***

Arvon dekaani, professorit, henkilökunta, rakkaat läheiset ja ennen kaikkea me valmistuneet – on kunnia saada lausua nämä muutamat sanat meidän valmistuneiden puolesta.

Dean, professors, staff members, loved ones – it’s an honor to be given this chance to speak for us graduates today.

So – A few words on our omnipotence.

Some of us felt it already at birth – now that we’ve graduated, maybe the teachers, relatives and possible employers will believe it as well. And why shouldn’t they!? After all, we’ve been thoroughly tried by our university in different ways starting from lab exercises and sleepless night of reading all the way to the Saturday mornings’ exams and retries.

Me kuitenkin selätimme tämän haasteen ja olemme nyt diplomi-insinöörejä, kandidaatteja ja tohtoreita – joukko akateemisen ihmettelyn ja ymmärtämisen – siis tieteen – mestareita! Uskon aidosti, että ammattikuntamme on mitä merkityksekkäin mitä tulee niin yksittäisten ihmisten hyvinvointiin kuin koko ihmiskunnan ja elämän säilymiseen ylipäätään. Järkipohjainen, analyyttinen ja kiihkoton suhtautuminen maailman ongelmiin ei voisi olla arvokkaampaa kaiken tämän monimutkaisuuden ja hämmennyksen keskellä.

I’ve found that there are two ways one can make his mark in this world: by words or by deeds. Classically, the first one’s considered the field of politicians, the latter more familiar to us as engineers. But as words without deeds go in vain, are deeds without words nothing but lone triumphs. Without words even the biggest achievements will never spread around, they won’t inspire anyone, they will not become phenomena and no one will learn anything from them. Here, I find, is something that we as a profession should improve on.

Meidän ongelmamme on siis se, että kun jotain lausumme julki, julkaisemme ajatuksemme vain arvostetuimmissa tiedejulkaisuissa, emmekä Helsingin Sanomissa saati sitten Metro-lehden tekstiviestipalstalla. Moni on peräänkuuluttanut tekniikan akateemisilta (enkä nyt halua mainostaa yhtäkään ammattiliittoa) vahvempaa osallistumista yhteiskunnalliseen keskusteluun. En sano, etteivätkö tieteelliset julkaisut olisi hyvä tapa muuttaa maailmaa, ne kun ovat. Mutta maailman armottominta, kaikista eniten hukassa olevaa ja samalla myös eniten valtaa omaavaa osaa, eli niin kutsuttua äänekästä kansalaista, ne eivät tavoita.

Toinen asia, missä ammattikuntamme voisi nostaa profiiliaan, on ennakoiva toiminta. Työnkuvaamme kuuluu, että joku löytää maailmastaan virheen tai ongelman, ja palkkaa insinöörin ratkaisemaan sen, mikä on tietysti täsmälleen oikea ratkaisu muuten niin onnettomassa tilanteessa. Mutta usein insinööri palkattiin vasta ongelman löydyttyä. Ja harvoinpa insinööri itse ehdotti, että “kuulkaapas, voisin poistaa tämän ongelman ennen kuin sitä löytyykään!”.

Nykypäivänä maailman taistellessa sekä ilmastonmuutosta että talouskriisiä vastaan on helppo todeta, että puuttumalla tilanteisiin aikaisemmin olisi isoimmat vaikutukset kenties voitu ennalta torjua. Miksi kestämättömään tilanteeseen ei siis puututtu aiemmin?

Selitys lienee jotain tyyliin “kansaa ei pelottanut tarpeeksi” tai “valtioiden epäterveellinen tukipolitiikka uusia teknologioita kohtaan vaarantaisi talouskasvun”.

So – have you heard this one: What’s worse than low profits? Death. The fact that a few cities are now facing the threath of sinking into the rising sea has clearly raised some concerns. Some of the solutions deemed “economically unsustainable and impossible” in the past have suddenly become critical in fixing the world – and profitable too! Just look at the solar energy industry boom! I dare to guess that we could have made that technology profitable long before today – if the people had wanted to. That means, if those who understood had succeeded in communicating their views to the all the others creating that “want”.

Of course the visionaries saw what will happen decades ago. But somehow their wise conclusions got lost. This is something I want to change. I want to see that this kind of conclusions, even those feeling a bit radical, would be accepted, given the attention they deserve and acted upon. I feel that not only would we have avoided the problems of today but as well sped up development all together. I shall use a trivial example to illustrate this.

