Suburbia was the term given to a large amount of land in the U.S. which was outside of the cities. The original vision of suburbia was something akin to a mansion in the countryside; reality could not be more different. Suburbia has proven itself to be a real threat to sustainability. The houses in suburbia do not even partially resemble the romantic picture painted for people, and the geography of suburbia does not help much for sustainability. The central problem is that suburbia is too far away from most work places, and it costs a tremendous amount in fuel to travel from work to home. The regular commuting from house to work also creates pollution. Such a large number of people live in suburbia that the problem is compounded manifold. Those are the central issues with Suburbia in the U.S.
In Taiwan, I do not feel we face the problem of the sustainability for suburbia. Taiwan is simply too small for us to designate a massive portion of land to countryside homes. We do face a similar issue in that people in Taiwan are used to the idea of traveling miles and miles for work, then returning. I know there are even people that travel from city to city in order to go to school in the mornings. Taiwan faces the same problem with pollution. Nobody is exempt from the pollution issue, in Taiwan, the problem takes the form of scooters. So many people drive scooters in Taiwan that it is creating a serious environmental problem. Scooters make it easier to travel short distances, so people take scooters instead of walking. Scooters also carry a maximum of up to 2 adults (safely) so carpooling is not an option with scooters. Taiwan faces the same problems as the U.S., just not in the form of Suburbia.
Thursday 4 December 2008
Monday 1 December 2008
Organic Farming and Enron
Organic farming has been widely accepted as being more healthy and ecologically friendly than its non-organic counterpart. This attitude has spawned a new type of competition amongst organic farmers: the race to be the most organic. The organic movement began in the sixties as a type of counter-culture movement which aimed to allow people to get back to their natural roots (no pun intended). It has since then been transformed into a business in which people desperately try to outsell each other in the organic market economy. This is ironic because the idealistic organic movement of the sixties has now morphed into something resembling industrial farming much more than organic farming. One may point to Enron and argue for a similar case. Enron began (presumably) with rather innocent motives, but eventually became corrupt due to the need to stay in the financial competition. Everything does change into the way the world is, at least in the economic sector.
The process of organic farming has also come a long way from its original state. Instead of the original idea of farming as naturally as possible, organic farmers now try to control nature as much as possible in their farming. Everything seems to be controlled to yield the most gain out of the farming process. Enron was a similar case; the people at Enron felt as if they had to maintain control over everything, and even spoke about trading weather. Nowadays, the term organic has been reduced to a word that means almost nothing, it is just another way to sell a product.
The process of organic farming has also come a long way from its original state. Instead of the original idea of farming as naturally as possible, organic farmers now try to control nature as much as possible in their farming. Everything seems to be controlled to yield the most gain out of the farming process. Enron was a similar case; the people at Enron felt as if they had to maintain control over everything, and even spoke about trading weather. Nowadays, the term organic has been reduced to a word that means almost nothing, it is just another way to sell a product.
Monday 24 November 2008
Crime and Punishment and Enron
The collapse of Enron was perhaps the most spectacular financial scandal in the last century. Enron was – on the surface – one of the most stable and powerful businesses in the market, but they used a marketing system known as Mark to Market, this allowed them to manipulate their projected gains in money and essentially allowed them to make up their profits and gains. I could spend a very long time detailing all of Enron's crimes, but it is far more succinct to say that Enron was a company heralded by many as the most innovative company in the world, but it simply got too greedy. One instance of the CEOs of Enron got too greedy was that they had preposterous ideas such as trading bandwidth and even weather. How on earth one can think that there would be a market in trading weather is far beyond me, it is also indicative of an excess of hubris, an excess shared by nearly all the CEOs of Enron, Jeff Skilling in particular.
Jeff Skilling was thought to be one of the most creative and intelligent businessmen in the world. I find it hard to disagree with that statement; Skilling certainly was intelligent, as well as creative. Skilling's fatal flaw was that he had certain insecurities (at one point in the film, they mentioned that he was a perfect example of a nerd who had transformed himself into something new, and was determined to make a difference), and that in order to compensate for said insecurities, he puffed up his ego to the point where there was practically nothing left but ego. It is always disappointing to see somebody with so much natural talent go to waste, as is the case with Jeff Skilling. He is currently serving time (24 years) in a federal prison in Minnesota.
I feel that the main way that Enron connects to Global Ethics is that in most of the other documentaries we've watched, humans have been exploiting the planet, and indirectly harming other humans, but in Enron, humans were clearly exploiting other humans the same way so many other companies exploit nature. The point is that corporations are designed to value profits more than anything else, whatever the cost. Other businesses do it daily and nightly, they are draining the planet of it's resources and beauty in order to make a buck. Enron simply brings this point home by illustrating to us that it can effect us directly as well.
Jeff Skilling was thought to be one of the most creative and intelligent businessmen in the world. I find it hard to disagree with that statement; Skilling certainly was intelligent, as well as creative. Skilling's fatal flaw was that he had certain insecurities (at one point in the film, they mentioned that he was a perfect example of a nerd who had transformed himself into something new, and was determined to make a difference), and that in order to compensate for said insecurities, he puffed up his ego to the point where there was practically nothing left but ego. It is always disappointing to see somebody with so much natural talent go to waste, as is the case with Jeff Skilling. He is currently serving time (24 years) in a federal prison in Minnesota.
I feel that the main way that Enron connects to Global Ethics is that in most of the other documentaries we've watched, humans have been exploiting the planet, and indirectly harming other humans, but in Enron, humans were clearly exploiting other humans the same way so many other companies exploit nature. The point is that corporations are designed to value profits more than anything else, whatever the cost. Other businesses do it daily and nightly, they are draining the planet of it's resources and beauty in order to make a buck. Enron simply brings this point home by illustrating to us that it can effect us directly as well.
Tuesday 18 November 2008
Wednesday 15 October 2008
The Architecture of Sustainability
Instead of writing a long-winded essay in which I make tortuous connections between all of Hawken's points and Mcdonough's presentation, I have opted to focus on just three points, and I will make very solid connections to each.
1.)Replace nationally and internationally produced items with products created locally and regionally.
William Mcdonough's project in China resulted in an exemplary model for this point. He moved the farmland to the roofs of the buildings, and by so doing maintained the towns folk's ability to locally produce food. Mcdonough's plan spared the townspeople from dependency on external sources of agricultural products and allowed them to produce their own products which they could help distribute to others.
2.) Create objects of durability and long-term utility whose ultimate use of disposition will not be harmful to future generations.
Mcdonough's project in China once again exemplified this quality. The building plan Mcdonough created for the Chinese town would not only not be harmful to future generations dwelling in the city; it would be beneficial to the city's future inhabitants by providing a sustainable source of food and possible economic income (through exporting agricultural products).
3.) Engage in production process that are human, worthy, dignified and intrinsically satisfying.
This is the most important way that Mcdonough fits Hawken's criteria for a sustainable business. All of Mcdonough's projects follow the trend of an emphasis on sustainability, so they immediately qualify as being worthy. We, as a species, face a gargantuan challenge; the issue of global warming, and any conscious, sustained (pardon the pun) effort to confront this problem also immediately qualifies as being dignified, and, to any normal person, intrinsically satisfying. The idea that Mcdonough is doing this to benefit other people (indeed, the entire species), makes it a very human effort, and a very worthwhile one at that. Mcdonough's work gives hope to those who are cynically-inclined, such as myself. They shine as beacons of light in a world of ecological and intellectual darkness.
1.)Replace nationally and internationally produced items with products created locally and regionally.
William Mcdonough's project in China resulted in an exemplary model for this point. He moved the farmland to the roofs of the buildings, and by so doing maintained the towns folk's ability to locally produce food. Mcdonough's plan spared the townspeople from dependency on external sources of agricultural products and allowed them to produce their own products which they could help distribute to others.
2.) Create objects of durability and long-term utility whose ultimate use of disposition will not be harmful to future generations.
Mcdonough's project in China once again exemplified this quality. The building plan Mcdonough created for the Chinese town would not only not be harmful to future generations dwelling in the city; it would be beneficial to the city's future inhabitants by providing a sustainable source of food and possible economic income (through exporting agricultural products).
3.) Engage in production process that are human, worthy, dignified and intrinsically satisfying.
This is the most important way that Mcdonough fits Hawken's criteria for a sustainable business. All of Mcdonough's projects follow the trend of an emphasis on sustainability, so they immediately qualify as being worthy. We, as a species, face a gargantuan challenge; the issue of global warming, and any conscious, sustained (pardon the pun) effort to confront this problem also immediately qualifies as being dignified, and, to any normal person, intrinsically satisfying. The idea that Mcdonough is doing this to benefit other people (indeed, the entire species), makes it a very human effort, and a very worthwhile one at that. Mcdonough's work gives hope to those who are cynically-inclined, such as myself. They shine as beacons of light in a world of ecological and intellectual darkness.
Monday 6 October 2008
Global Warming and the Second Coming of Jesus.
