Much of our day to day lives revolve around working to fit in with society. Our culture, interactions and government provide rules which we must follow in order to remain a member of society and reap the rewards of being part of it. Furthermore, some believe that this connection to society leads to issues with human behavior and interaction. To truly understand how humans behave, we must figure out which of our traits we are born with and which ones are the product of our societies. Thomas Hobbes’ “Leviathan” and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “The Discourse on the Origins of Inequality” both provide theories as to the origins of human social structures as well as how they affect our human nature.
Hobbes and Rousseau both make contrasting claims regarding the basic nature of humans in the absence of any social order. Hobbes’ argues that humans are born solitary and self interested, void of any moral inclinations. By establishing that humans are all more or less equal in terms of our skills and abilities, Hobbes derives the basic sources of human conflict. One source is competition, which results from a limited resource desired by two individuals. “If any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies,” he explains. Two individuals engaged in conflict while in their natural state will suspend their isolative tendencies and use their mental and physical abilities to gain a favorable outcome. Hobbes also explains diffidence, which comes from humans’ ability to relate to the emotions of others. We understand our own capacity for self-interested action, so it is easy for us to project this onto others. We recognize that others are unlikely to help us if it does not serve their self interest, therefore it is difficult to establish trust with others. Finally, we have a natural tendency to prove to others that we are at minimum their equal, if not greater than them. This attribute can be used to describe many actions that do not appear to be self interested. If a man knows that others are donating to charity, he too my donate to show that he has the abilities and resources to donate as well. He may even give a significantly larger donation to show that he is better at managing his self interests than others, to the extent that he can afford to give this kind of money. These conflicts, Hobbes argues, are what drive humans to form governments and social orders.
Rousseau also offers her views on the behavior of humans in their natural state, although her view is notably different than Hobbes. While Rousseau may accept that Hobbes’ ideas may represent a modern human, he believes this is humans in an “artificial” state created by society, and that the natural state is much different. He claims man in his natural state only strives basic needs and will be content once those needs are met. Modern humans are constantly struggling to make more and more money, even once their basic needs are met. Rousseau would claim that this is simply the result of our society training us to constantly want more. Additionally, Rousseau asserts that humans are naturally sympathetic to the suffering of other living beings and have moral issues with the suffering of others. This is sharply different from Hobbes’ views that humans are solely self interested. Rousseau believes have been changed by the social orders we live in to lose some of these attributes like pity for others. He claims this social structure allows us to rationalize the suffering of others, escaping us from the burden of feeling pity towards others. For example, one might see an injured man on the ground, but avoid the pity towards him by rationalizing that they did not hurt the man, or that it is the government's responsibility to provide medical services to him. Rousseau provides other problems that social structure has caused, such as the constant desire for wealth and property. He goes as far as to state that the type of human relationships we have are only the product of society training us to treat others like resources to acquire. He believes in the natural state, our interactions would be much more transient with long term relations not existing.
Given the natural state of humans as described by Hobbes and Rousseau, humanity has developed social structures and governments to serve the mutual benefit of men. The development of social structures can be imagined as two natural individuals each possessing a resource the other desires. They wish to make a deal to exchange resources, but can not trust that the other person will not lie and act in their own self interest. However, a higher social power, such as a government, could oversee the deal and enforce the execution of the promises made. This would be the ideal government to Hobbes, one dedicated to enforcing contracts between individuals. By forming this type of social system, the men would no longer have the total freedom they would in their natural state. Hobbes believes man can justify this loss of freedom as a means of gaining the protection and order of a governed society.
While learning about Hobbes and Rousseau’s ideas regarding the natural state of humans and the development of societies, I couldn’t help but think of how modern biology and anthropology could shed more light on this topic. Thomas Hobbes’ “Leviathan” was written in 1651 and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “Discourse on Inequality” was written in 1754. Over 100 years later, in 1859, Charles Darwin would publish “On the Origin of Species”, the famous piece describing the ideas of evolution and natural selection. These ideas can be used to expand, and in some cases reject, the ideas of Hobbes and Rousseau. The key idea of evolution is that the attributes of all animals have developed as a way to help the animal survive until the point in which they can reproduce. While Rousseau believes that humans will naturally feel pity for a fellow man who is suffering, there is little reason for a solitary man to relate to others from an evolutionary point of view. Compassion for others develops only when there is a social structure to provide mutual benefit for helping others. Modern evolutionary theories tend to support Hobbes’ ideas more than Rousseau's, as self-interested action is more likely to lead to successful reproduction than compassionate action. Hobbes and Rousseau provide thoughtful explanations for the foundations and problems with modern societies, however modern science should not be ignored when describing the basic nature of humans.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Monday, July 30, 2012
Kant's Views on Attaining Enlightenment
For centuries, governments have struggled to reach the correct balance freedom and regulation for a society to be best suited. Some believe that strong civil liberties allow people to freely express themselves and make the best decisions based on their decisions. Others believe governments should regulate “bad” behavior to keep people on the correct path. In “What is Enlightenment?”, Immanuel Kant provides his views on how to best balance these two ideas to attain “enlightenment”.
Kant defines enlightenment as the ability to use and act upon one’s own rationality. He states that the main reason people are often unable to do this is the fact that they lack the courage to make their own decisions. It is often easy to allow society to take control of the way we act and think, preventing us from making our own decisions. This “laziness” is understandable, as the human instinct is to avoid unnecessary pain. The full use of reason requires practice in order to be fully developed. Kant even goes as far as to state that conflict is necessary for reason to develop, which is also understandably avoided. However Kant describes these as individuals to reach enlightenment and for societies to truly flourish.