The future of mankind on this planet is very clear – extinction. By careful protection of Earth – not just by avoiding destroying it – this will take a very very long time, no doubt about it. But, I strongly feel that we should consider leaving the nest sooner. In fact I think we should start considering it right about now. Why then – not enough problems on the Earth to be solved first? Well yes there are, and that’s one of the reasons why.

By starting to prepare for this kind of humongous but unavoidable project we would not only enhance our chances of survival as a species but also open new doors to unforeseen opportunities and probably also create a lot of new technology, knowledge and understanding. Actually, there’s no doubt about it – to achieve the goal we would have to. For example, there’s no way an expedition could survive without extremely efficient recycling methods and energy systems. These on the other hand, could be utilized here on Earth for saving the environment and even some money. Sounds good right?

Miksi sitten koko aihe tuntuu olevan aivan mitättömässä roolissa ihmiskunnan keskustellessa siitä, mikä on tärkeää ja mikä ei? Ehkä meitä ei tosiaan pelota tarpeeksi ja keskitymme hieman primitiivisempien viettien tyydyttämiseen. Hyvä esimerkki pelon voimasta ja sangen pienestä innostuksesta lajimme tulevaisuuden eteen: Yhdysvallat on käyttänyt sotiinsa vuoden 2001 jälkeen yli 1,2 triljoona dollaria. NASA:n saamat varat tällä ajanjaksolla ovat alle 200 miljardin, noin kuudesosa sotien hinnasta. Euroopan avaruusjärjestö ESA:n vuosibudjetti on n. 4 miljardia euroa, joten eivätpä eurooppalaisetkaan tätä aivan kärkihankkeenaan pidä.

Palataan kaikkivoipaisuuteemme: uskon, että ammattikuntana, yhteisönä, oikeasti olemme sitä – fysiikan lakien rajoissa tottakai. Historian valossa mitä ihmeellisimmältäkin kuulostaneet arvailut, ennustukset – vai sanoisinko jopa – fantasiat ovat toteutuneet. Lentäminen, älypuhelimet demokratia ja robottilemmikit ovat vain yksittäisiä esimerkkejä. Siksipä uskon, että myös fuusiovoima, elokuvien tekoälyt sekä tähtienvälinen liikenne tulevat toteutumaan seuraavien …50 000 vuoden sisään. Ja lopulta jotkut varmasti keksivät myös, miksi maa kiertää Aurinkoa!

As we are able to achieve these things, it would be foolish to think we couldn’t also develop the society around us into a more sustainable and healthier one. We just need to act and speak up to spread our solutions around the globe. In the end, it’s about taking responsibility and putting yourself into the game. So let’s be brave, open minded and reach for the stars, literally. And let’s not be afraid or we’ll run out of money.

Vaikka koenkin valmistumisen nyt ennen kaikkea todistuksena vasta siitä, että olen kehityskelpoinen (ja kenties uimataitoinenkin), koen myös nyt olevani virallisesti vastuussa.

Laittakaamme siis uudet tittelimme hyötykäyttöön paremman maailman puolesta.

Jag gratulerar oss alla.

Tack, thank you, kiitos.

The life on earth, should it wish to stay alive in the future, must leave Earth one day. It’s clear that this will most definitely happen before the ultimate dead line – the last phases in the life of our Sun.

Man kind is one of the most probable reasons for the destruction of life on Earth. We are also, however, it’s only possible savior. We are at the moment not responsible only for the continuation of our species but for the continuation of all the others too.

There are many additional motives for mankind to explore and settle in new worlds. The promise of new resources, more habitable area, economic opportunities, scientific discoveries and pure curiosity are all influential drivers for space exploration.

Exploration of space has already begun. Technologic advances during the twentieth century have allowed manned missions to moon and would have allowed manned mission to Mars, had there existed the necessary determination among spacefaring nations. Missions to Mars are being planned as this is written, so that step is quite probably taken in the next decades.

In the end there’s no question: Mankind will do this, the questions that remain are ”when?” and ”how?”. I believe that by starting now in a coordinated way would be beneficial to our lives in the near future. It will, no doubt, take a very long time until life from earth will habit space or other planets in a way that ensures it’s continuation. But just aiming for this goal will stimulate innovations useful in building a completely sustainable “life system” on Earth. Something we lack now.

