Bounding the Problem

     Okay, I don't want to get tooooo mathematical on people here but I do want to get something across that is import to understand.  Please! I ask you to be patient in reading this.

     Let's start with a question.  Can mathematics solve ALL problems?

     The answer to that question is NO.  It can't.    Some problems are by there very nature unsolvable and those in mathematics know this to be true.   It's for this reason that all math theorems put boundaries on the issue they are trying to address.  These boundaries are extremely important in defining the solutions it can provide.  Some examples of this are:

• For every function of Real Numbers...
• For all positive integers....
• For all functions that are contiguous and homogeneous between x0 and x1

      In all of these cases we are defining the boundaries of the problem space so that those who try to use this theorem on problems that are outside this space will know not to waste their time trying to use it.  It doesn't just save time, it insures answers they might derive will be viewed as wrong by construction.   It also, says to those applying your idea on their problem that does fit this boundary that their results will be of use to them.

     The problem today in society is we fail to define the boundaries of the problems we are trying to fix and we jump right into the solution space.   To illustrate this, take for example Sacramento's recent decision to carve out $130 million in funds to combat homelessness.   If we were to put this into a mathematical form it would look like this:

For all homeless people living in the city of Sacramento, $130 million is set aside to build Tiny Homes for the homeless so they don't have to live on the streets or tents.

    So the boundaries of this problem are:

1. The homeless 
2. Living in the city of Sacramento

    On first glance it seems to define the boundaries quite well.  If you are homeless in Sacramento then you will be given a Tiny Home to live in.   But is that adequate?   Here is why it is not.

• What does it mean to be "homeless"?   
• Does having a backpack and a sleeping-bag automatically make me "homeless" ?
• How do I prove I am really homeless or just someone looking for a cheap place to live?   
• How do I show I have been homeless for a term of time you might require?   
• Am I homeless by choice or by life's circumstances?

     Next, we need to look at the issue of Sacramento being the boundary of where we are trying to fix this problem.  Again, on the outset it seems to be pretty clear.   We can draw on a map the city limits of Sacramento and say that bounds the problem quite well.   We are not solving homelessness for California or even Sacramento County.    Here are the issues that make this boundary not a boundary:

• How do you define a homeless resident of Sacramento?  
• By definition they have no residency because they have no physical home
• If someone hitchhikes from Roseville, would they instantly qualify for a Tiny Home?    
• How long do they need to be in Sacramento to qualify and how do you assess that time?

    Without proper bounding, this issue will not be fixed but will probably grow exponentially as more homeless will come from other areas to take advantage of this new program.  It will not SOLVE the problem at all.   Here it is not that the solution is "bad" it's just that the bounding of the problem is deeply "flawed" and will lead to more problems than solutions. 

     Of course we might just say we accept that people will abuse the system and disregard our porous  boundaries and do nothing to address them. If  you do that you might as well have no boundaries at all.   You might as well let the world know we are opening the Tiny-Town to all who want to come and use them.

 

When to Quit

   Other boundaries we fail to add to projects like this deal with results and when to end a solution.  In many mathematical theorems the concept of "until" often plays a role.   The theorem may require you to repeat a process either until a solution is found or there is found a problem from which the algorithm cannot resolve itself.  Often in combinatorial problems this can be the case.  We cannot try ALL possible combinations for some problems and the search algorithm we employed has tried skim through those combinations might spend too much time and has find no solution. We must QUIT and try something else. 

    When bounding our social problems we often fail to measure if any improvements have been found and quantify if those improvements were "worth it".    No one likes to fail, but it's part of the search process.   Edison tried over 10,000 different filaments before he found carbon-thread worked.  If he had kept trying solution #1 without quitting he never would have found his answer.  Tiny-Homes might be a solution for homelessness but it might not be too.  We can try it, but we need to be willing to admit our mistakes and move on to the NEXT solution no matter how married to that idea we might feel. 

   This often happens because people become emotionally and economically connected to the solution.  Take the Tiny-Homes project.  It will need someone to spearhead it.  It will take people to manage the property and the buildings.   It will take others to care for the residents and maybe extra law enforcement and security.    These peoples lives are economically connected to this never ending.   If it ends, they lose their jobs and thus lose their economic security.   They lose their objectivity in the process and will do anything to make it look successful or an absolute necessity to the community.

A Better Boundary

 I am not entirely opposed to this idea of helping people who really need it. 

    Maybe to better bound the problem, the solution should be written as this:

To combat the problem of homeless working families, who currently cannot afford decent housing. $130 million will be set aside to build low cost Tiny-Homes for a small rental fee to allow these families a temporary housing while they work towards better economic stability.   The project will be reviewed annually and if costs to the community outweigh the benefits to the community it will be shutdown

   Here we have bounded the problem to solve the problem of homeless working families first.  Second we have bounded the problem to those who can work but can't make enough to rent a place (work could even be provided to them if needed). The Tiny-Home site could also provide the "address" they will need to fill out job applications to employers.  The rental fee insures that people coming here will need to find and keep employment and also provide them with a sense of honor and value.