Established religion is used as a strong example in “What is Enlightenment?” as an example of a societal lack of critical thinking. In a church, individuals attend ceremonies in which a pastor describes how they should be thinking. Rather than deriving morals and ethics from rational thinking, they allow themselves to mirror the mindset of the other members of their church. Furthermore, Kant explains how the pastor himself must also suspend his critical thinking. As a pastor, he is “bound to instruct his catecumens and congregation in accordance with the symbol of the church he serves, for he was appointed on that condition.” The pastor may use his critical thinking to find errors with these lessons, however he will not pass on this information to his congregation, as it is not his job to do so. With a congregation blindly following a pastor and a pastor blindly following his religious teachings, churches exemplify Kant’s idea of laziness. By relying on others for these ideas, individuals avoid burdensome thought, however they also avoid the increased understanding that would come from thinking about these issues.
Despite Kant’s calls for greater rational thinking, he does not believe that total freedom will lead to enlightenment. In describing an enlightened society, Kant separates public freedom from private freedom. He views the current climate as one in which people are told to refrain from arguing and just obey. Kant believes it is still required for people to obey the rules of their society in order for it to work properly, but that argument should be encouraged, or in his words "argue as much as you want and about what you want, but obey!". Public freedom is the ability to argue and think rationally in an open and free manner. This is the only way that the public can truly strive towards enlightenment. However, there would be no issue restricting private freedom, which would be viewed as obeying the rules necessary for a smooth running society. An example of this contrast would be an individual publicly decrying a supposed unfair taxation, while continuing to pay the tax. This allows individuals to strive towards enlightenment without disrupting the workings of a society.
When comparing the work of Kant to those of other philosophers, it is notably more realistic than some. The idea of maintaining order by restricting private use of reason shows Kant is less concerned with a overhaul of existing laws, simply a change in the way we think. Additionally, “What is Enlightenment?” reinforces the idea that quick revolutions are uneffective at helping people reach enlightenment, changes are only made through slow changes in thought. However, there are instances in which restricting private reason and focusing on slow changes would lead to problematic outcomes. Throughout American history, blacks have faced discrimination not only through the ideas of individuals, but even through discriminatory laws. Kant’s view of a situation like slavery or the African American civil rights movement would likely have been that rational thinking would slowly lead to a time in which slaves are freed or blacks are given equal rights. However these slow changes would have kept blacks enslaved or repressed until the full transformation was complete. The freeing of the slaves or the civil rights laws would be seen as breaking the restrictions on private reason. Kant’s ideas lay a good ground for a society in which people freely share ideas and think critically, however there are some extreme cases in which these ideas do not hold up.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Essay on Aristotle's "The Nicomachean Ethics"
One of the defining features of humans is our self awareness and free will. These attributes often lead us to believe we are in total control of our actions and character. However, in “The Nicomachean Ethics”, Aristotle argues that individuals are the product of their environments, with their values and ethics shaped by the society in which they live in. Furthermore, he explains that our adherence to these principles is dependent on our upbringing.
One of the key points of Aristotle’s thesis is that the character of a human is dependent on the society in which they live. From the day we are born, we are constantly being trained on the types of behaviors that our society views as correct.We can explain the social forces that mold an individual as a current. When an individual conforms to social norms, they move smoothly along the path set out by society. However, one who deviates from the pattern set by society will be met with resistance and struggle. Aristotle breaks the virtues that we learn into two categories: intellectual virtues and moral virtues. Intellectual virtues are explicitly instructed to us, and requires “experience and time” for us to learn them. However, moral virtues are learned through experience. We first experience these virtues by observing them in others, and acquire them by practice and repetition. It important that humans learn these virtues at a young age, as the older one gets, the more they become resistant to changes in their virtues, and Aristotle argues that virtues are not something that can not simply be consciously changed.
In addition to explaining where humans attain their virtues from, Aristotle also explains what makes different behaviors “virtuous”. First of all, an individual must have full awareness of the action they are taking and it’s expected outcome. The person must then deliberately chose to take a virtuous action, rather than have that action forced upon them or happen out of habit. Accidentally helping out someone else would not be viewed as virtuous because the person did not intend or expect to be helpful. Finally, the action taken by the individual must be taken in following their “own firm and immutable character.” Many small children act correctly under their parents’ watch, but this does not make their actions virtuous. The drive to take virtuous actions must be a part of the person’s character. However, Aristotle does make clear that the character of a person is based on their actions rather than their emotions, stating “for we are not called good or bad for our emotions but for our virtues or vices.” In following with the idea that the basic human goal is to seek pleasure and avoid pain, Aristotle notes that we can use these ideas to measure how strong one’s moral virtues are. An individual who has been trained well with moral virtues should experience pleasure for doing the right types of things and pain for doing the wrong types of things. While Aristotle expresses criteria for the types of behaviors we can identify as virtuous, he is clear to state that these virtues are not part of humans by nature, “for nothing that exists by nature can be transformed by habit,” as he says.
The result of this training of an individual is what Aristotle calls “Prudence”. Prudence is the ability of an individual to recognize the correct course of action and make it. Virtuous people must be able to analyze a given situation and rationally conclude the correct course of action to be taken. To act in accordance with what society deems is virtuous behavior, Aristotle explains that actions must fall into the mean, “which is equally distinct from both its extremes.” This means that actions should not be too excessive, nor insufficient. For example, when someone is in the threat of physical harm, a virtuous person should aid them rather than choose inaction. However, it would be foolish for that person to place themself in a situation where they too are at risk of physical injury. Prudence should tell the person to act according to the mean of the situation and safely help the person.