The idea in a nutshell is that because in practice we need to design and create a new stand alone version of Earth’s life system, we can utilize the designs, ideas and innovations created during this process to improve Earth’s life system way before the ultimate goal of permanent extraterrestrial life from Earth is met. The areas affected would include at least most fields of politics, science, technology, economics as well as psychology and arts and probably many more.

A challenge of universal scale, no doubt, but a necessary and possibly also a very beneficial one.

The golden rule – Treat others as you wish to be treated yourself - covers pretty much everything for me. Especially if you interpret “others” to include nature. I prefer the positive and commanding form as it demands action, not just passively avoiding doing anything “wrong”.

Another quote I find useful: I believe it was Confucius who said “If you see what is right and fail to act on it, you lack courage”. One can easily make a rule out of this one too: “When you have the opportunity to be of service, act!” I actually think it’s incorporated in the (positive for of) Golden Rule, “finding” it just takes a deeper interpretation.

Together these two can create a man of high morale,  who will actually work to improve his surroundings, help others and therefore make a positive example out of himself. Now, I can’t say I master these two rules, regardless of how ever so simple they are. But I can say I’ve found plenty of use for them both. And even better: trying my best to live up to them has had some very positive consequences even regarding my own life.

One very positive thing about the Golden Rule is, that it’s manifestation springs from within oneself. It commands one to define his own manhood, or what kind of a man one is instead of letting an outside source, say a holy book or a tradition, define it. I personally feel I have no use for other moral codes. I have chosen mankind and nature to be my gods – the mirrors I use to judge my own actions.

The inspiration for this post comes from seeing the documentary “Shock Doctrine” that deals with how US and British governments used shocking circumstances such as natural disasters and wars to push fundamentalist capitalism to the countries experiencing these circumstances. I wasn’t completely convinced by the documentary regarding it’s claim that these governments tried to spread capitalism on purpose but it made think about what governments should be doing at any time, crisis or not (And about a lot of other stuff too, it’s a good eye opener in any case!).

I see the government of a state ideally as a group of informed and logical individuals chosen to create rules in order to support citizens. So the question actually becomes: “what do citizens want from the government?” And, sad to say, I don’t think many citizens actually know what they want. So I’ll guess! (I know, probably a bad idea.)

People want:

1. to have the liberty to express themselves. But at the same time
2. to have enough (social) security, so that they don’t have to worry for their livelihood all the time.

Without the second, the first one is impossible (or at least very difficult in most cases) to reach, as in that case, all the effort of an individual will go to acquiring the said security. But these two goals are quite contradicting. A governments job, I believe, becomes: to find a balance between security and liberty. And what are the factors that set the balance? Culture and outside influence.

In past times culture was stronger in this battle than today. Mostly because outside influence was weaker due to slow spread of information. This allowed for very strange governmental models, some of which still remain like religious dictatorship. (A mind, especially a group of minds,  itself can be the greatest preventer of information flow.) These days the information flows more freely in most places. It gives the outside influence more strength and forces governments to adjust the social model accordingly. If necessary that is. It also shatters the people as individuals are more able to find out about their personal preferences in all areas of life instead of culture telling them how to live their lives. The fact that the state is nearly in balance can be observed in the confusion of voters in selecting what party to vote for in the next elections!

Then there’s the twist caused by large corporations and their owners. An owner of such corporation may “live his life trough his corporation” (works for small companies too, maybe even more so, but they don’t have that much influence). In this case the influence of the social preferences of the owner is amplified by the company, as it has a strong influence on the society through the jobs it offers and through the taxes it pays. The government is forced to listen to these companies (or more so, their owners). In this case some of the governments responsibilities in the field of security is transferred to the company. I don’t think there’s nothing wrong with this as long as the responsibilities can easily be transferred back, or are not too much dependent on the company, in case something happens to the company. I also see that large companies offer, in their own way, possibilities for self expression. But a government under the rule of companies is corrupt. It no longer works for all citizens but for the few richest ones. (Also a question of personal ethics of course.)

(A sidetrack and more guesses: Maybe the bias among artistic people towards left-wing politics is due to the fact that they are more capable of expressing themselves trough acts not depending on money but are as “eternally small scale entrepreneurs” more dependent on the social security network of the state.)