Conclusion 

   Does this fix ALL homelessness?  Of course not, but it solves one big piece of it that we care about a lot.   For other homeless bound people we might need other solutions.  For the drug-addict we need treatment facilities to get them off the drugs and re-connected to families and communities.   For mentally-ill people we need to get them back into mental health facilities and not prisons.  Those problem-spaces need much different solutions than tiny-homes.  The tiny-home solution will not work for them, but instead will probably exacerbate their problems and make things worse for those it would help.   Maybe for some who get the help they need, the tiny-home would be a step in the right direction for them, but they need to first get those other problems out of the way.

   We must resist searching for simple answers to complex problems.   They are as rare as unicorns.

   PS - this solution is not new at all.  A "shanty town" was erected in the middle of New York Citiy's Central Park in the 1930's to deal with the Great Depression's homeless problem.  Readers will note that it was a disaster and the cause of many deaths by violence and disease.


 

There's no such thing as a FREE Lunch!

     A common phrase heard when someone is trying to sell you on a "free government handout" is "There's no such thing as a FREE Lunch!".  Meaning simply, someone somewhere has to eventually pay for the program no matter how "free" it is. 

     The same can be said about facts of our physical world.  In physics there are some very basic laws you just cannot violate no matter how hard you try.  The most basic one is Newton's 1st Law of Energy which simply says "Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but only changed in form".  You can channel it into other forms but you cannot add to it or subtract it.   For example a ball held above the floor has a certain amount of built in energy.   Potential energy from gravity pulling at it along with Thermal Energy inside the ball (measured with temperature) and of course Mass Energy (E=mc2).   If I drop the ball it gains Kinetic energy and loses Potential Energy at the same rate.  If it hits the floor some of the Thermal Energy might move from the ball to the floor (if the floor is cooler) or some of the impact energy might go into Thermal energy of the ball and cause it to gain Thermal Energy.

    But whatever way you slice it, the total amount of energy ALWAYS stays the same.

    You can't fool Mother Nature (or Newton's Laws)

    So what does this have to do with anything a regular person needs to care about?

    A lot actually.

    In our world today we are constantly trying to beat Mother Nature at her own game and we think in some way we have but when looked at from afar we see really nothing is changed.   We didn't cheat Mother Nature at all.  We simple re-directed its energies to other things.

    Take for example, Genetically Modified fruits and vegetables.  We can engineer a better looking

tomato or one that can last a harsh shipping environment better or be more resistant to bugs or mold, but the energy needed to produce that fruit had to come from somewhere.    Back in the late 1990's I would go to the store to buy vegetables and would buy these things that looked LIKE tomatoes (they were red in color and round and about the size of a baseball).  But when you took them home and cut them open they would have nothing but water inside them.  I called them Styrofoam Tomatoes because that is what they tasted like.   They had no flavor at all and I stopped buying them.   It turned out that the tomato growers liked these tomatoes because they had stronger inside walls and outside layer to withstand shipping without being damaged.   That's great if you want to use them as packing peanuts but as something for a sandwich or salad forget about it.   Here you see the energy that was normally used to create sugars and other nutrients was diverted an put to use in building a stronger tomato.   You gave up something for another.   Energy was diverted from one use to another use.   There was no free lunch here.  

   The same happens when food engineers create plants that produce MORE food per plant to increase profits.  For example if I create an corn plant that has 4 ears of corn per plant instead of 3, I have increased production of corn by 33%.   But if that corn plant is still getting the same amount of water, air and sunlight where did the energy come from to produce that 33% more kernels?   It had to come from somewhere on the plant.  Maybe it came from the nutrient value of the corn?  Maybe from the starch or fiber in the corn.  Maybe from the disease protection inside the corn plant?  Somewhere there was a trade off and many times we won't find out where until its too late.   Like when a fungus infestation begins to destroy acre upon acre of corn plants.  Again, nature provides no free lunch buffet. 

    How about all those time-saving gadgets we've created?   Let's take the microwave oven for

example.   On the surface we saved lots of time cooking home made meals.   We could go to the store and buy all kinds of pre-cooked foods and just pop them into the microwave oven and POOF! We have an instant meal (and with moms and dads working longer hours to pay for those taxes children needed simpler meals that they could cook themselves).  But looking back now we see that all those simple ready to eat meals came with all kinds of added sugars, carbs and chemicals.   Those easy-to-prepare-foods came with a price tag of easy-to-put-on-pounds-of-fat.    To fix this we have had to go to they gym and spend countless hours and energy to take off those pounds of fat.   Or if this was too hard to do, we had to buy new bigger clothes and spend thousands of dollars in medical bills for high blood pressure and Type-2 diabetic medications.   No energy was saved.  Energy was just diverted from cooking to other uses.

   So often we are sold the idea we can have "BOTH-AND" when it comes to advancements in technology or when it comes to government programs.   We can have BOTH good food AND plentiful food.   We can have BOTH large amounts of food and AND good nutritional food.   We can have BOTH high paying jobs AND low unemployment.    In reality much of our world is an EITHER-OR basis.   We EITHER get good food OR lots of bad food.   We EITHER get food that cooks fast OR food that is good for you (and your waistline).   We EITHER get high wages OR we get low unemployment.  Trade offs have to be made.  Choices have to be evaluated and decided on. A price comes with our decisions and energy is redirected to other areas.


There is no such thing as a free lunch!