In the article "Waste Not", we learned about the gargantuan output of rubbish, toxins, and pollutants in recent years. My project is about the religious indoctrination of children, and the harmful effects it can have on society. At first, these two topics seem as unrelated as you can get, but upon close inspection, it is possible to establish a solid connection between the two. For the sake of convenience, I used total carbon emissions as an indicator of waste (the two are closely tied, but it is easier to find evidence regarding carbon emissions than waste output).
For those of you who have ever watched Jesus Camp (a frightfully brilliant documentary by the way), there is a particularly worrying scene in which a home schooled child is discussing global warming with his mother, attempting to prove that it is a lie. He is but one of the 1.1 million other home schooled students, 30% of whom are educated at home to provide religious teaching(1). Religious ideology and sustainability seem to run contradictory to each other, because there is in all religion the belief that there is an afterlife, there is also the quiet yearning for the afterlife. There are some crucially important environmental implications when 25% of Americans believed that Jesus would return in the year 2007(2). I submit that the yearning for the return of Jesus, and the belief that there is another life after this one creates and reinforces the idea that we needn't worry about sustainability, because we won't be here long enough to be concerned with it.
I have found a graph of the total carbon emissions released state by state which can be found at:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/05/30/business/20080601_ENERGY_GRAPHIC.html
I have also found a map of the political affiliations of the states in the same year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2004_US_elections_map_electoral_votes.png
As well as a map detailing the bible belt of the U.S.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BibleBelt.png
The republican party has a reputation for its conservative and religious affiliations within the United States (it is very difficult to get elected in the U.S. if one does not pander to some religious group or another, for the Christians comprise of approximately 33% of the vote). Notice how 4 out of the top 5 emitters of carbon emissions are republican states, and notice how the most concentrated area of consistently high carbon emitters overlaps with the bible belt. The states guilty of the most carbon emissions seem to be the republican ones. I feel that this indicates that there is a correlation between religiosity and waste output.
In conclusion, I believe that religion, and religious instruction of children plays a major role in the levels of CO2 output in the United States (one of the world's larger CO2 emitters). Religious instruction influences environmental sustainability because the child is not only taught that the current climate crisis is a lie, but also that Jesus will return soon enough, so there is little need to focus on creating a sustainable future. Education and raising awareness is the key to solving global warming, but we must extend this philosophy into the realm of religion in order create the most change possible.
References:
(1)http://nces.ed.gov/nhes/homeschool/
(2)http://www.beliefnet.com/story/208/story_20828_1.html
For those of you who have ever watched Jesus Camp (a frightfully brilliant documentary by the way), there is a particularly worrying scene in which a home schooled child is discussing global warming with his mother, attempting to prove that it is a lie. He is but one of the 1.1 million other home schooled students, 30% of whom are educated at home to provide religious teaching(1). Religious ideology and sustainability seem to run contradictory to each other, because there is in all religion the belief that there is an afterlife, there is also the quiet yearning for the afterlife. There are some crucially important environmental implications when 25% of Americans believed that Jesus would return in the year 2007(2). I submit that the yearning for the return of Jesus, and the belief that there is another life after this one creates and reinforces the idea that we needn't worry about sustainability, because we won't be here long enough to be concerned with it.
I have found a graph of the total carbon emissions released state by state which can be found at:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/05/30/business/20080601_ENERGY_GRAPHIC.html
I have also found a map of the political affiliations of the states in the same year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2004_US_elections_map_electoral_votes.png
As well as a map detailing the bible belt of the U.S.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BibleBelt.png
The republican party has a reputation for its conservative and religious affiliations within the United States (it is very difficult to get elected in the U.S. if one does not pander to some religious group or another, for the Christians comprise of approximately 33% of the vote). Notice how 4 out of the top 5 emitters of carbon emissions are republican states, and notice how the most concentrated area of consistently high carbon emitters overlaps with the bible belt. The states guilty of the most carbon emissions seem to be the republican ones. I feel that this indicates that there is a correlation between religiosity and waste output.
In conclusion, I believe that religion, and religious instruction of children plays a major role in the levels of CO2 output in the United States (one of the world's larger CO2 emitters). Religious instruction influences environmental sustainability because the child is not only taught that the current climate crisis is a lie, but also that Jesus will return soon enough, so there is little need to focus on creating a sustainable future. Education and raising awareness is the key to solving global warming, but we must extend this philosophy into the realm of religion in order create the most change possible.
References:
(1)http://nces.ed.gov/nhes/homeschool/
(2)http://www.beliefnet.com/story/208/story_20828_1.html
Thursday 25 September 2008
Baldwin's Intent
I believe that the author's intent in “Stranger in a Village” is to illustrate the cultural gap between America and the rest of the “white” world. This is described perhaps most vividly in the 14th paragraph, where he says that there is an abyss that divides the people of the village and the people back at home, and that abyss is “the American experience” (I assume that he is referring the to civil war, and the history of segregation).
“There is a dreadful abyss between the streets of this village and the streets of the city in which I was born, between the children who shout Neger! today and those who shouted Nigger! yesterday—the abyss is experience, the American experience. The syllable hurled behind me today expresses, above all, wonder: I am a stranger here. But I am not a stranger in America and the same syllable riding on the American air expresses the war my presence has occasioned in the American soul.”
“There is a dreadful abyss between the streets of this village and the streets of the city in which I was born, between the children who shout Neger! today and those who shouted Nigger! yesterday—the abyss is experience, the American experience. The syllable hurled behind me today expresses, above all, wonder: I am a stranger here. But I am not a stranger in America and the same syllable riding on the American air expresses the war my presence has occasioned in the American soul.”
The case against religious indoctrination.
My inquiry question for my senior project will probably be something along the lines of: "Why are children the main target of religious indoctrination? Do they suffer from indoctrination? Is it unethical to indoctrinate children?" It is a very broad, quite controversial question, but it is one that I feel must be addressed. I would like to explore why religious education of young children has such a profound impact on the child's psychological development (As the old Jesuit once said: "Give me the boy for seven years, and I'll give you the man"). I would like to find out whether religious education of young children (ages 7 or younger) has a negative or positive impact on the child's mental health. I would also like to learn about the reasons why children are so willing to take in what they hear on faith, and not question it. That seems to be my senior project question in a nutshell. Please ask any questions you may have, I'll be happy to answer them, I feel that this is such a large topic it is difficult to fully describe it, or even to know where to begin, so I'll leave it to the reader to alter the focus of this discussion.
Monday 15 September 2008
Science Park Revelations
After reading the assigned article about the Hsinchu Science Industrial Park, several things struck me as being particularly shocking. I was shocked to discover the quantity of toxic waste that had been illegally deposited in rivers. I have heard many stories about China's rapid industrialization coupled with weakly-enforced environmental regulations resulting in ecological and environmental damage, but I never considered the possibility that such things could occur somewhere as near as the Science Park.
The more I think about it, the more I realize how similar the rise of Chinese industries is to the construction of the science park many years ago. In both scenarios we see the flaunting of environmental regulations in order to make way for the lucrative benefits of large companies and industries. In a nutshell, what stunned me is how we are told every day about the countless ecological crimes committed by Chinese industries, yet I had never heard about the atrocities (perhaps that is a bit too melodramatic) that occurred in the Science Park. The large-scale use of female workers also struck me as being morally wrong, as well as shocking, for very similar reasons. I had previously considered the use of female and immigrant workers on a large scale to be problems associated with far-off countries, such as shady businesses along the U.S. - Mexican border, I had never thought about it as being so close to home.
To be honest I cannot really provide a detailed analysis at the moment because I am still in the process of coming to terms with these revelations myself. The article really hammers home the fact that the problems of far away countries may not be quite as distant as they seem...
Aled
The more I think about it, the more I realize how similar the rise of Chinese industries is to the construction of the science park many years ago. In both scenarios we see the flaunting of environmental regulations in order to make way for the lucrative benefits of large companies and industries. In a nutshell, what stunned me is how we are told every day about the countless ecological crimes committed by Chinese industries, yet I had never heard about the atrocities (perhaps that is a bit too melodramatic) that occurred in the Science Park. The large-scale use of female workers also struck me as being morally wrong, as well as shocking, for very similar reasons. I had previously considered the use of female and immigrant workers on a large scale to be problems associated with far-off countries, such as shady businesses along the U.S. - Mexican border, I had never thought about it as being so close to home.
To be honest I cannot really provide a detailed analysis at the moment because I am still in the process of coming to terms with these revelations myself. The article really hammers home the fact that the problems of far away countries may not be quite as distant as they seem...
Aled
Monday 14 April 2008
Changing the World
"I am going to change the world by becoming famous! I will change the world by running for president! I will be a politician, an activist, a warrior!" I will be perfectly honest, I do not have such plans, so I will begin by tossing out the pointless melodrama and the theatrical, banal piffle.
