O blog sobre o Geocaching Madeirense


Um miradouro à distância de um clique e com vista para toda a ilha.


Um blog sobre a Língua Inglesa, a Educação e sugestões de ferramentas!

AEO - Apoio Escolar Online

O AEO visa prestar apoio escolar a todos os alunos da RAM que frequentam o 3ºciclo e secundário.

TUMa - Tuna Universitária da Madeira

Visita a nossa página no Facebook e segue as nossas novidades!

quinta-feira, 4 de dezembro de 2014

37 imagens para reflectir

37 imagens para reflectir

Pawel Kuczynski é um ilustrador nascido em Szczecin, na Polónia. Ele se formou em Belas Artes pela Universidade de Poznan, especializada em estilo gráfico.

Aos 36 anos, ele ganhou 92 prémios nacionais, incluindo internações, seções de caricatura e ilustração.

Sua obra é extensa, mas insiste na sátira política, social, económica e ambiental, o que mostra o seu lado mais crítico sobre temas atuais. Nós damos uma visão geral das melhores 37 obras.

quinta-feira, 2 de outubro de 2014

A Pedra

O distraído tropeçou nela. 
O violento utilizou-a como projéctil. 
O empreendedor usou-a na construção. 
O camponês cansado utilizou-a como assento. 
Para as crianças foi um brinquedo. 
David matou Golias com ela e Miguel Ângelo transformou-a na mais bela escultura. 
Em todos os casos, a diferença nunca esteve na pedra, e sim no homem. 
Não existe pedra no teu caminho que tu não possas usar para o teu conhecimento. 

Bullshit Jobs


August 17, 2013

Ever had the feeling that your job might be made up? That the world would keep on turning if you weren’t doing that thing you do 9-5?
David Graeber explored the phenomenon of bullshit jobs for our recent summer issue – everyone who’s employed should read carefully…

Illustration by John Riordan

On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber.

In the year 1930, John Maynard Keynes predicted that, by century’s end, technology would have advanced sufficiently that countries like Great Britain or the United States would have achieved a 15-hour work week. There’s every reason to believe he was right. In technological terms, we are quite capable of this. And yet it didn’t happen. Instead, technology has been marshaled, if anything, to figure out ways to make us all work more. In order to achieve this, jobs have had to be created that are, effectively, pointless. Huge swathes of people, in Europe and North America in particular, spend their entire working lives performing tasks they secretly believe do not really need to be performed. The moral and spiritual damage that comes from this situation is profound. It is a scar across our collective soul. Yet virtually no one talks about it.

Why did Keynes’ promised utopia – still being eagerly awaited in the ‘60s – never materialise? The standard line today is that he didn’t figure in the massive increase in consumerism. Given the choice between less hours and more toys and pleasures, we’ve collectively chosen the latter. This presents a nice morality tale, but even a moment’s reflection shows it can’t really be true. Yes, we have witnessed the creation of an endless variety of new jobs and industries since the ‘20s, but very few have anything to do with the production and distribution of sushi, iPhones, or fancy sneakers.

So what are these new jobs, precisely? A recent report comparing employment in the US between 1910 and 2000 gives us a clear picture (and I note, one pretty much exactly echoed in the UK). Over the course of the last century, the number of workers employed as domestic servants, in industry, and in the farm sector has collapsed dramatically. At the same time, “professional, managerial, clerical, sales, and service workers” tripled, growing “from one-quarter to three-quarters of total employment.” In other words, productive jobs have, just as predicted, been largely automated away (even if you count industrial workers globally, including the toiling masses in India and China, such workers are still not nearly so large a percentage of the world population as they used to be).

But rather than allowing a massive reduction of working hours to free the world’s population to pursue their own projects, pleasures, visions, and ideas, we have seen the ballooning not even so much of the “service” sector as of the administrative sector, up to and including the creation of whole new industries like financial services or telemarketing, or the unprecedented expansion of sectors like corporate law, academic and health administration, human resources, and public relations. And these numbers do not even reflect on all those people whose job is to provide administrative, technical, or security support for these industries, or for that matter the whole host of ancillary industries (dog-washers, all-night pizza deliverymen) that only exist because everyone else is spending so much of their time working in all the other ones.

These are what I propose to call “bullshit jobs.”

It’s as if someone were out there making up pointless jobs just for the sake of keeping us all working. And here, precisely, lies the mystery. In capitalism, this is precisely what is not supposed to happen. Sure, in the old inefficient socialist states like the Soviet Union, where employment was considered both a right and a sacred duty, the system made up as many jobs as they had to (this is why in Soviet department stores it took three clerks to sell a piece of meat). But, of course, this is the very sort of problem market competition is supposed to fix. According to economic theory, at least, the last thing a profit-seeking firm is going to do is shell out money to workers they don’t really need to employ. Still, somehow, it happens.