So to maximize the happiness of the citizens the government needs to provide the necessary social security in a way that leaves as much liberties for the people for self expression, the ratio being based on contemporary cultural preferences. I believe governments should not try to provide liberty as it probably won’t work. They just have to avoid destroying it. This means also that social security must be provided as simply as possible as the more a person must pay for the (production of) social security, the less possibilities for self expression he/she has. And to be clear, I’m not saying money equals happiness but it is a resource for self expression.

Basic income? I haven’t thought it through but after writing this it seems a “plausible” model of social security.

If I think about the governmental models in many states today, they seem far too complex to be efficient in providing the two aforementioned “services”. One last guess for this post: the reason for this complexity is envy. Think about it! (Well, history has a part also.)

I think I’ll write more on or off this subject later on. Cheers for now!

After a little thought, I reached a list of traits (in order of significance according to me) I think defines the basis of a gentleman:

• Tactful
• Trustworthy
• Benevolent
• Polite
• Self confident
• Honest

I might add “jovial” to the list but I don’t think it’s a necessary condition. A definite bonus though. And then there’s the factor of charm which I didn’t include as it’s not something one can easily train himself in.

The list is not very long but it’s definitely not trivial to realize. Training yourself to carry these traits on your person will challenge you regularly in every day situations.

Keeping the list above in mind and acting so that those words are linked with your person will, I believe, make a gentleman. And, why not, a lady in case of the opposite sex. Gaining the reputation of a gentleman is another story, though a strongly related one.

Afterwards it was also quite nice to realize I hadn’t included any remarks of clothing or other superficial things. “A suit may make a man but it’s the manners that make a gentleman.”

Why does this happen? My guess is that it’s got something to do with visual signals that instead of causing me to act, spark a subconsious chain of thought that through some kind of symbolic interpretations and allegories leads me to think about my goals and why I’ve chosen them. Perhaps.

Instead of guessing why it happens, I tried to have more of these moments than before when they occured somewhat randomly. I’ve even decided to start trekking, hopefully more often than once a year. At the moment, walks on the shores of my home island do the trick.

At the moment my own university is going through a merger and also a renewal processes of some sort. Goals are definitely  good: more teachers per student, more funding, new creative ways of learning, more cooperation with business life etc. Nice things!

But something is missing. I haven’t had any teaching, or maybe more precisely “outside inspiration” to improving myself. It’s all been up to me to find the things I like, the way I learn best, things that give me energy and a sense of self-fulfillment and also the way the world works, knowledge about culture and cultures, manners related to special occasions etc. Of course I’ve learned about these things but I feel I’ve been a bit lucky. Most of the things I’ve learned through experiences not realistically available to everyone.

I don’t have a clear idea of how this should work, how people should be “taught” this kind of things. A thought I have been playing with is some kind of a organization, or more like a society, dedicated to pursuing these things. Like the scouts but instead of teaching survival and living in the nature, studying the ways of the modern world and ways for self improvement. Topics I’d be interested in would include sports, art, literature, music, manners (etiquette), cultures, politics, outdoor skills etc… I don’t think there would be any point in teaching these things in a school-kind-of-way but instead by giving a kick-start and the providing the basics for self-study. Feedback and group-support would also be essential. (Regarding myself and sports, especially the group support!)

In the end the goal would be to educate people into citizens. I haven’t felt that my university would have had any impact on me in citizenship even though some consider it to be one of universities’ main purposes. And why should this teaching or inspiration be limited to only university students?

The academic studies these days seem to aim to producing more educated workforce for supporting the industry and sciences. I don’t necessarily see this as a bad thing as long as a system exists for “teaching citizenship”. Finnish high school does give educations in this “field” but I feel it’s a) inadequate and b) the end of high school is too early to stop this citizenship training as the students at that age are just beginning to think by themselves.

I’m glad I feel like I’m somewhat equipped for citizenship. But I would have liked, and still would like, some support on my path.

I figure the whole thing stems from the concept of a “nation”. What’s the role of a nation today? I feel that the nation, represented by the government and other such institutions really comes down to culture in a broad sense: rights, possibilities, traditions, welfare, legislation and a common history. Without culture combining people living in a nation, is there any nation? I’ve heard claims that in Finland there’s no more a common culture combining people but I don’t think people often understand it covering all the things mentioned above but merely as art and traditions.