My plans for changing the world are at once far more humble and far more grand, my plan is simple, I will live, I will learn, I will write, and I will teach. I am not concerned with changing the geopolitical boundaries of bickering countries, with winning or losing elections, such things are superficial, they are sometimes the result of world-transforming behaviour, but almost never the cause. The people in my life who have effected me the most are not presidents, not astronauts, not fighters or politicians, they are teachers. I will live and learn, I will accumulate experience and knowledge, I will travel, I will be a thinker, a philosophizer. I will then write, I will collect and spread my ideas and opinions; the old adage "the pen is mightier than the sword" could not be more true. The clashing of swords may echo for seconds, minutes, incremental fractions in history, but the resounding sound of pens meeting paper are heard throughout eternity, immortalized in ink. I believe that all great writers eventually have an epiphany, up until a certain point, great writers write to satisfy their passion for writing, then they reach a point where they realize that their words have the tremendous power to affect strangers in the most complicated and bizarre ways. Christopher Hitchens wrote about reaching this point in his article "A Death in the Family" (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/11/hitchens200711)
I hope to some day reach this point, when my words will become manifested in the actions of others, when I can begin to change the world by changing people's opinions.
Changing the world through writing is merely a hope, it has yet to occur (and I doubt it ever will), my main plan for changing the world is far more simple, and far more achievable; I will teach. The most influential people in my life have been teachers, have been people who have unconsciously created the lust for learning within their students, this task, nay, this duty, is as close to the term "sacred" as I can imagine. To answer the question, I will live my life as fully as I can, I will try to gain as much knowledge and experience as I can, and I will teach, I will pass my knowledge and wisdom (assuming that I have any) down through the generations, to help inspire in my students the same passion for learning, the same burning desire to make a difference that certain individuals have inspired within me.
Aled
My plans for changing the world are at once far more humble and far more grand, my plan is simple, I will live, I will learn, I will write, and I will teach. I am not concerned with changing the geopolitical boundaries of bickering countries, with winning or losing elections, such things are superficial, they are sometimes the result of world-transforming behaviour, but almost never the cause. The people in my life who have effected me the most are not presidents, not astronauts, not fighters or politicians, they are teachers. I will live and learn, I will accumulate experience and knowledge, I will travel, I will be a thinker, a philosophizer. I will then write, I will collect and spread my ideas and opinions; the old adage "the pen is mightier than the sword" could not be more true. The clashing of swords may echo for seconds, minutes, incremental fractions in history, but the resounding sound of pens meeting paper are heard throughout eternity, immortalized in ink. I believe that all great writers eventually have an epiphany, up until a certain point, great writers write to satisfy their passion for writing, then they reach a point where they realize that their words have the tremendous power to affect strangers in the most complicated and bizarre ways. Christopher Hitchens wrote about reaching this point in his article "A Death in the Family" (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/11/hitchens200711)
I hope to some day reach this point, when my words will become manifested in the actions of others, when I can begin to change the world by changing people's opinions.
Changing the world through writing is merely a hope, it has yet to occur (and I doubt it ever will), my main plan for changing the world is far more simple, and far more achievable; I will teach. The most influential people in my life have been teachers, have been people who have unconsciously created the lust for learning within their students, this task, nay, this duty, is as close to the term "sacred" as I can imagine. To answer the question, I will live my life as fully as I can, I will try to gain as much knowledge and experience as I can, and I will teach, I will pass my knowledge and wisdom (assuming that I have any) down through the generations, to help inspire in my students the same passion for learning, the same burning desire to make a difference that certain individuals have inspired within me.
Aled
Sunday 16 March 2008
Grizzly Man
In my opinion, the documentary "Grizzly Man" was by far the most enlightening, entertaining (in the most intellectual sense possible) and haunting video we have seen in class. There are three scenes in particular that I will discuss: His personal dialogue about girls, his desperate plea for rain, and finally Herzog's commentary for one of the final scenes. I felt that Treadwell's personal discussion while walking on the beach was incredibly significant, because he said things that he would most likely never have said had he remained a part of mainstream society. This private dialogue, this soliloquy, was essentially Treadwell revealing the things he was far to embarrassed to reveal in public (he was even embarrassed when talking to the camera, he seemed nervous and needed to laugh to reassure himself). This is a stellar example of a man breaking the bounds of society and speaking his thoughts without the anxiety of what other people will say or think.
Treadwell's desperate cries for rain within the confides of his tent I feel illustrated an astonishing analogy between one man's lapse into wishful thinking and the human species' lapse into religious ideology. Treadwell proved to be the quintessential illustration of man's primal capacity for spirituality, a desire to fill doubt with the supernatural, an urge to plead with, to beg, to blame an omnipotent, omniscient deity for earthly events. I feel that in those few moments of primal rage and confusion, Treadwell betrayed all semblances of society and reverted to a simplified state of being, he reenacted our ancestors' journeys into religious thought and unreason.
Herzog's final comment was devastating: "In all the hours of video, not once did I see the same fascination reflected in the bears' eyes, only the quiet indifference, only concern at the thought of the next meal." This statement was at once heartbreaking and infuriating. To finish, I would like to pose a question: Did Treadwell see something we do not or did he simply delude himself into seeing kindred spirits where there were simply bears?
Treadwell's desperate cries for rain within the confides of his tent I feel illustrated an astonishing analogy between one man's lapse into wishful thinking and the human species' lapse into religious ideology. Treadwell proved to be the quintessential illustration of man's primal capacity for spirituality, a desire to fill doubt with the supernatural, an urge to plead with, to beg, to blame an omnipotent, omniscient deity for earthly events. I feel that in those few moments of primal rage and confusion, Treadwell betrayed all semblances of society and reverted to a simplified state of being, he reenacted our ancestors' journeys into religious thought and unreason.
Herzog's final comment was devastating: "In all the hours of video, not once did I see the same fascination reflected in the bears' eyes, only the quiet indifference, only concern at the thought of the next meal." This statement was at once heartbreaking and infuriating. To finish, I would like to pose a question: Did Treadwell see something we do not or did he simply delude himself into seeing kindred spirits where there were simply bears?
Wednesday 12 March 2008
Arctic Tale
Arctic Tale was an incredibly well-filmed documentary, a realistic depiction of the life of a polar bear cub and a walrus family. I feel that in general the documentary served as a vivid illustration of the effects of global warming and the perils that many animals are forced to endure as part of their struggle for survival. There is one scene in particular that I’d like to reflect on: Auntie’s sacrifice. I think that this scene alone is enough to considerably rattle the minds of those who would doubt animal sentience, such an act of self-sacrifice is not common, and is very strange from an evolutionary perspective. The desire to preserve one’s genes though offspring is only so powerful, I am doubtful as to whether or not that primal urge alone was enough to make her make such a sacrifice (especially when you consider that Auntie was not Seela’s mother). I felt that this scene was particularly telling and very powerful. I’d also like to reflect for a moment on the narration strategy. I feel that the over-sentimentalizing of the animal’s interactions led the audience to a premature conclusion. The scene where the polar bears remained by the side of the dead cub was a stellar example of this; the narration led you to believe that the mother and daughter were grieving for the deceased son, associating human emotions with the polar bears’ actions. I think that the narration was an exaggeration of the animals’ interactions, indeed the most powerful moments were not carried at all by the narration; the actions spoke more than words, actions like Auntie’s sacrifice imparted that which the narration could not have hoped impart, the actions spoke for themselves.
Sunday 9 March 2008
The Rise of our World
Aled Lines
Mr. Brent Loken
Global Ethics
January 22, 2008
The Rise of our World
I awoke to the gentle drumming of rain drops falling upon the moist dirt and slick rocks that cluttered the entrance to our cave. We had discovered this particular den nearly two weeks ago, when we traveled here from the north, in pursuit of our food supply. I looked around at the other inhabitants of the shelter, my tribe. There they were, sleeping, shivering as a result of the gentle breeze and the damp ground they slept upon. They were healthy enough, save for one, a very old man, must have been 25 years of age, he lay in the far corner of the cave, sweating profusely. He looked on the verge of death; he had killed a wild dog several days previously, and had consequently been attacked by its canine relatives. The attack had left him with a bleeding leg, the blood flow stopped eventually, he seemed to have recovered well. Within a week however, he had succumbed to a strange sickness, which the tribal elders declared was the gods’ punishment for harming the jackal. He had been cursed indeed, his wound had turned black, in contrast to the rest of his disfigured leg, which had become bloated and pale, he constantly sweats now, he simply lies there, in a state of semi-consciousness, waiting for gods to cure him, or to be allowed to die. I sighed in dismay, he was a good man, kind to the rest of the tribal family, had the date trees we usually harvested from had not been particularly unfruitful that week, he would not have ventured out that morning in search of prey (or come back to us that day with his left calf torn and bloody). Such are the perils of this fickle lifestyle, and such are the wishes of our fickle gods. I closed my eyes, lay down on the cold, damp dirt, and fell asleep.