While corporations may engage in ruthless downsizing, the layoffs and speed-ups invariably fall on that class of people who are actually making, moving, fixing and maintaining things; through some strange alchemy no one can quite explain, the number of salaried paper-pushers ultimately seems to expand, and more and more employees find themselves, not unlike Soviet workers actually, working 40 or even 50 hour weeks on paper, but effectively working 15 hours just as Keynes predicted, since the rest of their time is spent organising or attending motivational seminars, updating their facebook profiles or downloading TV box-sets.

The answer clearly isn’t economic: it’s moral and political. The ruling class has figured out that a happy and productive population with free time on their hands is a mortal danger (think of what started to happen when this even began to be approximated in the ‘60s). And, on the other hand, the feeling that work is a moral value in itself, and that anyone not willing to submit themselves to some kind of intense work discipline for most of their waking hours deserves nothing, is extraordinarily convenient for them.

Once, when contemplating the apparently endless growth of administrative responsibilities in British academic departments, I came up with one possible vision of hell. Hell is a collection of individuals who are spending the bulk of their time working on a task they don’t like and are not especially good at. Say they were hired because they were excellent cabinet-makers, and then discover they are expected to spend a great deal of their time frying fish. Neither does the task really need to be done – at least, there’s only a very limited number of fish that need to be fried. Yet somehow, they all become so obsessed with resentment at the thought that some of their co-workers might be spending more time making cabinets, and not doing their fair share of the fish-frying responsibilities, that before long there’s endless piles of useless badly cooked fish piling up all over the workshop and it’s all that anyone really does.

I think this is actually a pretty accurate description of the moral dynamics of our own economy.

Now, I realise any such argument is going to run into immediate objections: “who are you to say what jobs are really ‘necessary’? What’s necessary anyway? You’re an anthropology professor, what’s the ‘need’ for that?” (And indeed a lot of tabloid readers would take the existence of my job as the very definition of wasteful social expenditure.) And on one level, this is obviously true. There can be no objective measure of social value.

I would not presume to tell someone who is convinced they are making a meaningful contribution to the world that, really, they are not. But what about those people who are themselves convinced their jobs are meaningless? Not long ago I got back in touch with a school friend who I hadn’t seen since I was 12. I was amazed to discover that in the interim, he had become first a poet, then the front man in an indie rock band. I’d heard some of his songs on the radio having no idea the singer was someone I actually knew. He was obviously brilliant, innovative, and his work had unquestionably brightened and improved the lives of people all over the world. Yet, after a couple of unsuccessful albums, he’d lost his contract, and plagued with debts and a newborn daughter, ended up, as he put it, “taking the default choice of so many directionless folk: law school.” Now he’s a corporate lawyer working in a prominent New York firm. He was the first to admit that his job was utterly meaningless, contributed nothing to the world, and, in his own estimation, should not really exist.

There’s a lot of questions one could ask here, starting with, what does it say about our society that it seems to generate an extremely limited demand for talented poet-musicians, but an apparently infinite demand for specialists in corporate law? (Answer: if 1% of the population controls most of the disposable wealth, what we call “the market” reflects what they think is useful or important, not anybody else.) But even more, it shows that most people in these jobs are ultimately aware of it. In fact, I’m not sure I’ve ever met a corporate lawyer who didn’t think their job was bullshit. The same goes for almost all the new industries outlined above. There is a whole class of salaried professionals that, should you meet them at parties and admit that you do something that might be considered interesting (an anthropologist, for example), will want to avoid even discussing their line of work entirely. Give them a few drinks, and they will launch into tirades about how pointless and stupid their job really is.

This is a profound psychological violence here. How can one even begin to speak of dignity in labour when one secretly feels one’s job should not exist? How can it not create a sense of deep rage and resentment. Yet it is the peculiar genius of our society that its rulers have figured out a way, as in the case of the fish-fryers, to ensure that rage is directed precisely against those who actually do get to do meaningful work. For instance: in our society, there seems a general rule that, the more obviously one’s work benefits other people, the less one is likely to be paid for it. Again, an objective measure is hard to find, but one easy way to get a sense is to ask: what would happen were this entire class of people to simply disappear? Say what you like about nurses, garbage collectors, or mechanics, it’s obvious that were they to vanish in a puff of smoke, the results would be immediate and catastrophic. A world without teachers or dock-workers would soon be in trouble, and even one without science fiction writers or ska musicians would clearly be a lesser place. It’s not entirely clear how humanity would suffer were all private equity CEOs, lobbyists, PR researchers, actuaries, telemarketers, bailiffs or legal consultants to similarly vanish. (Many suspect it might markedly improve.) Yet apart from a handful of well-touted exceptions (doctors), the rule holds surprisingly well.

Even more perverse, there seems to be a broad sense that this is the way things should be. This is one of the secret strengths of right-wing populism. You can see it when tabloids whip up resentment against tube workers for paralysing London during contract disputes: the very fact that tube workers can paralyse London shows that their work is actually necessary, but this seems to be precisely what annoys people. It’s even clearer in the US, where Republicans have had remarkable success mobilizing resentment against school teachers, or auto workers (and not, significantly, against the school administrators or auto industry managers who actually cause the problems) for their supposedly bloated wages and benefits. It’s as if they are being told “but you get to teach children! Or make cars! You get to have real jobs! And on top of that you have the nerve to also expect middle-class pensions and health care?”