After reading these select portions of “The Nicomachean Ethics”, it is clear that the social forces described by Aristotle are very much a driving factor of today’s society. While humans do have some generic traits expressed by all, much of the character of a person can be seen as coming from the environment that they come from. Additionally, many people present themselves and even pride themselves on taking a firm stance on their values. For example, many people see themselves as always honest, always helpful or always brave. However, the actions of these people will then show them taking the mean course of action. Humans are social beings, and Aristotle’s writings help show us the way society sculpts and molds who we are as people.
Friday, June 1, 2012
Analysis of Bruno Latour’s "Where are the Missing Masses?”
As humans, we like to perceive ourselves as in control of our environment. We have free will and can make use of technology at our own discretion to help alleviate our problems and issues. However, some would argue that technology plays such a major role in our lives, that it is in control of us. Bruno Latour’s "Where are the Missing Masses?” argues that we must consider “nonhumans” when analyzing the social structure of society. Technologies contain the ideas and morals of their creator, and these ideas are passed on to us as we attempt to learn how to make technology a part of our lives.
The idea that technology is in control of us may seem counter-intuitive at first. Technology is built by humans to serve a purpose, in a way that asserts our control of physics, natural resources and engineering. However, technologies are only effective when used in the proper manner. Latour cites doors as an example of these ideas; doors serve the purpose of a temporary wall, however they will not function correctly if one walks straight into a door. Through conditioning, we to twist the door nob then push before passing through a doorway. Technologies “teach” us through our attempts to use them, and this develops in to parts of our personality. Nobody tries to push doors that have knobs, the doors have trained us not to. Some personality traits are more subtle than turning a door knob, such as frequently checking a cell phone for new text messages or emails. Whether good or bad, it is hard to miss the fact that much of our lives are controlled by the technology around us.
One of Latour’s main claims in his paper is that technology should be analyzed in a similar fashion to humans when developing a social theory. When a person interacts with a second person, we can describe this as “using” that person. They may be using the other person for advise and assistance, or simply entertainment and social interaction. However, people are more likely to interact with those who they know personally, this can be described as interacting with those that they know how to use. This relationship is very similar to a human interacting with technology. Just as a person would be uncomfortable talking to a stranger that they don’t know how to “use”, people approach new technological devices with caution. They slowly gain comfort and develop a relationship with that object until they can easily use that object. In fact, a recent study shows that being shown one’s cell phone causes similar brain activity to being shown a close friend or family member (Lindstrom). We are all familiar with basic social guidelines, such as people will respond better to communication if it is in a kind and friendly manner. Technologies all have similar guidelines that we learn to follow as well, such as a cell phone will respond better to attempts to communicate if it is near a window or outside. When looking at the social frameworks that hold our society together, it is important that we look at the relationships between humans and technology as well as the relationships between humans.
Latour’s view of technology revolves around the idea of displacing our actions on to technology. When an engineer builds or designs a product, they have a set of ideas about how this new product should work, what it should do, and how people should use it. This new product now contains those ideas within it, people will forever have to learn the ideas of this engineer in order to extract the benefit of using his product. The advantage is, of course, that this product also displaces the work required to preform a task. For example, someone attempting to use a power drill is looking to displace the work required to create a hole in an object. However, the engineer of this drill has given it some new requirements, such as providing electrical power to the drill, holding the pistol grip of it, and squeezing the trigger. To someone accustomed to using a hand drill, this new drill removes the problem of strenuous cranking to drill a hole. However, the operator of the drill must become comfortable with the requirements imposed by the drill’s engineer such as finding a source of electricity and holding the drill correctly. Every problem solved by technology creates new problems associated with using that technology.
With the large amount of control that technology has on our lives, we can wonder whether we can consider these devices as having human characteristics. Latour points three reasons why we can characterize some technologies as anthropomorphic. First, technologies are the product of human designers and are made up of the ideas of their creator. Second, these products replace humans at preforming a task so that humans are no longer required. Third, these technologies shape our mind and relationships with the world around us. Latour lists those characteristics while referring to a door closer, however they an be applied to any type of object or technology. Latour continues by comparing technologies to written text. While writing is not a living being, it expresses ideas, opinions and the characteristics of the author. Just as a book can convince you to act in a different way, technology expresses the ideas of it’s creator, teaching you to act in a different way. If we can accept writing as anthropomorphic, than the same principle can be applied to technology.
Unlike earlier philosophers, Latour’s goal is not to express the benefits or problems with technology or our relationship with it. “Where Are The Missing Masses?” is intended to present the reader with a new way of understanding social relationships and accounting for the different aspects that play a role in our lives. Technologies are the product of men, and Latour shows us that these technologies contains the ideas and attributes of the men who made them. Only when we accept the way technologies can affect us can we fully understand how our society functions.
Works Cited
Lindstrom, Martin. "You Love Your IPhone. Literally." The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 30 Sept. 2011. Web. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/opinion/you-love-your-iphone-literally.html>.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Analysis of Habermas' "Technology and Science as Ideology"
Do humans use technology, or does technology use us? Does technology allow us to reach into the future, or does it constrain us to the social order. These ideas are central to Jürgen Habermas’ piece “Technology and Science as Ideology.” In this essay, Habermas criticizes Herbert Marcuse’s ideas that technology corrupts our idea of what we need to do to succeed and makes us resistant to social change. Rather, Habermas states that technology is the natural method of outsourcing our tasks that has been universally growing for all of history. Habermas divides our interactions with technology into purpose driven and culturally driven actions. Unlike Marcuse, Habermas believes our problems are not with our relationship with technology, but rather which parts of that relationship we put more emphasis on.