I was harshly aroused from my slumber, the woman that had woken me beckoned for me to follow, I was lead out of the cave. It was a glorious day, the sun was bright, the great river that flowed by the cave was glistening, its crocodilian denizens were floating serenely on the surface. I heard the sound of soft sobbing, and turned to find a young lad, barely 8 years of age, kneeling before the still-moist body of the sick man; his father. We all felt his pain, our tribal society was tightly knit, we all shared a deep emotional bond, we depended on each other for everything, we rarely encountered others of our kind, we needed each other to survive. I felt a pang of anger, why had the dates not been there that day? Why had our friend ventured out in search of food? Why did we simply accept that it was the gods will, why did we not care for him? Nevertheless, I mourned with the rest of the tribe, and helped the elders heave his still-supple form into the river, where he would be devoured by the animals. I stayed outside for a long time after the rest of the tribe had retreated into the shelter, looking around at my surroundings. We had been here before, it was part of our biannual rotation. I liked this land, I did not want to leave it any time soon, but life must go on, the tribe was due to leave in little over a week, and I had no choice but to follow. I turned to return to the shelter, and noticed a single date that had fallen beneath a tree, I picked it up, broke it open to find a stone inside, which I buried (for no particular reason) just outside the cave, where several hours previously, I had for the first time seen the dead man, lying in the blazing sunlight.
It has been many years now, since that fateful day by the river. I am now an elder, not a single person whom was in the tribe at that time remains, they have fallen victim to the elements, to nature, to the gods, to starvation. I alone remain, I have seen much death, I have been surrounded by famine, I have discovered a way to cure it. We are nearing the cave I slept in so many years ago; it is there that I shall unveil my plan.
It has been three more days, We arrived at the river cave this morning, we settled in our cave, the younger men just left to hunt, the elder women cared for the children, and the younger women ventured outwards to gather food. I’ve sat by the entrance of the cave for many hours now, leaning against the trunk of a towering date tree; the very one I myself planted all those years ago. I will tell them tomorrow, at sunrise.
This might very well be the most important day in the history of our tribe. I unveiled my revolutionary plan today. At sunrise, I called a tribal gathering, and presented to them my plan.
“Gather round, comrades, today shall be the most memorable day of our lives. We have come and gone from distant lands, we have pursued our food source for many decades now. We have lost friends, comrades, family members to the elements, to the animals, to the gods, many have starved, many have been mauled by wild beasts, many have been frozen, but many more, so many more have fallen prey to the strange afflictions and curses placed upon them by the gods. Why? Do you not wonder why? Why is it that we pursue the cattle through the plains, through the deserts, through the grasslands? We have lost many a friend on these annual journeys, why? I propose that we revolutionize our current life style. I shall begin with our food source. We have for many years known that where we plant a seed, a tree will grow. We have all witnessed the conditions and circumstances, under which certain types of plants flourish, we have sufficient knowledge of the ways of the world to begin better life to shape a new, better life. We move from place to place every few weeks, never staying in a single place for very long. We have the knowledge; we need the will to use it. I believe that we can abandon our current lifestyle, we do not need to migrate from place to place, from oasis to oasis, from shelter to shelter. We need to begin by gathering plants, burying their seeds, and segmenting the land. Many years ago now, long before any of you had been conceived, I buried a single seed, on this very spot. That single seed has since blossomed into the titanic tree you now stand beneath, a testament to our tribe’s strength, and the key to a better future. If we begin by planting seeds in specific areas, they will eventually flourish, as will we. We know what trees grow in repeating cycles throughout the year, I propose that we mimic those natural cycles, and create our own simulation of a plant ecosystem, which we can use as a steady food source. The largest problem of our current lifestyle is that we do not have a steady food source, when the food fluctuates, so do our numbers. We must change this! How many of you have lost family, friends, comrades to starvation? I have, I have lost many, in order to better our lives, we must create a steady food source, one on which we can depend. This philosophy can also be extended to the taming of wild beasts. Why do we pursue the cattle through mountains, plains, deserts? We must change, we should build cages, fences, enclosures, we can capture cattle, and raise them in our enclosed areas, they will carry on reproducing, which will ensure that we have yet another steady food source. If we can put the animals in these enclosures, we can nurture them, feed them, shelter them, they will thrive, we can then begin to govern our own food supply, we can begin to govern our numbers, we can determine our survival.
I mentioned earlier that we must begin our new, more stable lives by creating for ourselves more stable sources of food. This is how I propose that we life in a single place; we build our own shelters. We now resort to caves, trees and various other natural obstacles as protection from the biting winds or the glaring sun, we can, nay, we must change this if we are to flourish! We must construct shelter, we may begin by gathering grass, mud, and branches. Branches will serve as the foundation, mud and grass as reinforcement.
That, my friends, is how we begin our transformation. How though, must we conduct ourselves in this new world? Our philosophy will base itself around compassion. Are you not frightened by the prospect of losing those you most care for? Do you not think we should spare others from the same anguish? I propose that when we meet our kin in other tribes, we educate them, we tell them of our new ways, we teach them how life safely, protected from the elements, sheltered from starvation. My only regret is that we may not save them from the judgment of the spirits; I feel that this is worth explaining. Do we not know the approximate intensity of injuries that should result in death? Why, then, do so many of us suffer but a tiny wound, insignificant to most of us, only to fall into an enigmatic stupor, one from which none of us arouse. Why do the wounds, previously crimson, slowly become black and cursed? Why is it that the area surrounding the wound becomes pale, bloated, and eventually useless? Why do these people, in the period of a mere week, succumb to those strange symptoms, only to perish as suddenly as the symptoms arose? It is not a capability of the animal, for surely no beast is capable of such a monstrous feat, it is the will of the gods, we may not, we cannot interfere with such curses. I sincerely wish I knew of a way to save people from this ghastly fate, for surely if we somehow developed the capability to perform such miracles, it would be because, and only because, the spirits had willed it. It is not within our ability to cure people of such curses, we can cure them of starvation however. How many hundreds can we save by providing food to all? How many of you have bore children, only to watch them perish before they have lived but a week? How many of our brothers and sisters have died before they have had the chance to live? We can change this now, with our new philosophy of food production we can fulfill our ambitions, we can save our kin. I believe we should also spread our philosophy to all others that we find, we can save ourselves now, I believe that it would be the height of irresponsibility and immorality to keep this knowledge from others. If we keep this knowledge, we will be remembered as devils, selfish devils, demons whom discovered the secret to life, and kept it to themselves, what is far worse is that we will live forever, forever cursed with the burden of the world despising us, we will live as outcasts, forever alien, forever damned. We begin to act on our central precept of compassion by sharing our knowledge with all those around us. Will they despise us for this? No, they will love us, for who, short of the idiot, the villain, or the lunatic would refuse such knowledge? We can change the world, we must begin by changing our current way of life, the world will quickly follow.
I believe I am hearing the ramblings of discontent amongst you. “Is this not unnatural?” you say, “Isn’t this mindless extermination?” you ask. There comes a point, brothers and sisters, when we must ask ourselves a simple question; are we, or are we not a part of nature? If we are, it logically follows that, by definition, nothing we can do can be defined as “unnatural”. You seem to think that there is, perhaps, a law that we are breaking, a biological law. This could not be more false; we are as much a part of the biological community as any other creature that walks, crawls, swims or flies on this earth, our actions cannot be deemed unnatural unless we too are to be considered outside of the normal boundaries of nature. We will not be exterminating our competitors mindlessly. What we do is all that is required of us to survive. We need more food than our competitors, so we do what we must to assure our access to food. You may say that we mindlessly exterminate the jackals that try to steal our food source. We do not, we drive them away, we kill those that intrude upon our territories, but exterminate we do not. Is this any different from the lion killing the occasional hyena that intrudes upon it’s territory in search of a fresh kill? No, it is not, we obey the laws of nature just as well as any other creature.
As we are now on the topic of laws, there is a slight digression that I feel is necessary; we must discuss how we are to live. We live quite well at the moment, do we not? I feel that we have no real problems discerning whether or not our actions are moral. We do, however, need a standardized set of rules for governing our moral behaviour. Let me explain why; We live in relative peace and tranquility now, we all have a powerful sense of moral obligation to our fellows, we all possess human solidarity, that unspoken moral urge to think of the clan, not only of yourself. This does extremely well in governing our everyday lives, but I do believe we need a set of laws, standardizing our ethics and rules. We have no basis now to persecute one who has acted in a manner contrary to our expected morals, we cannot in good judgment and justice punish an individual who has killed another. If we standardize our morals in a code of laws, we have a safeguard against the occasional sociopath or psychopath who disregards all normal boundaries for ethical behaviour and acts in contempt of our expected standards, we will have a justifiable method to ascertain our natural rights to a peaceful existence. Allow me to provide you all with a hypothetical situation: A man becomes intoxicated from the fermented juices of a fruit, he becomes a problem, he begins to harass the other members of our tribe, therefore, we restrain him by tying him to a tree until he sobers up. He and his family rise up against us the next day, demanding retribution, declaring that we had no right to forcefully restrain him (regardless of what common sense dictates). We would then be faced with a rather difficult and fragile scenario would we not? If, however, we had a code of conduct dictating what we must do with those of us who become inebriated and potentially harmful, we would be in a clearly defined, morally justifiable position. We could show them our laws and the corresponding punishments, we would be out of such a tenuous position. That is but one amongst many possible scenarios where the standardization of laws becomes more than a prerogative, it becomes a necessity. This becomes even more necessary when we begin to incorporate notions of private property into our lives, I do not think I need to elaborate on that, common sense tells us that we need a guide to how to live, and logic tells us that we should make it standardized, and available to all, thereby eliminating the possibility of selective quotations and subjective punishments.