If someone had designed a work regime perfectly suited to maintaining the power of finance capital, it’s hard to see how they could have done a better job. Real, productive workers are relentlessly squeezed and exploited. The remainder are divided between a terrorised stratum of the, universally reviled, unemployed and a larger stratum who are basically paid to do nothing, in positions designed to make them identify with the perspectives and sensibilities of the ruling class (managers, administrators, etc) – and particularly its financial avatars – but, at the same time, foster a simmering resentment against anyone whose work has clear and undeniable social value. Clearly, the system was never consciously designed. It emerged from almost a century of trial and error. But it is the only explanation for why, despite our technological capacities, we are not all working 3-4 hour days.

David Graeber is a Professor of Anthropology at the London School of Economics. His most recent book, The Democracy Project: A History, a Crisis, a Movement, is published by Spiegel & Grau


terça-feira, 23 de setembro de 2014

Viver numa lixeira? (The Dumpster Project)

Ele morava em uma casa de 230 metros quadrados, mas agora passa as noites dormindo nos 3 metros quadrados de uma lixeira adaptada. O Dr. Jeff Wilson é professor de ciência ambiental na Universidade Huston-Tillotson, em Austin, Texas (EUA), e quer provar que é possível viver com menos e de forma sustentável.

A experiência foi chamada de The Dumpster Project (“Projeto Lixeira”, em português) e tem duração prevista de um ano. Nesse período, a casa-lixeira será adaptada de diversas formas e o professor pretende encontrar a configuração ideal de sua nova moradia. Localizada no próprio campus da universidade, a lixeira já ganhou algumas adaptações. Após ser completamente higienizada, a casa de Jeff Wilson ganhou um novo teto, com possibilidade de abertura, uma estação do tempo e um ar condicionado – sobreviver ao verão texano pode ser uma tarefa difícil, segundo ele.

Dentro da lixeira, há uma cama improvisada, alguns itens de decoração e seu guarda-roupa, que hoje consiste em quatro pares de calças, quatro camisas, três pares de sapatos, três chapéus e algumas gravatas-borboleta. A intenção é que nos próximos meses a lixeira ganhe um painel solar para produzir energia suficiente para um abajour e para o ar-condicionado, uma pia, um chuveiro e uma privada, que devem ser instalados do lado de fora da estrutura – por enquanto, ele utiliza os banheiros da universidade.

Segundo Jeff Wilson, o objetivo do projeto é provar que é possível criar opções de habitação sustentáveis e baratas. Finalizado o ano proposto pelo projeto, ele pretende viajar com sua casa-lixeira pelo país, dando palestras em escolas e universidades sobre a iniciativa. E provar de uma vez por todas, claro, que é possível ter uma vida plena com muito menos.

Todas as fotos © The Dumpster Project

terça-feira, 15 de julho de 2014

O Ciclo da Vida

sexta-feira, 18 de abril de 2014

Faleceu ontem a pessoa que atrapalhava a tua vida

Faleceu ontem a pessoa que atrapalhava a tua vida.
Um dia, quando os funcionários chegaram ao trabalho, encontraram na portaria um cartaz enorme, no qual estava escrito:
“Faleceu ontem a pessoa que atrapalhava a tua vida na Empresa. Estás convidado para o funeral ”.
No início, todos se entristeceram com a morte de alguém, mas depois de algum tempo, ficaram curiosos para saber quem estava a atrapalhar a sua vida e atrapalhava o seu crescimento na empresa. A agitação no funeral era tão grande, que foi preciso chamar os seguranças para organizar a fila.
Conforme as pessoas se iam se aproximando do caixão, a excitação aumentava:
- Quem será que estava a atrapalhar o meu progresso? – Ainda bem que esse infeliz morreu!
Um a um, os funcionários, agitados, se aproximavam do caixão, olhavam pelo visor do caixão a fim de reconhecer o defunto, engoliam em seco e saiam de cabeça baixa, sem nada falar uns com os outros. Ficavam no mais absoluto silêncio, como se tivessem sido atingidos no fundo da alma e dirigiam-se para suas salas. Todos, muito curiosos mantinham-se na fila até chegar a sua vez de verificar quem estava no caixão e que tinha atrapalhado tanto a cada um deles.
A pergunta ecoava na mente de todos: “Quem está no caixão”?
No visor do caixão havia um espelho e cada um se via a si mesmo…
Só existe uma pessoa capaz de limitar teu crescimento: TU MESMO!
Tu és a única pessoa que pode fazer a revolução da tua vida.
Tu és a única pessoa que pode prejudicar a tua vida.
Tu és a única pessoa que pode ajudar a ti mesmo.

“A Tua vida não muda quando o chefe muda, quando mudas de empresa, quando o teu marido ou esposa muda. A tua vida muda, quando tu mudas! Tu és o único responsável por ela! “
Fonte : Inspirado no Livro “ Quem matou a Mudança” de Ken Blanchard

quinta-feira, 10 de abril de 2014

10 Powerful Body Language Tips