I used to wonder why Zaibatsu bothered with a customs chamber, which seemed like a waste of resources considering the kind of beings that inhabited the place. The concept bothered me in a marginal sort of way, so that I would bring it up at parties and bars, making myself even more of a pariah than I was normally. Thankfully for my social life, I found the answer while on my eternal quest to explore the infinite mysteries of the universe (a trip that I would recommend to anyone.) The Presence didn't understand exactly why I cared so much, but was quite content to help me discover even this trivially bit of information. There is a planet who's name sounds like "Rak-mu-taaak" (with a very guttural and prolonged "taaak" at the end) which is the native home of a small creature that has no known official name. It is affectionately known as a "rat crab" by many a scoundrel space traveler or practical joker. It may have had an official name at one point, but having killed and eaten every other sentient life form on its home planet, no definite information could be had on the subject. For those who are unfamiliar with the rat crab, three defining characteristics will sufficiently inform. Firstly, the rat crab has a hard shell and scurries about in a omni-directional fashion, often from side-to-side, which is where it gets the crab part of its name. Second, the rat crab reproduces at an alarming rate, with a gestation period of only 12 earth seconds, and tends to infest, which is where it gets the rat part of its name. And third, the rat crab is excessively myopic with a long and detailed memory; it is short-sighted and long-retentive. When I say that the rat crab is myopic I do mean in the ocular sense, but it's also myopic in the mental sense. If you kick or nudge a rat crab by accident, it will only see that your left shoe has kicked nor nudged it, and it will always remember that particular left shoe and the pain it caused. If, in the future, that particular rat crab encounters that particular left shoe again, it will become quite aggressive. However, if in the same future, that particular rat crab were by chance to encounter the same being's right shoe, it would have no ill feelings toward either the being or the right shoe. The rat crab has no concept of categories. It doesn't hate all left shoes, any left feet, or people that possess either. The rat crab also has no concept of the whole and the parts; the left shoe was acting alone in its unprovoked aggression, and alone deserves the retribution; the foot and the being are guiltless. As I hinted earlier, rat crabs are real favorites with practical jokers, and a breeding pair will fetch an enormous price in the black market just for their comedic potential. Once such a joker gets a colony established, the running gag is to purchase a pair of shoes and proceed to kick as many rat crabs as possible with them. Then, once a large amount of rat crab ill-will has been established toward both the left and the right shoes, the joker will sell or gift the "practically new" shoes to an unsuspecting visitor, tourist, or newcomer. The joker will get a few proletarian associates and the rabble will follow the newcomer around until the unsuspecting fool encounters an angry rat crab, and another, and eventually a whole gaggle, until they are completely overcome by the vengeful pests. The rat crabs will have their way, and the joker and his friends will have a laugh and then go celebrate their farce with a local beverage. Of course, you can readily see why this little beast has become 82.5% of the reason for all intergalactic customs chambers. Zaibatsu, with all of its problems, did not need these myopic, overly-discriminating, malevolent creatures. And who could trust sundogs, defectors, traitors, exiles, and outlaws not to bring them in? *** I was chatting with my wife last night about a few things, and I got to thinking about wholes and parts and myopia. Quite specifically, we were chatting about life, and houses, and necessities, and wants, and- in a disjointed way- careers. I'll attempt to draw it with ASCII, to illustrate: +--------+ | Career | +--------+ | | | +------------------+ +-----------| House | Food | | +---------+ | | Clothes | + +---------+ | | Etc. | +------------------+ | Wants | +------------------+ (Figure 1) Here you can plainly see the relationship between shelter, food, clothing, and perhaps other miscellaneous necessities. They are in the same overall container. You can also see that "wants," while not essential, are almost fully integrated with the necessities, so much so that only a flimsy row of hyphens separates them. Why is the career not considered a part of the whole? Can the parts in this picture exist on their own? Like the rat crab, I think we're often myopic in regards to our jobs and the pain they cause us. The left shoe of our boss or our salary or our "job satisfaction" kicks us, and we hold an eternal grudge, eventually extracting our revenge. We don't understand that our career is part of a whole, not some disjointed satellite in our lives. Here's another picture in HD ASCII: +------------------+ | Career | +------------------+ | House | Food | | +---------+ | | Clothes | + +---------+ | | Etc. | +------------------+ | Wants | +------------------+ (Figure 2) Admit it, this one makes a lot more sense. The career is what provides us with money, which in turn provides us with a home, clothing, food, and any number of necessities. If there are dollars/rubles/yen/etc left over, then we might also get some of our wants. Can you attack the career without attacking everything else? Let's say there is a theoretical person named "Jack." Jack doesn't like his career much, but it is what it is, and he's spent a fair amount of time building it up. He makes a decent living, and has been able to eat good food, wear good clothes, and buy a 3br 2ba house with 2000sqft and wall-to-wall carpeting. One day, Jack gets angry and decides that he wants a new career. Of all his options, he decides wildly to choose a path with some risks. It may not pay as much. It might take a while to get established. Jack goes ahead with his plan, and gives his career the boot. But Jack, being the fool that he is, didn't really think about the fact that when he kicked his career, he was also kicking the rest of his situation. He sold his house, and had to purchase a smaller 2br 2ba 1000sqft with old wood floors and area rugs. He had to buy non-organic produce, and clothing from a thrift store. And that fancy computer he wanted had to wait for an undetermined amount of time to be purchased. I'm getting tired of writing about Jack, because Jack doesn't represent the way I think or feel at all. But, he does represent parts and wholes and myopia, which is what I wanted to get to. My career is not a disjointed part of my role as a provider, it is a huge part of the whole of that role. Everything that I can provide is inextricably linked to my job. If there is a roof, a shirt, or a sandwich, it is because I worked and got paid and bought those things. This is not a complaint- I feel enormously blessed that I can provide for my family. It fills me with a bliss that is hard to describe just to provide for the people I love. But, my role is not to provide any particular luxury, it is to provide necessities, and health, and safety. My role is to ensure that my career is stable and long-lasting enough to do that for as long as is necessary for my family. I'm not like Jack. Heck, I don't even like wall-to-wall carpet. The only thing I have in common with Jack, I think, is that I dislike the career I've chosen and developed. Unlike Jack, I don't blame a boss (I'm self-employed), or an industry, or even the job. I blame myself, and just want a change. Also unlike Jack, I realize that my situation in life is entirely linked to my job (see Figure 2.) If I want a change in my job, I'm going to have to accept a change in my life, and I'm going to have to convince everyone that depends on me to accept a change as well. That's not easy, because I think a lot of times we feel like the career and the "rest" are not one in the same (see Figure 1.) Having talked about it last night, I woke up thinking about it this morning, and it has been nice to get it out of my head so that I can begin to understand it a bit more. The rat crabs were just analogous and hopefully a fun way of introducing the idea.