This, my brothers and sisters is how I propose that we begin to alter our lives, as well as the course of history. We begin by planting seeds and domesticating animals to create a stable, reliable food source. We then proceed by building our shelters to shield us from the elements. FInally, we create a constitution, a code of conduct, written by us all, upheld by us all, designed to ensure that our natural rights are protected. We must also try to better the lives of those around us, by spreading our knowledge, this will better their lives tenfold. This, comrades, is how we save ourselves, this is how we change our world forever.”
It has been many more years since that memorable day when I presented my tribe with my plan to change the world. I look around me now at the smiling faces, at the children playing in the stream, children that would have long ago starved had we not access to a steady food source. I look at the other tribesmen, happy in their knowledge that there will be food aplenty for their offspring, for their friends, for their family. I look at my brethren, content in their knowledge that their rights will be defended by our code of laws. I look around at all the happiness and joy around me, joy that would never have been had we continued to live as hunter-gatherers, smiles that would never have shone had we continued our old lifestyle, children that would never have lived had we not changed. My life is nearing to a close now, I can feel it in the weariness of my fragile frame, I am dying, not of starvation, but of old age, a rare way to die, most of us used to die of starvation, even now many of us die as a result of terrible afflictions, not I, I have lived a good life, a long life. I take pleasure in the fact that during my final days, when I sit outside the cave, under the colossal tree, I may look around at the tribe that I call my own, and manage to conjure a smile at the thought that the tribe, so much like the tree I sit under, will outlast me by far, will flourish, and will continue to do so for many years after I am gone and forgotten. I take a final look around, take my final breath, and close my eyes forever.
Mr. Brent Loken
Global Ethics
January 22, 2008
The Rise of our World
I awoke to the gentle drumming of rain drops falling upon the moist dirt and slick rocks that cluttered the entrance to our cave. We had discovered this particular den nearly two weeks ago, when we traveled here from the north, in pursuit of our food supply. I looked around at the other inhabitants of the shelter, my tribe. There they were, sleeping, shivering as a result of the gentle breeze and the damp ground they slept upon. They were healthy enough, save for one, a very old man, must have been 25 years of age, he lay in the far corner of the cave, sweating profusely. He looked on the verge of death; he had killed a wild dog several days previously, and had consequently been attacked by its canine relatives. The attack had left him with a bleeding leg, the blood flow stopped eventually, he seemed to have recovered well. Within a week however, he had succumbed to a strange sickness, which the tribal elders declared was the gods’ punishment for harming the jackal. He had been cursed indeed, his wound had turned black, in contrast to the rest of his disfigured leg, which had become bloated and pale, he constantly sweats now, he simply lies there, in a state of semi-consciousness, waiting for gods to cure him, or to be allowed to die. I sighed in dismay, he was a good man, kind to the rest of the tribal family, had the date trees we usually harvested from had not been particularly unfruitful that week, he would not have ventured out that morning in search of prey (or come back to us that day with his left calf torn and bloody). Such are the perils of this fickle lifestyle, and such are the wishes of our fickle gods. I closed my eyes, lay down on the cold, damp dirt, and fell asleep.
I was harshly aroused from my slumber, the woman that had woken me beckoned for me to follow, I was lead out of the cave. It was a glorious day, the sun was bright, the great river that flowed by the cave was glistening, its crocodilian denizens were floating serenely on the surface. I heard the sound of soft sobbing, and turned to find a young lad, barely 8 years of age, kneeling before the still-moist body of the sick man; his father. We all felt his pain, our tribal society was tightly knit, we all shared a deep emotional bond, we depended on each other for everything, we rarely encountered others of our kind, we needed each other to survive. I felt a pang of anger, why had the dates not been there that day? Why had our friend ventured out in search of food? Why did we simply accept that it was the gods will, why did we not care for him? Nevertheless, I mourned with the rest of the tribe, and helped the elders heave his still-supple form into the river, where he would be devoured by the animals. I stayed outside for a long time after the rest of the tribe had retreated into the shelter, looking around at my surroundings. We had been here before, it was part of our biannual rotation. I liked this land, I did not want to leave it any time soon, but life must go on, the tribe was due to leave in little over a week, and I had no choice but to follow. I turned to return to the shelter, and noticed a single date that had fallen beneath a tree, I picked it up, broke it open to find a stone inside, which I buried (for no particular reason) just outside the cave, where several hours previously, I had for the first time seen the dead man, lying in the blazing sunlight.
It has been many years now, since that fateful day by the river. I am now an elder, not a single person whom was in the tribe at that time remains, they have fallen victim to the elements, to nature, to the gods, to starvation. I alone remain, I have seen much death, I have been surrounded by famine, I have discovered a way to cure it. We are nearing the cave I slept in so many years ago; it is there that I shall unveil my plan.
It has been three more days, We arrived at the river cave this morning, we settled in our cave, the younger men just left to hunt, the elder women cared for the children, and the younger women ventured outwards to gather food. I’ve sat by the entrance of the cave for many hours now, leaning against the trunk of a towering date tree; the very one I myself planted all those years ago. I will tell them tomorrow, at sunrise.
This might very well be the most important day in the history of our tribe. I unveiled my revolutionary plan today. At sunrise, I called a tribal gathering, and presented to them my plan.
“Gather round, comrades, today shall be the most memorable day of our lives. We have come and gone from distant lands, we have pursued our food source for many decades now. We have lost friends, comrades, family members to the elements, to the animals, to the gods, many have starved, many have been mauled by wild beasts, many have been frozen, but many more, so many more have fallen prey to the strange afflictions and curses placed upon them by the gods. Why? Do you not wonder why? Why is it that we pursue the cattle through the plains, through the deserts, through the grasslands? We have lost many a friend on these annual journeys, why? I propose that we revolutionize our current life style. I shall begin with our food source. We have for many years known that where we plant a seed, a tree will grow. We have all witnessed the conditions and circumstances, under which certain types of plants flourish, we have sufficient knowledge of the ways of the world to begin better life to shape a new, better life. We move from place to place every few weeks, never staying in a single place for very long. We have the knowledge; we need the will to use it. I believe that we can abandon our current lifestyle, we do not need to migrate from place to place, from oasis to oasis, from shelter to shelter. We need to begin by gathering plants, burying their seeds, and segmenting the land. Many years ago now, long before any of you had been conceived, I buried a single seed, on this very spot. That single seed has since blossomed into the titanic tree you now stand beneath, a testament to our tribe’s strength, and the key to a better future. If we begin by planting seeds in specific areas, they will eventually flourish, as will we. We know what trees grow in repeating cycles throughout the year, I propose that we mimic those natural cycles, and create our own simulation of a plant ecosystem, which we can use as a steady food source. The largest problem of our current lifestyle is that we do not have a steady food source, when the food fluctuates, so do our numbers. We must change this! How many of you have lost family, friends, comrades to starvation? I have, I have lost many, in order to better our lives, we must create a steady food source, one on which we can depend. This philosophy can also be extended to the taming of wild beasts. Why do we pursue the cattle through mountains, plains, deserts? We must change, we should build cages, fences, enclosures, we can capture cattle, and raise them in our enclosed areas, they will carry on reproducing, which will ensure that we have yet another steady food source. If we can put the animals in these enclosures, we can nurture them, feed them, shelter them, they will thrive, we can then begin to govern our own food supply, we can begin to govern our numbers, we can determine our survival.
I mentioned earlier that we must begin our new, more stable lives by creating for ourselves more stable sources of food. This is how I propose that we life in a single place; we build our own shelters. We now resort to caves, trees and various other natural obstacles as protection from the biting winds or the glaring sun, we can, nay, we must change this if we are to flourish! We must construct shelter, we may begin by gathering grass, mud, and branches. Branches will serve as the foundation, mud and grass as reinforcement.
That, my friends, is how we begin our transformation. How though, must we conduct ourselves in this new world? Our philosophy will base itself around compassion. Are you not frightened by the prospect of losing those you most care for? Do you not think we should spare others from the same anguish? I propose that when we meet our kin in other tribes, we educate them, we tell them of our new ways, we teach them how life safely, protected from the elements, sheltered from starvation. My only regret is that we may not save them from the judgment of the spirits; I feel that this is worth explaining. Do we not know the approximate intensity of injuries that should result in death? Why, then, do so many of us suffer but a tiny wound, insignificant to most of us, only to fall into an enigmatic stupor, one from which none of us arouse. Why do the wounds, previously crimson, slowly become black and cursed? Why is it that the area surrounding the wound becomes pale, bloated, and eventually useless? Why do these people, in the period of a mere week, succumb to those strange symptoms, only to perish as suddenly as the symptoms arose? It is not a capability of the animal, for surely no beast is capable of such a monstrous feat, it is the will of the gods, we may not, we cannot interfere with such curses. I sincerely wish I knew of a way to save people from this ghastly fate, for surely if we somehow developed the capability to perform such miracles, it would be because, and only because, the spirits had willed it. It is not within our ability to cure people of such curses, we can cure them of starvation however. How many hundreds can we save by providing food to all? How many of you have bore children, only to watch them perish before they have lived but a week? How many of our brothers and sisters have died before they have had the chance to live? We can change this now, with our new philosophy of food production we can fulfill our ambitions, we can save our kin. I believe we should also spread our philosophy to all others that we find, we can save ourselves now, I believe that it would be the height of irresponsibility and immorality to keep this knowledge from others. If we keep this knowledge, we will be remembered as devils, selfish devils, demons whom discovered the secret to life, and kept it to themselves, what is far worse is that we will live forever, forever cursed with the burden of the world despising us, we will live as outcasts, forever alien, forever damned. We begin to act on our central precept of compassion by sharing our knowledge with all those around us. Will they despise us for this? No, they will love us, for who, short of the idiot, the villain, or the lunatic would refuse such knowledge? We can change the world, we must begin by changing our current way of life, the world will quickly follow.