So, patriotism is a movement trying to preserve the culture, the combining force behind a nation. Globalization mixes cultures all the time so should all the patriots fight against it? Should they fight against all the other cultures they encounter? Is patriotism hopelessly outdated? Not necessarily.

Patriotism has often been related to fighting against an enemy state in a war (or an imagined one). These days the biggest threats against the welfare of almost any nation are global and not related to other nations. Patriotism won’t help here, at least not directly.

If you consider the “old fashioned” patriotism idolizing wars against enemies of the nation, the geographic area of a nation or even genetic alikeness, I think it’s time is up and has been for a while now. But maybe there’s room for patriotism that recognizes the positive aspects of the related culture and uses them for improving the lives of one nation’s people. Maybe globalism will cause these positive effects to later spread across the borders of a single nation and help others too. As long as the patriots in that country accept them.

Patriotism is also often related to making sacrifices for your nation. There are few possibilities for sacrificing your life for a nation these days. But you can always sacrifice time and effort. Let’s take entrepreneurs for an example. They almost sacrifice all of their time in order to make a living. At the same time they create jobs and income for the nation. Can entrepreneurship be considered an act of patriotism?

So, I’d like to see people of a nation working together for common good, utilizing their common cultural background. Can it be called patriotism? And will this type of patriotism eventually lead to it being no longer needed?

First of all, I see democracy not as a goal but as a possible means to achieve one. In some cases I’ve seen behaviour where democracy has, in peoples minds, become an absolute goal. “We want democracy.” Why? “We want power” (as opposed to a functioning governance). (In some cases replace we with you.)

Representative democracy: Let’s make an assumption that democracy isn’t really democracy without free elections. Let’s also assume that there’s no corruption among the peoples representatives in a representative democracy. The perfect, sure-to-work situation where every man and woman will ultimately get what he or she deserves? Hardly so. The biggest possible failing of the system is actually the representation “step” that’s usually formed in parties.

I think there’s an illusion that works against the benefits of the voters. The illusion: Because the representative represents a group of people it must be that what’s good for the representative is also good for the people he represents. It’s clear that this is not true but what happens when interests don’t go hand in hand? Would you as a representative act against yourself? Parties add more to the disformation of goals from the voters’ point of view. If it’s good for the party, it’s good for the voter?

Maybe a little counter-intuitively, I don’t see this deformation of goals as a problem with politics of a country but maybe more a problem of smaller representational democracies where most of the members of the community share same interests. In these cases there usually still exists different parties or interest groups based on background, small differences in interests or other things much less significant than the main interests of the whole community. As in any democratic system, internal groups struggle for power “to have things their way”. This means that decisions, in a democratic system, must be made democratically through a process where “the voice of the people” must be heard. And then starts the game. Groups trade favors, blackmail each other, external groups try to influence decisions etc. in order to pursue a small victory (in the scale of the whole community’s interests). Main focus is lost, time is wasted in rigorous processes and the voter loses (or at least doesn’t gain as much as possible) but the representatives (of victorious groups) can still proclaim that “the voice of the people” was heard. In a more complex community there rarely exists a common interest and therefore this process doesn’t cause so much common loss.

There’s of course the risk of getting caught and losing your voters. But the representative is protected by a curtain of complexity of things. A voter hardly ever has the expertise of a representative, therefore allowing the representative to use his or her status as being better informed to dismiss critique. And of course we want our representatives to be as well informed as possible! Parties or representatives don’t have the ability to pursue their own goals completely regardless of the voters will but they have the power to sacrifice some of the voters (smaller) goals in order to stay in (real) power. And they have to.

The sad thing is that the weakest of the people will never have the power to change their lives through politics. They don’t have the money, skills, knowledge, physical strength, will power, or the ability to form a group they could use to make themselves heard. In the end, good will of the stronger is their only hope. (I’m not talking about, for example,  a large group of poor, uneducated but organized individuals but the weakest of the weak.)

Representative democracy isn’t of course all bad, I still think it’s the best system available, at least for countries and other other complex systems. One of it’s main benefits is that it gives most members of the community a little power (or at least an illusion of it) without the need to spend a lot of time studying economics, politics, history etc. and getting involved with decision making. A change of political system would probably rid them of this. This is even more so the case with their representatives. So, the system stays and stability ensues. And stability is a good thing. Wars ruin nations and smaller communities, not single bad decisions. Progress is slower than possible but at least most of the time some is made. Regressions and other phenomena may cause a step backwards but recovery is almost certain. The main problem is reacting fast when needed.