Marcuse’s “One Dimensional Man” portrays technology as a tool used to maintain social order in a society. While there are many instances in which technology appears to be forcing us to conform to society, technology is more a reflection of society than a unique aspect that can be changed. To illustrate this idea, we can compare the ideas of technology and government. Governments are tools built to solve problems, however they are built on the ideas of people and can freely adjust itself. However, technology is not a human institution but rather an organic progression of our means to solve problems. Governments tend to be tightly connected to the culture in which they govern, new alternative governments rise once they become too disconnected. Habermas points out that, unlike government, we can not connect technology to social projects because there is no alternative to a world with technology. Technology will always remain a major part of society and our relationship with technology will only change as our culture changes around it.
Throughout history technology has evolved to match the challenges faced by humans. Just like early humans used technology as a method of solving their primitive problems like heat and shelter, we continue to develop and use technology to solve our modern problems like communication and transportation. Technology allows humans to extend our natural capabilities to be more efficient and successful. For example, a farmer can work his crops by hand, but using a plow allows him to outsource that task to technology. Humans can easily communicate verbally, but by handing the process of communication to technology, we can communicate at far greater distances. Therefore, technology can not necessarily be connected to it’s historical and political context, as it is human nature to try to preform our necessary tasks with as little effort as possible. Furthermore, Habermas finds issue with Marcuse’s claim that modern technology is always part of a system of repression.
To explain the ways in which we interact with technology in a modern society, Habermas draws a distinction between work and interaction. Work is actions made to accomplish a task and is “governed by technical rules based on empirical knowledge.” Interaction is is actions that allow us to connect to our environment and engage on a social and political level. Interaction less efficient, as it is not centered around rational, purpose driven action, but rather adherence to the social norms. A “traditional society”, as defined by Habermas, is one in which interaction is the dominating force. These societies are constructed around “developed technologies” and work remains an important force in sustaining the society, but remain grounded in traditional values.
Unlike traditional societies, capitalist societies do not feature interaction as the dominant force. “Capitalism is the first mode of production in world history to institutionalize self-sustaining economic growth,” explains Habermas, which is an attribute that is both very helpful but also causes many problems. Capitalism leads to an extremely fast rate of economic growth, which can increase living conditions and lead to a more prosperous country. However, Habermas explains that the problem is that this growth is unconstrained and constantly increasing, leading work to become the dominating force of the society. No longer is work part of the subsystem of the society, work becomes the driving force in the society. This means that interaction becomes less important, and many of the social and cultural attributes of society fall apart. As an example, Habermas discusses the modern protester. Protesters should tend to be oppressed minorities, such as lower-class and poor citizens, however modern protesters are typically made up of privileged college students. In our society, those who actually have legitimate issues to fight for are swept away by the capitalist system, leaving only college students with significant resources as well as a disengagement from the capitalist environment. Political protest, one of the founding ideas of this country, is swept away as work comes to dominate it.
“Technology and Science as Ideology” lays forth Habermas’ beliefs that society's problem is not simply the abundance of technology or our dependence on it, rather it is the way we use technology to interact with society. When work is the driving force of society, we lose many of the elements that make modern societies diverse and cultural. I find Habermas’ views much more accurate than earlier philosophers such as Marcuse. His opinion that we must chance technology to fix the problems associated with it is rather irrational, as the growth of technology is a natural progression that can’t be simply redirected. Habermas accepts technological growth and the ways in which it applies to our culture, but believes that our problems with technology come from a dis-balance of the ways we use technology.
Marcuse’s “One Dimensional Man” portrays technology as a tool used to maintain social order in a society. While there are many instances in which technology appears to be forcing us to conform to society, technology is more a reflection of society than a unique aspect that can be changed. To illustrate this idea, we can compare the ideas of technology and government. Governments are tools built to solve problems, however they are built on the ideas of people and can freely adjust itself. However, technology is not a human institution but rather an organic progression of our means to solve problems. Governments tend to be tightly connected to the culture in which they govern, new alternative governments rise once they become too disconnected. Habermas points out that, unlike government, we can not connect technology to social projects because there is no alternative to a world with technology. Technology will always remain a major part of society and our relationship with technology will only change as our culture changes around it.
Throughout history technology has evolved to match the challenges faced by humans. Just like early humans used technology as a method of solving their primitive problems like heat and shelter, we continue to develop and use technology to solve our modern problems like communication and transportation. Technology allows humans to extend our natural capabilities to be more efficient and successful. For example, a farmer can work his crops by hand, but using a plow allows him to outsource that task to technology. Humans can easily communicate verbally, but by handing the process of communication to technology, we can communicate at far greater distances. Therefore, technology can not necessarily be connected to it’s historical and political context, as it is human nature to try to preform our necessary tasks with as little effort as possible. Furthermore, Habermas finds issue with Marcuse’s claim that modern technology is always part of a system of repression.
To explain the ways in which we interact with technology in a modern society, Habermas draws a distinction between work and interaction. Work is actions made to accomplish a task and is “governed by technical rules based on empirical knowledge.” Interaction is is actions that allow us to connect to our environment and engage on a social and political level. Interaction less efficient, as it is not centered around rational, purpose driven action, but rather adherence to the social norms. A “traditional society”, as defined by Habermas, is one in which interaction is the dominating force. These societies are constructed around “developed technologies” and work remains an important force in sustaining the society, but remain grounded in traditional values.
Unlike traditional societies, capitalist societies do not feature interaction as the dominant force. “Capitalism is the first mode of production in world history to institutionalize self-sustaining economic growth,” explains Habermas, which is an attribute that is both very helpful but also causes many problems. Capitalism leads to an extremely fast rate of economic growth, which can increase living conditions and lead to a more prosperous country. However, Habermas explains that the problem is that this growth is unconstrained and constantly increasing, leading work to become the dominating force of the society. No longer is work part of the subsystem of the society, work becomes the driving force in the society. This means that interaction becomes less important, and many of the social and cultural attributes of society fall apart. As an example, Habermas discusses the modern protester. Protesters should tend to be oppressed minorities, such as lower-class and poor citizens, however modern protesters are typically made up of privileged college students. In our society, those who actually have legitimate issues to fight for are swept away by the capitalist system, leaving only college students with significant resources as well as a disengagement from the capitalist environment. Political protest, one of the founding ideas of this country, is swept away as work comes to dominate it.