I believe I am hearing the ramblings of discontent amongst you. “Is this not unnatural?” you say, “Isn’t this mindless extermination?” you ask. There comes a point, brothers and sisters, when we must ask ourselves a simple question; are we, or are we not a part of nature? If we are, it logically follows that, by definition, nothing we can do can be defined as “unnatural”. You seem to think that there is, perhaps, a law that we are breaking, a biological law. This could not be more false; we are as much a part of the biological community as any other creature that walks, crawls, swims or flies on this earth, our actions cannot be deemed unnatural unless we too are to be considered outside of the normal boundaries of nature. We will not be exterminating our competitors mindlessly. What we do is all that is required of us to survive. We need more food than our competitors, so we do what we must to assure our access to food. You may say that we mindlessly exterminate the jackals that try to steal our food source. We do not, we drive them away, we kill those that intrude upon our territories, but exterminate we do not. Is this any different from the lion killing the occasional hyena that intrudes upon it’s territory in search of a fresh kill? No, it is not, we obey the laws of nature just as well as any other creature.
As we are now on the topic of laws, there is a slight digression that I feel is necessary; we must discuss how we are to live. We live quite well at the moment, do we not? I feel that we have no real problems discerning whether or not our actions are moral. We do, however, need a standardized set of rules for governing our moral behaviour. Let me explain why; We live in relative peace and tranquility now, we all have a powerful sense of moral obligation to our fellows, we all possess human solidarity, that unspoken moral urge to think of the clan, not only of yourself. This does extremely well in governing our everyday lives, but I do believe we need a set of laws, standardizing our ethics and rules. We have no basis now to persecute one who has acted in a manner contrary to our expected morals, we cannot in good judgment and justice punish an individual who has killed another. If we standardize our morals in a code of laws, we have a safeguard against the occasional sociopath or psychopath who disregards all normal boundaries for ethical behaviour and acts in contempt of our expected standards, we will have a justifiable method to ascertain our natural rights to a peaceful existence. Allow me to provide you all with a hypothetical situation: A man becomes intoxicated from the fermented juices of a fruit, he becomes a problem, he begins to harass the other members of our tribe, therefore, we restrain him by tying him to a tree until he sobers up. He and his family rise up against us the next day, demanding retribution, declaring that we had no right to forcefully restrain him (regardless of what common sense dictates). We would then be faced with a rather difficult and fragile scenario would we not? If, however, we had a code of conduct dictating what we must do with those of us who become inebriated and potentially harmful, we would be in a clearly defined, morally justifiable position. We could show them our laws and the corresponding punishments, we would be out of such a tenuous position. That is but one amongst many possible scenarios where the standardization of laws becomes more than a prerogative, it becomes a necessity. This becomes even more necessary when we begin to incorporate notions of private property into our lives, I do not think I need to elaborate on that, common sense tells us that we need a guide to how to live, and logic tells us that we should make it standardized, and available to all, thereby eliminating the possibility of selective quotations and subjective punishments.
This, my brothers and sisters is how I propose that we begin to alter our lives, as well as the course of history. We begin by planting seeds and domesticating animals to create a stable, reliable food source. We then proceed by building our shelters to shield us from the elements. FInally, we create a constitution, a code of conduct, written by us all, upheld by us all, designed to ensure that our natural rights are protected. We must also try to better the lives of those around us, by spreading our knowledge, this will better their lives tenfold. This, comrades, is how we save ourselves, this is how we change our world forever.”
It has been many more years since that memorable day when I presented my tribe with my plan to change the world. I look around me now at the smiling faces, at the children playing in the stream, children that would have long ago starved had we not access to a steady food source. I look at the other tribesmen, happy in their knowledge that there will be food aplenty for their offspring, for their friends, for their family. I look at my brethren, content in their knowledge that their rights will be defended by our code of laws. I look around at all the happiness and joy around me, joy that would never have been had we continued to live as hunter-gatherers, smiles that would never have shone had we continued our old lifestyle, children that would never have lived had we not changed. My life is nearing to a close now, I can feel it in the weariness of my fragile frame, I am dying, not of starvation, but of old age, a rare way to die, most of us used to die of starvation, even now many of us die as a result of terrible afflictions, not I, I have lived a good life, a long life. I take pleasure in the fact that during my final days, when I sit outside the cave, under the colossal tree, I may look around at the tribe that I call my own, and manage to conjure a smile at the thought that the tribe, so much like the tree I sit under, will outlast me by far, will flourish, and will continue to do so for many years after I am gone and forgotten. I take a final look around, take my final breath, and close my eyes forever.
Fast Food Nation: A Review
To be completely honest, the movie Fast Food Nation left me feeling disappointed. I feel that the movie was clearly biased against fast food industries, and that the arguments from the movie lost considerable momentum as a result of the biased director. I have a sneaking suspicion however, that the book upon which the movie was based would be far more convincing than the movie itself, and that the arguments and accusations leveled against such fast food industries would be far better supported. I am extremely skeptical about the conditions of slaughterhouses as portrayed in that movie. I have trouble believing that the cows are eviscerated, disemboweled, and finally killed. Why on earth would any mentally stable person go through the trouble of torturing their bovine victims in such an elaborately gruesome manner? It is not in the farmer’s best interest to inflict as much pain as is humanly possible (an impression one would naturally get were he or she to only watch the movie Fast Food Nation), a farmer sees the cows as money, not victims, it is in a farmer’s best interest to simply be done with the business as quickly as possible; the cattle’s value is a monetary one, not an emotional one. Overall, I found that the most believable part in the movie was that there were incredibly high levels of feces in the pulverized hamburger meat (I do not know whether that says more about my skepticism or the movie’s believability). I feel that it always weakens a documentary considerably if it is clearly portrayed with a distinct bias towards one side. I shall remain skeptical until I am presented with unequivocal evidence that conditions in slaughterhouses are indeed as gruesome and gory as they were portrayed in Fast Food Nation. I shall refrain from believing until I am given proof that when one walks into a killing room he is “ankle deep in blood”.
Aside from the melodrama taking place in the slaughter house, the movie documented the lives of Mexican immigrants coming to the United States and trying to begin a new life. In my opinion, this was a far more interesting parallel plot to follow. The Mexicans’ tales brought to light many social issues associated with the risks of illegal immigration. The administration within the slaughterhouse was rife with corruption, the desperate measures to which the immigrants had to resort were, in my opinion, far more disturbing than any scene from the slaughterhouse. The mental anguish and familial tension illustrated by the immigrants’ tales were emotionally devastating, and were far more effective at tugging that the heartstrings of the audience.
Aside from the melodrama taking place in the slaughter house, the movie documented the lives of Mexican immigrants coming to the United States and trying to begin a new life. In my opinion, this was a far more interesting parallel plot to follow. The Mexicans’ tales brought to light many social issues associated with the risks of illegal immigration. The administration within the slaughterhouse was rife with corruption, the desperate measures to which the immigrants had to resort were, in my opinion, far more disturbing than any scene from the slaughterhouse. The mental anguish and familial tension illustrated by the immigrants’ tales were emotionally devastating, and were far more effective at tugging that the heartstrings of the audience.
Ethical Responsibilities
It should be unequivocally clear to all who consider the question of ethical responsibility being extended towards animals that it is tremendously important that we extend these rights towards our fellow inhabitants of the planet. When we realize that gap between us and other animals is far smaller than we had previously assumed, it logically follows that there will be a growing imperative to extend humane treatment towards animals. Literary critic and journalist Christopher Hitchens has a tendency to refer to people as “mammals”, which seems strange until you give it a moment’s thought. It is emotionally (and for some, intellectually) jarring to hear another one of our species being referred to as a mammal. It does detract somewhat from our ignorantly assumed and vigorously enforced position at the top of the zoological hierarchy when we hear one of our own being referred to as a mere mammal. After one spares a moment of thought to consider this question, there is nothing at all strange about it, we are mammals, we are animals, we are not very different from our cousins in the wild. I believe that it is an imperative that we extend certain ethical responsibilities towards certain groups of animals. It seems that the gap between “us” and “animal” is simply a gap of the mind (I use the term literally), all that separates us from other animals is the fact that we have more advanced cognitive capabilities, which is a result in a large brain size relative to our body size (vocal mechanics also play a role in our separation from animals, as they provide the means to proliferate information). When we recognize the sheer number of similarities between ourselves and other animals (we have an unfortunate tendency to focus on the very few differences) it becomes very clear that our commonly excepted notion of ethical treatment towards humans must be extended to other animals. It is becoming increasingly clear that characteristics we once assumed were uniquely human are exhibited in our primate cousins. Chimpanzees have been demonstrated to be capable of emotions, even of violence that mirrors our own behaviour (hopefully they will never reach the sorry state we have reached). Examples of such behaviour can be easily found through internet searches for videos of chimpanzees, such videos have become increasingly more accessible since Jane Goodall’s fervent advocating of chimpanzee rights.
