Last month I asserted that, in the presence of enough “integrity,” emergencies couldn’t exist. This assertion came out of a complaint I had that everyone around me was constantly having emergencies, and it was interfering with my plans. Meanwhile, I (whose farts don’t stink) do not have emergencies. I have enough “integrity” that “unforeseen circumstances” do not become “emergencies.”

First off, “integrity” is jargon and it’s got to go. What I mean is, you’ve got your shit together. You’ve got enough money in the bank to cover your auto insurance deductible, or repair costs. Enough gas in your tank that you can get someplace in a hurry. You leave early enough that (say) a train doesn’t make you late. You have backup plans in case your primary plans fail. A sane rollback strategy in case your deployment goes bad. A comprehensive test suite to run before your release. An understudy in case the lead gets hit by a bus. And so on.

Second, this really is a pretty ballsy assertion, and I really don’t know if it’s true. I think it’s true; I have anecdotal evidence and experience to support it. It would also work better, I think, if it were treated as a question–an inquiry–rather than as a known answer.

So: I have some questions.

  1. Given that the goal is to build a world that works for everyone (starting with me,) is the presence or absence of emergencies a data point worth measuring?
  2. If so, do I need to define “emergency,” and how do I define it?
  3. Does increasing the degree to which one has their shit together decrease the likelihood of, or rarefy, emergencies?
  4. Is a focus on getting ones’ shit together worthwhile?

Leave a Reply