The Smithsonian Paradox

I have a feeling this will be a disclaimer-rific essay.
Many years ago someone once told me that to spend 30 seconds at every exhibit in the Smithsonian would take longer than a person lives. In effect, if you started as a child, you could live your entire life looking at things in the Smithsonian, and not finish it before you die. That's all well and good, but that got me thinking about what if someone actually did that. At the end of their life, they would know a great deal and have nothing to show for it.
At what point does learning cease to be practical?
In what I perceive to be a popular movement nowadays (1 disclaimer), there is an effort to attack 'common sense' concepts with new ideas. A great example of this is the book 'Freakonomics' which details similarities between crack dealing and McDonalds management layouts, or a potential correlation between Roe vs. Wade and the drop in the crime in the early 1990's. It hinges upon people from different disciplines coming together and applying what they know to scenarios outside their expertise and finding commonalities.
Another example comes from 'Blink', where Gladwell describes the meeting of NY stock exchange money managers and 3-4 star army generals. Apparently one guy had a mixer and invited the two groups, and they got along well, merging discussions of military strategy and rapid decision-making on the trading floor.
I enjoy reading these books and find them very enlightening. I'm working on one right now that parallels Navy Seal teamwork into better business models for project management. But all of this hinges on me actually being able to put this stuff to good use. At what point do I put the book down because it is of no practical use for me? At what point is edification not worth my time, at what point is it a waste of my time?
I'm a big Godzilla fan, as evidenced by the picture of airflow around a Godzilla in a wind tunnel. I can probably recite all of the enemies he has faced in under a minute. I can detail how many times a given enemy has appeared in different movies, and cite style changes from movie to movie. I have gathered this knowledge, spent time and money in so doing, all the while knowing that it serves absolutely no practical purpose. The collectibles have a certain monetary value, but they will not appreciate like a CD might. This knowledge will not improve my odds at a job interview, nor was it of any use when I was dating, as my wife will attest. All in all, it's amazing she didn't run out of my apartment screaming the first time she saw my shelves of snarling Japanese vinyl.
In the morning I often hear sports statistics being quoted over the radio. This is one much closer to many of my non-readers. I'll hear many conversations at work about baseball teams, football teams, particular pitchers, hitters, quarterbacks, linebackers, centers, etc. "Sure that guys 3-0 for the last three games, but that doesn't mean anything!" "Doesn't mean anything, how can you say that?!" "The next game is in a dome, we all know that throws him off." "That's just a rumor." etc, etc etc etc. Not to knock sports enthusiasts (2 disclaimers), but this information serves only to fill the quiet spots when people might wish to think, or pursue other topics in greater detail. Unless you are gambling or a player yourself, it is effectively useless.
How much time do we spend gathering knowledge that is useless to us, and why? Do we acknowledge its uselessness and gather it instead hoping to make one of those bizarre connections and write a popular book about it? Does the marine biologist who loves waffles hope to someday make that mysterious link between wafflemaking and algae blooms? Does the computer forensic expert/car enthusiast hope to understand why Corvette thieves prefer the classic Mac OS over OSX or Windows?
I can appreciate an 88 year old woman going back to school to get an accounting degree (3 disclaimers!), but I have to stop and ask why she feels that's the best use of her time.

Layers of decadence

My health teacher in high school lived by the motto: "I want what I have." Simply put, be happy with what you've got. Noble words, but perhaps a bit too idealistic to be put into practice. Everybody wants more. You want the latest car, the latest ipod, the latest gadget, the latest dress, to go see the latest movie, the latest video game, the latest hobby, the latest comic book, the latest New York Times bestseller, the latest diet, the latest exercise machine, the latest computer, the latest piece of furniture you never needed before but now can never live without.

It is a glut of consumerism, and we should all be ashamed. After all, there are starving people in Kenya who want nothing more than food and shelter. But wait, you mean they want more than they have?

Admittedly, those people in Kenya have nothing, so its hard to fault them for wanting more, but that begs the question of what is acceptable. We all strive to increase our net value, be it in material ownership, available skill sets, or as an intellectual resource. I've interacted with the upper, middle, and lower classes of the US. I've been to the slums of Mexico and the factories of China. I've stayed at the 'camp', a 7 bedroom resort built in the middle of nowhere with an industrial grade stove, 2 laundry rooms, 5 bathrooms, a small theater, a garage with 2 bedroom apartment overhead, a boathouse, and a massive generator to power it all belonging to a family that uses that as a weekend getaway. I would be lying to myself if I said I didn't want to have the freedom of that much luxury (assuming I don't have to clean it).

Imagine the class system, as defined by our net worth, as layers of a cake. When you're in a layer, you interact primarily with the layers just above and below you. Occasionally you get insight to what's way at the top, and what's way at the bottom. You imagine what it would be like to be at the top, but at the same time thank yourself that you're not at the bottom. But where should you, and everyone else belong as a minimum? Given that you only really know the layer that you're now in, and you're not completely miserable, that seems reasonable. But, at the same time, that next layer up would be a pretty nice place to be. So you want more than what you have, and you're a bad person right? What does that mean?

For the single mom working 3 full time jobs and a car that's always on the brink of falling apart, it's a stable partner or at the very least more income to afford a bit more time to spend with the kids. For the renter, its the desire to own a home. For the 16 year old, its the desire to have one's own car and gain independence. For the collector, its to find that last rare piece that'll make one's collection complete. For the gamer, its the latest console or game.

You can chide the gamer plunking down yet another $400-$600 on gaming hardware when his last console still works and there are plenty of games on it that he hasn't played. But can you chide the renter for wanting his or her own house? What allows you to see one's desires as frivolous and another's as reasonable/warranted?

At this point some might quote Mazlow's hierarchy of needs for self actualization. In it, you can reason that one needs things like shelter, food, water, social interaction, etc, all culminating in a wonderful self actualization at the top. That's great and all, but it doesn't apply to all cultures. The Amish place a higher priority on the community than they do the individual. Maybe they're not becoming self-actualized, but they seem plenty happy and have been getting along quite nicely for several hundred years. If not self actualization, where is the justification for wanting anything other than food and water? Shelter is nice, especially when the weather turns hostile. But need it be owned, or is rented acceptable?

For a long time my wife and I've wanted a house. We saved our pennies for a sufficient downpayment and now we're saving our pennies to meet the monthly mortgage payments. My wife went back to school and we got a second car to support our different schedules. Is it wrong to want these things? Is it wrong to desire a promotion or raise. Is it wrong to want to upgrade one's home, get a higher education degree, or get a degree at all?

What is the standard that we all should strive for? Once we get there, do we stop and proceed to help those behind us catch up? If we were noble we might do that. It'd be great, we all reach the same layer of decadence and have a great party once we're there. All we have to do is agree on which layer that is...