Revelations
We recently watched “The Gods Must be Crazy” in Global Ethics class. The purpose of this was to attempt to draw connections between materials in the movie and the ideas discussed in Ishmael. I feel that the first sequence of scenes were the most telling of all; they demonstrated a distinct parallel between taker life and leaver life. They analyzed taker life-style simply by describing a single day in the life of a taker, “you begin your day...you then re-adapt yourself to a work environment... you look busy... you take a break... you look busy...” etc. This can hardly be described as a serious effort to dismantle taker life, yet it results in a “reductio ad absurdum” of taker culture, it breaks taker culture down by exposing the absurdity of certain elements. As a stunning contrast to the bustling cacophony that is taker culture, leaver life is depicted by the film as being tribal, placid, harmonious, nearly as paradise, where the notion of private ownership is unknown, where nobody hurts anybody else. I disagree with this view, I’d argue that the notion of the “noble savage” is naive and false. Were one to accept this tenuous proposition, one would need to (at the very least) suggest that violence was less wide-spread in those societies than it is now; this could not be farther from the truth. Lawrence Keeley conducted tests in the New Guinea highlands, and he found that the chance of dying as a result of homicide ranged from 15%-60% in foraging hunter-gatherer societies, while the United States and Europe had barely a 5% chance, including both world wars. This suggests that leaver life is not nearly as idillic as it is made out to be. I’d argue that Daniel Quinn is wrong in his interjection that only takers systematically eliminate their enemies. Takers, unless I am mistaken, are those who exempt themselves from the biological law and endow themselves with the false knowledge of who shall live and who shall die, they are also the only people who systematically eliminate their immediate competitors. There is an inconsistency here; the leaver tribes of the New Guinea Highlands seem to, by all accounts, eliminate their competitors to secure food sources, they even go the extra mile and eliminate some of them completely to prevent future troubles with rival tribes, yet we have no problem calling these people leavers. I do not think that leaver life is quite as good as Daniel Quinn makes it out to be. I am not in any way advocating taker life-style, I am simply saying that there is a slightly disingenuous (or perhaps ignorant) misinterpretation of leaver lifestyle, which, I feel, must be discussed. The next pivotal scene was when the terrorists attempted to assassinate the prime minister, it demonstrated with crystalline clarity how catastrophic group-psychology can be when coupled with terrible taker technology. Here we have a human social conflict (I will not exempt leavers from this type of violence) which comes down to competition for resources, once you wade through all the mundane politics, the true source of this violence is trying to survive in a world full of competitors, which has been transformed into a calamity of diabolical proportions by the technological revolution of the takers. This scene decisively showed how, beneath all the inanities and inconveniences of taker life, there lurks a hidden danger, one that has been exacerbated tremendously by the application of 20th century weaponry. I feel that those are the two key connections to make between Ishmael and “The Gods Must be Crazy”, those two sections, though initially appearing to be satyrical, light-hearted fun, held tremendous symbolic value. Those two scenes demonstrates two things: 1.) The stark contrasts between taker and leaver culture. 2.) Leavers and takers face similar problems, takers simply cause a greater impact due to technological advancements.
The Diversity of Life
We spent a good portion of our last class individually coming up with ideas as to the definition of the biological law to which Ishmael was hinting. We seemed to reach a general consensus as to the nature of this law, that each species (us excluded) only takes what is necessary to survive. I found myself agreeing with most of my classmates' sentiments, save for one comment, that mother culture tells us that we are exempt from the concept of "survival of the fittest", that we are told by mother culture that we are separate from other species, I found myself immediately disagreeing with that assumption. Mother culture does not tell us that we are separate from this concept, I'd argue that it is quite the opposite, Mother Culture tells us that we are included, that we are a part of the law just like any other species, that it is our divine right to seize the reins of nature and reap the benefits of biological domination (indeed, why should we not? We are, after all, assumed to be the fittest.). Mother culture manipulates the idea of "Survival of the fittest", it twists, warps, mutilates this concept into the self-gratifying, arrogant piffle that flows through the propaganda-clogged pipelines that we call mass-media, it manipulates the concept into a heavenly mandate to do as we please with the world we dominate. Needless to say, such assumptions have been proven unequivocally false. I found many aspects of the reading fascinating, they reminded me of my independent studies into basic ecology and evolutionary biology. I am very interested by the idea of a food chain, and that fluctuations at a certain level could cause extreme ramifications at another level. Ishmael's lesson about diversity was ironically the least foreign (yet simultaneously the most interesting) concept in the book so far. I'd done studies about diversity before, about generalized species as opposed to specialized ones, about the diversity of life forming a "back-up plan" so to speak, that a wide range of ecological niches (or, more specifically, the filling of those niches) nearly guarantees life's survival, as most global catastrophes are not destructive enough to wipe out all life on Earth. The resilient nature of the biological community relies upon its diversity, anything that lessens the diversity of life lessens the chances that life will withstand an apocalyptic calamity. Take the Burgess Shale community for example, we have a perfect example of a diverse biological community (a community, Stephen J Gould would have argued, more diverse than that of all life on Earth today), there was, most likely, a landslide in the mountains overlooking the marine Burgess Shale community, this will serve as a global catastrophe for the purpose of this example, yet one creature, a seemingly insignificant worm by the name of Pikaia survived, and gave rise to the phylum we know today as Chordata. The diversity within that community was such that a single calamity was not enough to totally extinguish the spark of life. Life survives, that is its law, life continues, propagates, radiates, from submerged volcanic vents to the perishing tundras of the Arctic, ever resilient, that glorious flame, sometimes diminished, but never extinguished.
Reflections on Goodall
The central point of Goodall's speech can be summarized thusly: "Humans and chimpanzees are not that different.". Ishmael communicates essentially the same message as Jane Goodall, they both provide alternative perspectives, each one powerfully demonstrating the fact that humans are not nearly as distinct from other animals as we'd assumed, that we are indeed just another species with the vocalization mechanisms. Jane Goodall provides us with countless examples of Chimpanzee intelligence and culture, ranging from tool-usage to self-awareness, from embracing to sign language, to clearly illustrate how similar we are. Ishmael tries to impart the same fact to the reader, but from a different perspective, he uses analogous tales from other organisms to show that any creature will automatically make the erroneous assumption that it holds the prestigious position of the pinnacle of existence. Jane Goodall gave many examples of positive chimpanzee behaviour, I would like to provide a couple of examples of cruelty and brutality within chimpanzee troupes, because I think they highlight the fact that we are not so different after all, that many of our negative traits are mirrored in our primate cousins. Chimpanzees have been observed performing tasks such as group-hunting monkeys, where complex group-dynamics such as baiting and trapping are utilized to flush monkeys out of trees. Chimpanzees have also been observed performing murder (the purposeful killing of another member of a group), torture (this was recorded when a young chimpanzee male wandered into another group's territory, the male was subsequently pinned down by 4 other chimpanzees whilst the others proceeded to beat him), and even rudimentary war (this was observed after a schism within a chimpanzee group occurred, and both groups were competing for territory). These traits which we previously assumed were innately and uniquely human are now being observed in other species, forcing us to quickly reevaluate our self-declared position at the top of the biological hierarchy.
Goodall then proceeds to explain the ways we have manipulated and destroyed our environment (I use the word "our" very carefully, the range of possession is not restricted to humans, but is extended to the community of life, which includes chimpanzees), with disastrous consequences. As long as we maintain the chauvinistic belief that we are somehow distinct from other animals, that we are conquistadors of the world, that the world is, as Ishmael so aptly describes, a giant life-support system for the human race, we will continue using it as such, we will continue to enact the story of anthropocentrism, we will continue to consume resources until we eventually, inevitably drive ourselves (and probably a large number of other large mammalian species) to extinction. Jane Goodall illustrates our anthropocentric beliefs by saying that we have used and abused other sentient beings, which should force us to feel shame and guilt. Recent research is forcing us to change our prior belief that humans are different from other species, this recently blurred line between humans and other animals is propelling a new movement; Great Ape Personhood, which proposes to extend legal and moral rights to great apes. This movement is staunchly advocated by Jane Goodall herself, and Richard Dawkins. Speciesism is a powerful description of our previous views on animals, it is high time that we reevaluate those views, we have, throughout history, struggled so passionately against sexism, racism, and other forms of discrimination, the time has come for us to fight against animal discrimination.