Other kinds of democracy share most of the benefits and problems of representative democracy. Direct democracy would be even more rigid and slow but in a sense absolute democracy. Presidential democracy as a form of representative democracy is more flexible and reactive but even more vulnerable to corruption and abuse of power. In some cultures some other system will work the best. Choosing the right kind of political system for a certain community is the key to success. (Representative) democracy, I believe, is not always the best choice. Sadly, I haven’t come up with the ultimate political system yet…

A perfect monarch would be great!

I’ve reached a conclusion. Simplicity rules and plastic sucks.

Things made of plastic usually

• break up earlier than samothing made of wood, steel, stone or something “more natural”. 
• look uglier than the same thing made of wood, steel, stone or something “more natural”.
• aren’t biodegradable
• consume more energy to produce

Things that are advertised as technologically superior to the older design usually

• break up earlier. 
• look uglier.
• aren’t biodegradable or easily repairable
• consume more energy to produce

I shall now present you, dear reader, an example. A popular everyday object, a tool, available in “nanonanoultratech” and in cast iron, the frying pan. When I moved out of my parents’ house they gave me two pans. My father’s old cast iron pan and a modern, expensive one with a non-stick surface. Well, after a couple of years the 20 year old cast iron pan had it’s ultimate victory. Food never sticks to it’s plain, hard surface which can’t be said about the nanonano pan. I believe millions of frying pan buyers have been fooled with commercials and big techny words. The cast iron pan is also, to my liking, easier to clean and maintain.

Usually the reason for buying a modern product is the assumed ease of use. Razors for example have developed a lot from the earliest straight razors (the knife type). The modern day razors requires no skill to use and maintenance is easy: old blade to the bin and new to the chin. Still, I’m not convinced progress has been made. I found this blog on shaving extremely hilarious to read. I don’t think I’ll be buying a Gillette Fusion very soon even though it’ll probably take me some time and bloodshed to learn to use a double edged safety razor  I just bought. Why would I buy something like that? Because it’s made of steel, it’s simple, the blades cost virtually nothing and it’s been said to shave like a dream. I hope it’ll turn out to be a lifelong companion in my futile fight against facial hair and at the same time relieve me from searching for some ultimate shaving solution over and over again. I’ll report back in 40 years

So, I’ve decided to use my money on things I believe will last longer, even though they cost more. I just won’t buy from IK*#A.

 I believe there are three main reasons why people buy stuff: 

1. To stay alive and healthy.
2. For convenience.
3. To express themselves.

Number three seems to be where obscurity of modern consumer habits really sets in. What does, for example, driving a Hummer tell about who you are? (I figured people don’t buy it for convenience because it’s so friggin’ BIG.) It tells you are rich and don’t care too much about environmental issues and purpose of big wheels on a car. I can understand that wearing certain type of clothing tells something but driving a too-big-for-the-purpose vehicle in city streets?

Happiness, as far as I’ve observed, is a product of security in one’s life, freedom and the possibility and ability to express feelings and will. Buying a Hummer expresses power, i believe. Just can’t understand why someone want’s to show his power and might by buying a car, basically a tool available to so many others. It’s almost like buying the most expensive and biggest hammer in the world.

So, I’d pay more for simple stuff that lasts and works, therefore also being friendly to the environment. I’d also pay money for stuff that opens new possibilities for self expression. What I won’t pay for is high-tech gizmos advertised with promises of an easier, cooler future. I just won’t, right?

The biggest problem is that the modern day consumer doesn’t have enough time or interest to thoroughly explore the possibilities of the market. If you need socks, you don’t spend a day to search for the best and most environmentally friendly socks in existence, you just go and buy a pair. Maybe you’ve seen a commercial promoting super socks that absorb all the cheese from between your toes. Sounds good? Yep, bought those already. Commercials have a huge impact on what we buy. It’s not that we think the stuff they promote is ultimately the best, it’s just that when we see it on market shelves, we recognise it, therefore giving us a feeling of a “safe buy”. Since I’ve started to watch less TV, I think I’ve become more aware as a consumer too. Grand!