuller rebuttal here. But it's good to remember that we're talking about the future. It is, by definition, uncertain and unknown. Considering that, the climate models that we have and have been working with have been pretty darn good so far at predicting what's happening, with a high degree of certainty. The point about CO2, we will tackle momentarily.

CO2 is a plant food, the basis of all life on earth

Everybody knows that plants use CO2 to survive. This is actually why one of the big pushes you might be seeing at the moment from climate warriors is planting trees (which we should do more of!) - and so this is a clever argument, because it uses a nugget of truth.

However, while plants love CO2, it's clearly quite toxic to humans, and most other animal species, if it gets to higher concentrations. Higher amounts of CO2 are also increasing the warming effect, as detailed further here again. If we want to decrease our warming, we need to decrease our CO2 emissions, and increase our numbers of trees to take the CO2 out of the atmosphere that we've already put there.

Global warming has not increased natural disasters

This one is almost observably false. There certainly has been an increase in both the number and intensity of natural disasters, as you can read about fairly quickly here (with a nice graph). A telling sign in Australia - where I live - is that each year, the "fire season" gets longer. We have a history of bushfires in Australia, and the "fire season" (usually just over summer) is when you get most of them. Each year, that season has been getting longer, and stretching through more of the year, leading the CEO of the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre to say that there's now a danger year-round.

So the only way to say that global warming hasn't increased natural disasters, is to say that these are caused by something else. But that seems very unlikely. As this page goes into detail on, more and more indications are pointing to the likelihood that these are the result of climate change, or that climate change will result in effects like those we are seeing.

Policy must respect scientific and economic realities

This is basically putting the focus back on money. It's saying, "we have no reason to panic - and if we do this now, we're pouring money down the drain." This is where I will come back briefly to the note I made before this, that several of these scientists may be being backed by fossil fuel companies. And indeed, if we go down this path, they are going to lose money. Big money. They're the ones that stand to lose the most, and have known as much for a long time, and have been intentionally fighting against efforts to reduce climate change.

To answer the point more directly, though - it really comes down to whether you think this is an emergency, or just a serious issue, or not an issue at all. If it's the former, then any economic loss in the short-term is mitigated by the prevention of catastrophic loss that would have happened. If it's the middle, then there's good evidence to say that climate change policies, such as putting limits on carbon emissions, only have a very minor impact on the economy, and an overall positive impact. And if you think that there's no issue, by now - then there's not much I can do to convince you, and you'll think that any spending of money on this is a waste.

There is no climate emergency

Many would disagree. Many would say, in fact, that we've already passed dangerous points, where there will be irreversible damage to the ecosystem. Depending on who you listen to, we may have no time at all, or a very short amount of time.

And when people hear that, it can be shocking. People don't want to hear that things are going to change, and get worse. People want to hear that it's all going to be normal, and they'll fight to preserve that normal. They'll fight to ignore or dismiss anything that might disrupt that normal. And that's what we see happening. We see people denying that anything is wrong, fighting to keep their 9-to-5 normality, fighting to keep economic stability, and shutting their ears to the doomsayers.

It's a psychological phenomenon that's well-documented, and it's called normalcy bias. It's kinda when you get the "freeze" response instead of the "fight" or "flight" ones, but it's not just an in-the-moment thing. It's also a mental attitude, and an issue with brain psychology. As in, it's normal for us to have! 

How do we break out of it? Generally, by someone else pulling us out. From someone else pointing out to us what's happening, the dangers, the situation that is around us. The truck that's rushing towards you, the plane that you're in having crashed, or the cyclone on the horizon. The problem is, climate change is much less visible, for the most part. People can't see it, and so they can feel like it's not real, or not important, or not urgent. It will be fine.

But unless we take some very real and serious action right now, no, it won't be.

Thanks for those that have read all of this and stuck with it for the long haul. Please be somewhat civil in the comments, if you decide to leave some. If you're looking for what to do next - check out Extinction Rebellion on Facebook. They typically have pages local to your country and/or state as well. They're generally pretty good at keeping on top of what's happening, and keeping people informed about developments, as well as encouraging and facilitating action (particularly in the face of very inactive governments).

On Not Achieving.

The title of this blog and header text are feeling less and less appropriate moving forward. In the event that I do change them, they currently read "Kainos Zoe" and 'The musings and thoughts of a man living a new life. "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, they are a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come." Welcome to the new.' Plus a background with birds. Yay.

As many of you know by now, I haven't been doing well for a while. If we're going on a 1 to 10 scale - I used to average around an 8, with my lowest being maybe a 4 (which I wasn't often near), and going up to 10 a fair bit. These days, my average is a 4-5, highest might be a 6 or 7, and I can go down to a 1 or a 2 at times. I'm at about there at the moment.