“Technology and Science as Ideology” lays forth Habermas’ beliefs that society's problem is not simply the abundance of technology or our dependence on it, rather it is the way we use technology to interact with society. When work is the driving force of society, we lose many of the elements that make modern societies diverse and cultural. I find Habermas’ views much more accurate than earlier philosophers such as Marcuse. His opinion that we must chance technology to fix the problems associated with it is rather irrational, as the growth of technology is a natural progression that can’t be simply redirected. Habermas accepts technological growth and the ways in which it applies to our culture, but believes that our problems with technology come from a dis-balance of the ways we use technology.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Heidegger vs Marcuse
Few would disagree that technology has become an important part of almost every aspect of our lives. We use cars and to quickly transport us miles away, share vast amounts of information with each other over the internet and depend on our cell phones for communication. Despite the benefits of these technological advances, some are critical of this dependence on technology. Martin Heidegger’s "The Question Concerning Technology" and Herbert Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man are both philosophical pieces critical of modern societies’ relationship with technology.
Heidegger uses the concept of “revealing” in his piece to explain the issues concerning our connection to technology. “Every bringing-forth is grounded in revealing,” is how Heidegger explains this concept, or in other words, our exposure to new ideas. He believes that our dependence on technology has lead to only accepting factual information as truth, therefore limiting our revealing. Heidegger does not believe that technology should not be a part of our life, but rather that it should be considered as one of many ways of revealing the world around us. He emphasizes this point by discussing modern physics. Physics describes the entire world as “a calculable coherence of forces,” but clearly there is more to life than forces interacting. Heidegger shows that although technology reveals one aspect to you, you need to consider other points of view as well to increase your understanding.
Marcuse’s piece explains that it is human nature to fulfill our needs. Some of these needs are essential to our existence, others are “repressive” needs, needs that we want to fulfill. Marcuse believes that repression is necessary for humans to flourish, however technology leads us to repress things simply to maintain the status quo. For example, father may chose to repress the desire to spend time with his children because he needs to work and maintain his position at his job, his job being a type of technology. I have noticed this type of repression at concerts and public events where I see attendees more focused on filming the event on their phone than enjoying the event in person. They are repressing their desire to take in the event because our society puts more value on experiences that have evidence to back them up. Although the video will probably never be played again, the person standing there filming wants to make sure that he will be able to prove his experiences.
Marcuse’s Marxist ideology is evident throughout his work as he points out the issues behind capitalism and democracy. He is clear to point out that although America was built around the principles of freedom and liberty, those ideas are constantly being limited as our society progresses. Some of these are explicit limitations put in place by the government, such as the PATRIOT Act, which allows warrantless wiretapping and surveillance of private citizens. However these limitations aren’t as powerful as the controls set in place by our culture, such as the political news media, which funnels political viewpoints into one of two defined ideologies. These limitations essentially remove the need for critical thinking, making people more one-dimensional. Marcuse asserts that without this capitalistic system, corporations and governments would not be able to exert this type of control on the masses.
Both Heidegger and Marcuse provide thoughtful critiques of our society and culture, bringing to light many ways in which technology shapes our lives. However, Heidegger suggests that we should hold the technological approach to the world as one of many methods of revealing. Essentially, Heidegger is saying that factual information has it’s place, but we also need to look in other places such as our beliefs and faith to reveal new ideas. Personally, I believe that the societal issues described by Heidegger are not the result of too much focus on technology, but too narrow of a focus on technology. When presented with a challenge, a person will most likely turn to familiar technologies in order to reveal solutions. By broadening the scope of technologies one uses to “reveal”, people are more likely to question the status-quo and escape the technological restraints set by our culture.
Imagine a man tasked with caring for his elderly mother in the hospital. This man may face the challenge of deciding whether she should be given care to extend her life further, or allow her to perish. The technology-focused institution of modern medicine would say that every effort should made to keep her alive. Heidegger would say that the person’s beliefs may tell him that his mother would not be happy in this state. However, I think that being to relate to their needs and desires as well as knowing the information is another type of technology. It is acceptable for a person to follow emotions, but only if they understand the purpose of those emotions.
I agree more with Marcuse’s view, although he does imply that our focus on factual information leads to “indoctrination and manipulation”. While it may be true that the most commonly available information can often simply be a reflection of society’s norms, the intake of more information will lead to a fuller view of the world.
It is nearly impossible to directly change a culture in a drastic way, and it is unlikely that Heidegger or Marcuse’s ideas will ever resonate with an entire population. The human attributes described in these works evolved over time and, for good or bad, allow society to continue to function as normal. However, by further understanding the problems that face our society, one can work to better themself as an individual, and that is the true purpose of these works.
Heidegger uses the concept of “revealing” in his piece to explain the issues concerning our connection to technology. “Every bringing-forth is grounded in revealing,” is how Heidegger explains this concept, or in other words, our exposure to new ideas. He believes that our dependence on technology has lead to only accepting factual information as truth, therefore limiting our revealing. Heidegger does not believe that technology should not be a part of our life, but rather that it should be considered as one of many ways of revealing the world around us. He emphasizes this point by discussing modern physics. Physics describes the entire world as “a calculable coherence of forces,” but clearly there is more to life than forces interacting. Heidegger shows that although technology reveals one aspect to you, you need to consider other points of view as well to increase your understanding.
