A case for the good enough

Slip-ups are inevitable. They say, "To err is human," but even machines have glitches. If that is reality, then why do people aim for perfection? If mistakes, oversights, and failures are bound to happen, then why do we feel sad, disappointed, and beaten when they happen? We continue to expect for the best outcome. We wish for the ultimate prize. We celebrate every superlative in every category. These social standards fuck us up from the get-go.

When I review contracts, I would strike out any obligation that imposes "best efforts" or "highest standards." I only accept a standard of care, skill, and diligence that is ordinarily exercised by competent professionals, because "best" and "highest" can be vague or subjective. These are standards which may be in excess of what is generally acceptable in the industry and standards which the consultants will probably not be able to meet. In short, best and highest standards are unreasonable. 

I propose that we have the same standard for ourselves. Why don't we settle for good enough? Why don't we aim for something reasonable? Why don't we celebrate the ordinary and the average? They say a person should reach for the moon, so that even if she misses, she will land among the stars. I say a person should aim for the stars, so that satisfaction is actually attainable and there will still be room to grow and improve.