“Si mi abuela tuviera ruedas seria una bicicleta”
“If my grandmother had wheels, I would have been a bus.”
“Aye, and if my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a wagon.”
Idiomation provides us a historical perspective on these similar adaptations of a 1908 German book. The point of each, the overarching theme, is "that people will sometimes throw irrelevant questions or comments into a discussion thereby changing the original focus."
I had a law school professor that thought this saying was the most clever he had ever encountered (or at least he acted like it). His adaptation was a persistent response to students striving to solve his little riddles by adding conjectured additional facts ("well what if he had a _______"). The professor would smile and say something like "lets' keep the wheels off of my grandmother." He apparently found this immensely entertaining and seemed to think we all did.
That professor was maddening, devoid of real-world experience, and oblivious to his shortcomings. God rest his soul, I learned a lot from his poor example. As Norman Schwarzkopf said:
"You learn far more from negative leadership than from positive leadership. Because you learn how not to do it. And, therefore, you learn how to do it."
I was recently reminded of putting wheels on one's grandmother when the news one morning included an intriguing story about the orbit of Jupiter, and how adjusting it might make the earth more habitable. The article led with the recognition that we are immensely fortunate and lucky. We are indeed winners in a cosmic lottery, as there is "exactly one world, in all the Universe, that we know for a fact to be hospitable to life: ours." Yes, against all odds, here we are. Without the successful and cumulative confluence of so many variables, the miracle of our existence would not have occurred.
Here in this space that results from the compounding of so many seeming coincidences, we strive for improvement in our human condition and existence. With more success on some days than others, there are a great many people striving against odds and making the world a better place. They are making workers' compensation a better community. We could call out a great many of them.
They are educating, writing, training, commiserating, planning, refining, and more. They are advocating, criticizing, and challenging. Often, they are asking "why" or "why not" as regards how these systems work. Our community is better for them, and often we can stand on their shoulders to make more difference still. They see challenges in the world, and they ask how they could make it better. Perhaps, they posit, "if we put wheels on your grandma?"
The crux of this Jupiter article is about making our world more habitable by shifting "Jupiter's orbit . . . slightly." This is about as whimsical as one might stretch because there is neither capability nor motivation on our part to go shifting the orbit of any celestial body. This is both purely hypothetical and quaint. It is a mental exercise engaged in by some academics, on the premise of the question "what if?"
Their new study examines the "many moving parts and ingredients in the Solar System." They strove to determine "which ones contribute to Earth's habitability." This, they conclude is "extremely tricky." Though we may be convinced in our naivete "that Earth is the epitome of a habitable planet," this group's study and effort demonstrate that if we could put some wheels on your grandma things could be better, the Earth more habitable. That is, you see, in their opinion(s), personal or collective.
We obviously cannot put wheels on your grandma or on Jupiter for that matter. In large part, the hypotheses of these scientists will struggle with the legal standards for opinions, the so-called Daubert standard. See Daubert Better Explained (May 2016). The questions might include whether the scientists' conclusions have been peer-reviewed, tested, and confirmed. It is not likely that being smart and logical is always sufficient in such scientific endeavors when it comes time for testimony and opinions.
We cannot shift the orbit of Jupiter. But, there was a day when many thought we couldn't put a man on the moon. We have seen such progress, innovation, and change in our world in just my short (relatively) time on this planet. I can only imagine what tomorrow will bring in gadgets, gizmos, and conveniences. But, this study of Earth is perhaps relevant, say the scientists, in building a more autonomous and idyllic model of what is the "most habitable." In other words, as much as we like the Earth, what conditions would make a planet ideally habitable. It is this hypothesis that is the crux of their effort, conclusion, and focus.
From this study and academic pursuit, they have theorized how this planet would be more hospitable if Jupiter (or your Grandma) had wheels. Thus, they model what the ideal planet would look like in the "habitable" characterization. With that knowledge, they believe they can now search the other planets of the cosmos for the "most habitable" rather than merely for the "most like Earth." The effect of their research is not necessarily dependent upon Jupiter at all, but is a consensus of their belief in defining "ideal."
There is acknowledgment in the article that we may lack perfect perspective. These results are perhaps too focused on the what, "habitable," and not on the who, as in habitable for creatures similar to us, carbon-based, etc. It also notes we do not have tools to "conclusively gauge the habitability of an exoplanet." That is, even if we are correct in what to look for we may lack the tools to appropriately evaluate what we find. Does relative location matter? Do size and mass matter? And, there returns the challenge if Daubert, how would that be proven in an experiment setting?
The scientists also acknowledge the folly of considering shifting a planetary orbit. They admit that even a slight miscalculation or adjustment might instead render the Earth and even our solar system utterly uninhabitable. The lesson, perhaps from our historical past, might be on nonmaleficence "first do no harm." That is, as Daughtry noted:
Be careful what you wish for
'Cause you just might get it all
You just might get it all
And then some you don't want
What if we could similarly make some light adjustments and in the process make workers' compensation more inhabitable? Could we make some difference(s) without such grandiose ideas as shifting the orbit of a planet? If we are careful in our approach and conscious of the potential risk that we might cause harm, and we strive to minimize that harm, might we make changes in this space?
There are a handful of people who are striving to make a real difference in the world that is workers' compensation. Some may consider our efforts to make as much (or little) sense as hypothesizing on shifting Jupiter's orbit. Admittedly, we may never move mountains. But, we might just learn something in the process(es) and analyses and it may be that some adjustments are possible.
Leave behind the bias of your home (admit that Earth is not necessarily the "most habitable" or the "epitome"). In other words, shed the bias that your own state system is "best." Ask yourself instead what would "best" (or "most habitable") look like if I was answering the question "how do I best protect employees and employers?" In such a mental exercise, we might put wheels on a lot of grandmas. But, would we all benefit from asking "what would make this space more habitable?"
You might even consider my law professor of yore (God rest his soul) and think "what could I learn from a bad example?"