Marcuse’s piece explains that it is human nature to fulfill our needs. Some of these needs are essential to our existence, others are “repressive” needs, needs that we want to fulfill. Marcuse believes that repression is necessary for humans to flourish, however technology leads us to repress things simply to maintain the status quo. For example, father may chose to repress the desire to spend time with his children because he needs to work and maintain his position at his job, his job being a type of technology. I have noticed this type of repression at concerts and public events where I see attendees more focused on filming the event on their phone than enjoying the event in person. They are repressing their desire to take in the event because our society puts more value on experiences that have evidence to back them up. Although the video will probably never be played again, the person standing there filming wants to make sure that he will be able to prove his experiences.
Marcuse’s Marxist ideology is evident throughout his work as he points out the issues behind capitalism and democracy. He is clear to point out that although America was built around the principles of freedom and liberty, those ideas are constantly being limited as our society progresses. Some of these are explicit limitations put in place by the government, such as the PATRIOT Act, which allows warrantless wiretapping and surveillance of private citizens. However these limitations aren’t as powerful as the controls set in place by our culture, such as the political news media, which funnels political viewpoints into one of two defined ideologies. These limitations essentially remove the need for critical thinking, making people more one-dimensional. Marcuse asserts that without this capitalistic system, corporations and governments would not be able to exert this type of control on the masses.
Both Heidegger and Marcuse provide thoughtful critiques of our society and culture, bringing to light many ways in which technology shapes our lives. However, Heidegger suggests that we should hold the technological approach to the world as one of many methods of revealing. Essentially, Heidegger is saying that factual information has it’s place, but we also need to look in other places such as our beliefs and faith to reveal new ideas. Personally, I believe that the societal issues described by Heidegger are not the result of too much focus on technology, but too narrow of a focus on technology. When presented with a challenge, a person will most likely turn to familiar technologies in order to reveal solutions. By broadening the scope of technologies one uses to “reveal”, people are more likely to question the status-quo and escape the technological restraints set by our culture.
Imagine a man tasked with caring for his elderly mother in the hospital. This man may face the challenge of deciding whether she should be given care to extend her life further, or allow her to perish. The technology-focused institution of modern medicine would say that every effort should made to keep her alive. Heidegger would say that the person’s beliefs may tell him that his mother would not be happy in this state. However, I think that being to relate to their needs and desires as well as knowing the information is another type of technology. It is acceptable for a person to follow emotions, but only if they understand the purpose of those emotions.
I agree more with Marcuse’s view, although he does imply that our focus on factual information leads to “indoctrination and manipulation”. While it may be true that the most commonly available information can often simply be a reflection of society’s norms, the intake of more information will lead to a fuller view of the world.
It is nearly impossible to directly change a culture in a drastic way, and it is unlikely that Heidegger or Marcuse’s ideas will ever resonate with an entire population. The human attributes described in these works evolved over time and, for good or bad, allow society to continue to function as normal. However, by further understanding the problems that face our society, one can work to better themself as an individual, and that is the true purpose of these works.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
"Brave New World" Analysis
“Actual happiness always looks pretty squalid in comparison with the over-compensations for misery,” states Mustapha Mond, as he explains the workings of the futuristic society in Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”. This society is remarkably different than our own, and is intended to be a cautionary tale of how undesirable the world can become as we use technology to shape away our problems. In this world, Mustapha Mond is one of the few Controllers, the most powerful position in the government. In our current society, many people view happiness as achieving goals such as wealth and human relationships through hard work. However, Mond believes that humans are happy when they can quickly satisfy their urges without pain or suffering. By shaping the culture around this idea, many of the major problems that face humanity have been solved, however Huxley tries to point out the cost of this type of society.
While we all wish to construct strong relationships with those around us, there is a tremendous burden associated with this. Humans constantly struggle to build and maintain the relationships that society says we should create, whether with family or spouses. When we are unsuccessful at establishing these relationships, we feel sad and alone. There is further unhappiness when these relationships deviate from our expectations of them, such as when a couple gets into a fight. Finally, this struggle comes full circle when these relationships end, whether through death or separation, which is evident in America’s 50% divorce rate. The society of “Brave New World” removes these issues by removing both the concepts of family as well as long term relationships. The government engineers children in a lab, so they grow up without parents or relatives to be attached to. This means the children do not have to be connected to the ideas of their parents, which Mond would describe as “clinging to the past”. Furthermore, people in this society are then raised to avoid long term relationships and simply move from partner to partner. In a society where couples are not responsible for reproducing and raising a child, there is little need for couples to remain monogamous for long periods of time. Once again, people don’t “cling to the past” by saying in a sexual relationship with someone for a long period of time. Without these relationships to worry about, people can live more simple, stable lives.
In America, children grow up learning that they can be anyone and do anything if they put their mind to it. While this attitude leads to some amazing stories of hard work and success, many people are left disappointed with their lower position in society. Some may argue that social mobility and the promise of the American Dream gives false hope to the unskilled and unintelligent. However, any society needs people to preform these undesirable tasks. In the society of “Brave New World”, this problem is solved by the genetic engineering of humans. Every person “born” has been assigned to a specific social class, labeled Alpha through Epsilon. The Alpha’s are the most intelligent and capable, while Epsilons are rather stupid. Not only is each class engineered to fit in to their role in society, but they are conditioned to be happy with their role. “I suppose Epsilons don’t really mind being Epsilons,” Lenina observes in the book, to which Henry responds “Of course they don’t. How can they? They don’t know what it’s like being anything else.” When reading this, we may find it unsettling, as we are accustomed to the idea that anyone can become wealthy and upper-class if they work hard enough. However, everyone has physical limitations, whether they aren’t strong enough or aren’t smart enough. The new society matches everyone up with a role in society they are fit for, which means nobody struggles to move above their class and nobody fails and falls below their class. Not only does this system keep people from being unhappy with their social class, but it keeps the society calm and orderly.