Depression kinda sucks. I'm seeing a psychologist once a fortnight now, but we've only had a couple of sessions so far. They've been helpful, but it's early days yet. And unfortunately, when I'm in a low spot, I tend to head towards behaviours that only continue the trend; moving away from people, retreating further inside, etc. I don't have the energy to do things. But hey, I'm writing this, so that's something.....right?

It's annoying flipping between states of "there's so much I have the potential to do, but I don't have the opportunity to use it anywhere" to "I can't even do the tiny things that I still have responsibility for". Neither is good. I'm still looking for work, but still also doubting my ability to be able to actually do any work, in my current mental/emotional state.

There's a neat little tool that my psychologist taught me about in our last session, the ACE circle. I'm attempting to make it a daily thing, but I've stalled a little. It stands for Achievement, Connectedness, and Enjoyment. Basically, the idea is that you need all three as a regular part of your life to be doing well. I'm fairly good at the Enjoyment portion most of the time. Connectedness - I have that with Thalia, and now a bit more with family (I'm living with my mum again, because no money), but not much with anyone else. Achievement is a big ol' zero most of the time. Depression is very good at making you feel like you really can't do anything. So I'm trying to do little, manageable things to tick off that portion of my life, if that makes sense.

And I've mostly been doing okay at that. But it still feels a bit shit when you feel like the least productive person you know; not even able to do this, not even able to do that....
While I know that a lot of that is not actually true in one sense, my brain tends to diminish in importance in these things. Or in its power. I mean, all of it's in the brain, I know, but yeah. Emotions seem to be ruling the roost at present, which isn't great.

I don't know if this had a point. It probably didn't. But hey. I'm writing. That's something.
I'm getting through each day, but it's hard. There are a lot of times when it feels like it's not worth the effort. I get a bit emotionally numb to the rest of the world when I'm like this. It's not good.
Anyway. That's where I'm at.

Stark Clarity and Murky Obscurity

Over the past few weeks, I've suddenly been getting some real clarity from God in terms of my purpose, and what I'm here for, and what he's calling me to do. In some senses, though, it's been more of a reminder than anything else. These aren't things that are new to me; just things that he's bringing back to the forefront, and prompting me on their importance and significance.

They are that I am a messenger; given words to speak by God, understanding from God of his word (the Bible), and that I am to communicate and share this with others. That I am made to speak these words to many, not to keep them to myself. These words have been given to me in many forms - in songs, in poems, in sermons, in other writing. And these were made to be shared.

As I said before, in some sense, I already knew these. But reframing these as central to my life, my purpose - has put a fresh perspective on things. It's caused me to rethink the various things that I'm doing, where and how I spend my time, and how I use my gifts. It's also helped me to recognise some of the gifts I've been given that I really haven't been using; particularly the gift I have to understand the Bible and to be able to communicate that to people. (I'm not sure if that comes under the spiritual gift of knowledge, wisdom, or teaching - perhaps someone with more knowledge in this area could speak to that. Or perhaps it's an overlap of two or all of them.) And I want to focus more on these.

But at the same time, this is very much a big picture view. This is an overall perspective, the broad idea, and it gives me very little clue on what to actually do here and now. It raises more questions than it answers. Questions like, what does that look like? How do I do that practically? How will I be able to do that and survive financially? How does that work with what my fiancée has been called to do? Is he calling me to put all of my time and energy into doing this in a big way, or more to let this approach permeate everything that I'm doing? How do I do this while I need to plan for supporting me and Thalia as a family?

...I don't know. And that's the difficult thing. I've gotten a clear view from the mountaintop, but right now, I'm down amongst the forest, and I can't really see the way forward. At times, it can feel very claustrophobic, and constricting. Now and then, I'll think I see a path to follow, but it ends up going nowhere, or bringing me back to the start.

Perhaps the answer is spending more time with God, and asking him to reveal a path to me. But if experience has taught me anything, it's that he has never made my path clear. He's only ever given me one step at a time, and sometimes not even that much. Most of the time, he's left it up to me to decide for myself. Which can be very scary. Perhaps the answer is going all in on trying to get these words heard. But how do I do that? The songs are all written; the book is mostly done; but I have no real following, or audience, to be able to share those messages or words to. I'm mostly speaking into an echo chamber - which isn't what he's wanting. I never did put all my eggs into one basket, to build up a following for my music early on, or anything like that. Yet he's still asking me to share these words, and so I can't have gone down the wrong path; or, at least, he feels like he can still use me where I am. I just don't know what that looks like.

Sometimes, I wish God would give me clearer instructions. But that just doesn't seem to be how he works - or at least, not with me. And that can be hard.
But I'm also grateful for what he has revealed to me. It's something that I can cling to, something I can remind myself of, and something to keep in mind as I try to move forward in life, and figure out a direction. But really, I'm still just making it up as I go.