The third similarity between Goodall and Ishmael is the form of their pleas for help. Their cries for help are designed to educate people, to provide examples of human brutality, human stupidity, human fallacy. They both accept and understand that the central problem facing humanity (as well as life as a whole) is human arrogance, that we somehow believe that we are the destined rulers of the world. They both seek to demolish this belief, which they see as one of the fundamental causes of biological and environmental abuse. Jane Goodall aimed her message at all who would listen, and doubtlessly imparted it in the Roots and Shoots programme, while Ishmael sought to reeducate a single individual by forcing the listener to analyze Mother Culture's teachings from a neutral perspective, both work incredibly well. Great teachers and brilliant thinkers world-wide understand that the best way to change the world is to educate, our problems are caused by our ignorance, the more we illuminate the vast, dark room of the unknown, the more we begin to understand about the world, the more we begin to make a difference. Al Gore, Richard Dawkins, Jane Goodall, Ishmael, they all seek to change the world through education, each one fighting tooth and nail to eradicate ignorance, to create environmental and biological awareness, each one enacting their own story of hope for life on earth, each one slowly being heard, each one making a difference.
Goodall then proceeds to explain the ways we have manipulated and destroyed our environment (I use the word "our" very carefully, the range of possession is not restricted to humans, but is extended to the community of life, which includes chimpanzees), with disastrous consequences. As long as we maintain the chauvinistic belief that we are somehow distinct from other animals, that we are conquistadors of the world, that the world is, as Ishmael so aptly describes, a giant life-support system for the human race, we will continue using it as such, we will continue to enact the story of anthropocentrism, we will continue to consume resources until we eventually, inevitably drive ourselves (and probably a large number of other large mammalian species) to extinction. Jane Goodall illustrates our anthropocentric beliefs by saying that we have used and abused other sentient beings, which should force us to feel shame and guilt. Recent research is forcing us to change our prior belief that humans are different from other species, this recently blurred line between humans and other animals is propelling a new movement; Great Ape Personhood, which proposes to extend legal and moral rights to great apes. This movement is staunchly advocated by Jane Goodall herself, and Richard Dawkins. Speciesism is a powerful description of our previous views on animals, it is high time that we reevaluate those views, we have, throughout history, struggled so passionately against sexism, racism, and other forms of discrimination, the time has come for us to fight against animal discrimination.
The third similarity between Goodall and Ishmael is the form of their pleas for help. Their cries for help are designed to educate people, to provide examples of human brutality, human stupidity, human fallacy. They both accept and understand that the central problem facing humanity (as well as life as a whole) is human arrogance, that we somehow believe that we are the destined rulers of the world. They both seek to demolish this belief, which they see as one of the fundamental causes of biological and environmental abuse. Jane Goodall aimed her message at all who would listen, and doubtlessly imparted it in the Roots and Shoots programme, while Ishmael sought to reeducate a single individual by forcing the listener to analyze Mother Culture's teachings from a neutral perspective, both work incredibly well. Great teachers and brilliant thinkers world-wide understand that the best way to change the world is to educate, our problems are caused by our ignorance, the more we illuminate the vast, dark room of the unknown, the more we begin to understand about the world, the more we begin to make a difference. Al Gore, Richard Dawkins, Jane Goodall, Ishmael, they all seek to change the world through education, each one fighting tooth and nail to eradicate ignorance, to create environmental and biological awareness, each one enacting their own story of hope for life on earth, each one slowly being heard, each one making a difference.
Reflections on Wal-Mart
I must begin by admitting that I approached the video “Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price” with a critical, analytical eye. The day before watching this movie in class, I’d watched Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11”, and, quite contrary to my first viewing of the movie in 7th grade, come out disappointed and saddened. I drew many connections between the Wal-Mart video and Fahrenheit 9/11, they are both stellar examples of polished persuasion. I cannot be as scathing about the subject of the Wal-Mart video as I am about Fahrenheit 9/11, the Wal-Mart video is definitely an improvement on Moore’s manipulation of facts and down-right lying, the Wal-Mart video does not make grandiose claims, as did Michael Moore, it is simply a collection of various interviews and video clips. I did, however, think that prior to the section on environmental hazards, the Wal-Mart video could aptly be described as a propaganda movie. The interviews were specifically selected to present a single side of the story, I have trouble believing that there was not a single good thing to say about Wal-Mart prior to the section about environmental ramifications of Wal-Mart’s products. I also noticed an abundance of American flags during the section preceding the environmental issues part, perhaps to tug at the heartstrings of patriotic Americans in defense of home-grown businesses (flowing flags outside home-businesses were in stark contrast to a twisted, tangled American flag captured in a video clip outside a Wal-Mart shop). I feel that this movie had the potential to be so much more powerful than it actually was, if the movie had included some positive aspects of Wal-Mart, anything to provide a short break from the constant barrage of dissatisfied workers and upset locals, it would give the viewer a sense that another side was at the very least presented. The style of the movie, where the viewer is constantly showed clips of complaining workers, leaves the viewer wondering whether or not there is another side to the story, for it is very hard to believe that a corporation such as wal-mart, a global economical super-power has absolutely nothing good about it (yet no such positive side was shown in the movie). One aspect of the movie that I felt really damaged the credulity of the movie was the ad hominem attacks on the family of the Wal-Mart owners. What they choose to do with their money is their business, implying that they should donate to charity is all good and well, but it is opinion-driven argument, again designed to play on emotions and tug at heartstrings. I felt that this really damaged the believability of the movie, the personal attacks on the owners of the Wal-Mart corporation. You may disagree with a person’s utilization of their finances, but ultimately what they do with their money is their choice, they are not legally obliged to donate to charity, and to include allegations of a family’s selfishness and capitalism is a very low blow, one the ultimately damages the integrity of the film-maker. There was also a section devoted to tying crime rates to Wal-Mart parking lots. I think that this section was based on rather tortuous grounds, are the owners of Wal-Mart truly to blame for this? Is a dimly lit car park not an inviting scene for criminals and thieves? If we are to blame Wal-Mart for crime rates within their parking lots, I feel that we should begin to blame city councils for crime rates within government-owned parks, surely the crime rates within parks would also drop to a very low percentile. I think that this is based on rather shaky ground, the video was blaming Wal-Mart for the criminal actions that took place within parking lots, instead of blaming the criminals and perpetrators themselves. During a sequence where the movie-maker showed us a scrolling list of crimes in Wal-Mart car parks, I noticed that some of them were not nearly as violent as the film had lead the viewer to believe, with cases such as petty theft and indecent exposure. Having said all this, I think that one part of the movie was far more effective than the rest: the environmental ramifications. This is where the movie dealt with cold, hard facts, and this is where the film was most persuasive to a logical viewer. Overall, I felt that the movie could have been far more powerful had it been changed slightly to stop it from feeling like a propaganda movie.
The Fallacy of True Belief
We began our class today by researching Jim Jones, and Heaven’s Gate, then proceeded to watch videos about each of these religious movements. The entire experience left me with a bitter taste in my mouth, one that could most accurately be described as anger. We have deluded ourselves into a self-destructive system, and hardly any of us see it. We all watch videos of cults preying upon the depressed, the poor, the mistreated, and we condemn these cultists as being insidious and inherently harmful. We all hear their beliefs, that committing suicide during a specific period of celestial alignment will result in the transcendental transportation of a person to a spaceship, to join other believers in a blissful new life, and we automatically consider such beliefs nonsense, and such believers insane. Why is this? Are doctrines of transubstantiation any less insane? The virgin birth, vicarious sacrifice, heaven, resurrection, 72 virgins in the afterlife, transubstantiation; are these any less crazy? I would argue that they are no less nonsensical than any other religious system, indeed, were we to judge the consequences of such beliefs on a moral basis, I would say that the core values of the largest monotheistic religions are far more harmful. The people in the Heaven’s Gate cult, or the People’s Temple, deluded as they were, insane as they were, pathetic as they were, did not kill other people in the process of killing themselves, we cannot say the same of Islam. Christianity also fails on moral grounds, is it moral to tell a child that if he does not live according to a specific doctrine, he will be cast into everlasting flame? Is it moral to believe that one man’s anguished death in ancient Palestine is enough to rid mankind of sins? Is it moral to believe that you can rid yourself of your responsibilities by another man’s suffering? I would consider such beliefs just as ludicrous as various cult beliefs, and far more damaging. We all, religious and secular alike, watched the cult videos through critical lenses, religious people have no problems analyzing the various fallacies of other religions, nobody other than Heaven’s Gate cultists has any trouble dismissing such beliefs as ridiculous and harmful, yet the religious cannot examine their own beliefs through such an analytical perspective. I consider this hypocrisy, it is harmful hypocrisy, countless people every day perish as a result of such dogmatic doctrines, we need to reevaluate our beliefs on spirituality before it is too late.
Sunday 2 March 2008
Cognitive Dissidence
What people probably do not realize is that at heart, I agree with the claim that we have an ethical responsibility towards animals. We have done away with cultural and racial discrimination, I feel that the next logical step is to dissolve our tendencies towards species discrimination. I purposefully disagree with the many of the claims asserted in our global ethics course because debate and argument forces our discussions to attain new levels of intellectual discovery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)