One feature of the Huxley’s futuristic society that is especially similar to our modern society is the prevalent culture of consumerism. Through conditioning and teaching, humans in this society have the need to be constantly consuming. Mond describes how a culture of consumption keeps the economy healthy and allows the government to provide the new products that people consistently desire. Mond even uses this logic to explain why old texts like Shakespeare are banned, stating that “we don’t want people to be attracted by old things. We want them to like the new ones.” This culture parallels are current culture, where people are constantly purchasing new electronics, clothes and tools, even when the old products are fully functional and relatively new. In addition to stimulating the economy and providing manufacturing jobs, people game a consistent satisfaction by acquiring the new products they want. While these new technologies are not necessary for them to live their life, they have been conditioned to want new technologies. When the constant need for new products can be fulfilled by the government, it leads to a stable society.
To handle the emotional and physical burdens that humans face throughout their life, the government developed a drug called soma. Soma allows people to be more relaxed and content with their life. In our modern society, drugs often fill this same purpose. When people face problems and stresses in modern times, they often turn to drugs like alcohol, tobacco or marijuana to make them feel better. Use of these drugs has many health and legal issues, however soma has been perfected to the point where the government supplies it for free. Just like modern day drugs, soma provides an escape from reality by masking it in a haze. This drug is supplied by the government because they believe it is beneficial for people to regularly take these drugs. Soma clears people from their worries and problems, allowing them to be happy, functioning members of society. This allows individuals to clear their heads of their problems as well as keeping widespread discontent minimized.
The society portrayed in “Brave New World” is drastically different from our modern world, and almost no modern person would chose to live in this world. We can not envision ourselves living without our family, our freedoms and our values. However, Huxley’s world is one where people are consistently happy and are not burdened by many of the issues we face today. Like any society, it has it’s flaws, but that doesn’t mean that this society is inherit bad or wrong. This “brave new world” has implemented technology to correct almost all of the problems we face in life. Residents of this world don’t have to deal with maintaining relationships, succeeding in their career, or even getting sick and dying. It may be hard to imagine giving up the parts of our culture that we have grown accustom to, but we can’t ignore the benefits of a system in which everyone is happy with their place in the society.
While we all wish to construct strong relationships with those around us, there is a tremendous burden associated with this. Humans constantly struggle to build and maintain the relationships that society says we should create, whether with family or spouses. When we are unsuccessful at establishing these relationships, we feel sad and alone. There is further unhappiness when these relationships deviate from our expectations of them, such as when a couple gets into a fight. Finally, this struggle comes full circle when these relationships end, whether through death or separation, which is evident in America’s 50% divorce rate. The society of “Brave New World” removes these issues by removing both the concepts of family as well as long term relationships. The government engineers children in a lab, so they grow up without parents or relatives to be attached to. This means the children do not have to be connected to the ideas of their parents, which Mond would describe as “clinging to the past”. Furthermore, people in this society are then raised to avoid long term relationships and simply move from partner to partner. In a society where couples are not responsible for reproducing and raising a child, there is little need for couples to remain monogamous for long periods of time. Once again, people don’t “cling to the past” by saying in a sexual relationship with someone for a long period of time. Without these relationships to worry about, people can live more simple, stable lives.
In America, children grow up learning that they can be anyone and do anything if they put their mind to it. While this attitude leads to some amazing stories of hard work and success, many people are left disappointed with their lower position in society. Some may argue that social mobility and the promise of the American Dream gives false hope to the unskilled and unintelligent. However, any society needs people to preform these undesirable tasks. In the society of “Brave New World”, this problem is solved by the genetic engineering of humans. Every person “born” has been assigned to a specific social class, labeled Alpha through Epsilon. The Alpha’s are the most intelligent and capable, while Epsilons are rather stupid. Not only is each class engineered to fit in to their role in society, but they are conditioned to be happy with their role. “I suppose Epsilons don’t really mind being Epsilons,” Lenina observes in the book, to which Henry responds “Of course they don’t. How can they? They don’t know what it’s like being anything else.” When reading this, we may find it unsettling, as we are accustomed to the idea that anyone can become wealthy and upper-class if they work hard enough. However, everyone has physical limitations, whether they aren’t strong enough or aren’t smart enough. The new society matches everyone up with a role in society they are fit for, which means nobody struggles to move above their class and nobody fails and falls below their class. Not only does this system keep people from being unhappy with their social class, but it keeps the society calm and orderly.
One feature of the Huxley’s futuristic society that is especially similar to our modern society is the prevalent culture of consumerism. Through conditioning and teaching, humans in this society have the need to be constantly consuming. Mond describes how a culture of consumption keeps the economy healthy and allows the government to provide the new products that people consistently desire. Mond even uses this logic to explain why old texts like Shakespeare are banned, stating that “we don’t want people to be attracted by old things. We want them to like the new ones.” This culture parallels are current culture, where people are constantly purchasing new electronics, clothes and tools, even when the old products are fully functional and relatively new. In addition to stimulating the economy and providing manufacturing jobs, people game a consistent satisfaction by acquiring the new products they want. While these new technologies are not necessary for them to live their life, they have been conditioned to want new technologies. When the constant need for new products can be fulfilled by the government, it leads to a stable society.
To handle the emotional and physical burdens that humans face throughout their life, the government developed a drug called soma. Soma allows people to be more relaxed and content with their life. In our modern society, drugs often fill this same purpose. When people face problems and stresses in modern times, they often turn to drugs like alcohol, tobacco or marijuana to make them feel better. Use of these drugs has many health and legal issues, however soma has been perfected to the point where the government supplies it for free. Just like modern day drugs, soma provides an escape from reality by masking it in a haze. This drug is supplied by the government because they believe it is beneficial for people to regularly take these drugs. Soma clears people from their worries and problems, allowing them to be happy, functioning members of society. This allows individuals to clear their heads of their problems as well as keeping widespread discontent minimized.
The society portrayed in “Brave New World” is drastically different from our modern world, and almost no modern person would chose to live in this world. We can not envision ourselves living without our family, our freedoms and our values. However, Huxley’s world is one where people are consistently happy and are not burdened by many of the issues we face today. Like any society, it has it’s flaws, but that doesn’t mean that this society is inherit bad or wrong. This “brave new world” has implemented technology to correct almost all of the problems we face in life. Residents of this world don’t have to deal with maintaining relationships, succeeding in their career, or even getting sick and dying. It may be hard to imagine giving up the parts of our culture that we have grown accustom to, but we can’t ignore the benefits of a system in which everyone is happy with their place in the society.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
The Role of the U.S. Government in Supporting Green Energy
Free-market capitalism is the central core of the U.S. economy. However, there are some cases in which the solution favored by the free market is not in the best interest of the country. Ever since the industrial revolution, America has been the leading consumer of fossil fuels. These energy sources are cheap and efficient, making them economically ideal. However, use of fossil fuels has many negative effects. Fossil fuels have a definite supply, which will eventually run out. Our need to purchase oil makes us dependent on many unstable regimes all over the world. Furthermore, burning fossil fuels releases dangerous pollutants in to the atmosphere, which causes many health problems and may be impacting global warming. There are many ways to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, such as renewable fuel sources or more energy efficient technology. However, these alternatives are often more expensive, leaving businesses and individuals no financial incentive to use them. The federal government needs to make it easier for Americans to switch to green energy providing financial incentives.
For the past century, America has been struggling with an unhealthy addiction to Fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are problematic both for the world’s reliance on them and for their effects on the planet. Fossil fuels such as oil and coal are non-renewable, meaning that once we deplete them, they will be so scarce that it will be too costly to retrieve what is left of them. When burned for energy, these fossil fuels also release harmful chemicals into the air including CO2, a major greenhouse gas [1]. Once the greenhouse gases that result from the combustion of fossil fuels are released into the air, they build up in the atmosphere. This buildup allows the heat from the sun to warm the surface of the earth, but doesn't let it leave the atmosphere. This “greenhouse” effect is known as global warming. The process is deemed by climatologists around the world to be a serious threat to planet earth; the more greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide humans add to the atmosphere, the faster temperatures rise, and the more humans contribute to global warming. The United States consumes more fossil fuels than any other country in the world, and fossil fuels make up over 85% of America’s total energy consumption [2]. If the U.S. can not reform it’s energy habits, there could be detrimental consequences four the country, as well as the world.
The largest source of energy in the United States is petroleum products, better known as oil. According to Walter Youngquist, “oil fuels the modern world,” and this could not be more true [3]. The United States takes advantage of this resource more than any other country. In the modern world, oil is the most convenient source of energy. It is readily available, safe and opportune to use, and quite versatile. Oil is able to generate huge amounts of energy, and is also easy to store and ship. These factors have turned oil into the central fuel source of America. While oil is cheap and convenient, the negative aspects of it’s use are becoming apparent. Science is showing that the use of oil has a drastic impact CO2 into the Earth’s atmosphere, on global climate change. Combustion of oil releases depleting the ozone layer and causing the global temperature to rise [4]. Over time, this climate change may have a significant impact on future generations. Additionally, two thirds of necessary U.S. oil is imported from foreign nations. For example, the Middle East and Africa, two oil-rich regions, have become major economic partners with America over the trade of oil. However, these regions are both plagued by violence and instability. By importing oil from them, the United States has been supporting these unstable nations. Additionally, we run the risk of an energy crisis if we become unable to buy oil from these countries. Trading oil with these developing regions is not safe and is far too big a part of the country’s foreign policy. The United States needs to limit its use of oil so it can secure a more stable energy supply.
As a response to our dependence on fossil fuels, the U.S. has been pursuing the use of renewable energy sources. These are sources that can never run out or be completely used up. They also emit far fewer pollutants into the air than do fossil fuels. Renewable sources include solar power, wind power, geothermal, and many more [5]. Many scientists warn that if we continue to exhaust the world’s oil supply and to use harmful fossil fuels, then “future economic and humanitarian disasters are inevitable” [3]. Therefore, the United States, the country responsible for the most greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, needs to increase its energy independence from oil and shift to an energy supply that focuses on renewable energy (Wald,2009). However, many view the use of renewable energy as impractical. Renewable energy sources typically cost more money and are more difficult to use. To help overcome these obstacles, the federal government needs to create incentives towards the use of renewable energy. “The U.S. government would be wise to allocate federal funds to the development of renewables” [4]. Supporters of alternative energy say that if the United States government doesn’t find a way to replace oil, and continues to consume as it does now, then, according to scientist Alan Betts, “the cost of doing nothing will be far higher than the cost of using our technology to fix a problem that was generated by our technology in the first place.” [4]. The scientific community is clearly stating that the U.S. government needs to start taking action before it is too late.
If renewable energy sources are to compete with fossil fuels as major sources of energy, then they require serious government funding. There are many different means of doing this. First, there is a method called “cap-and-trade.” This method caps, or puts limits on greenhouse gas emissions for companies. Permits that allow companies to emit these gases are then auctioned off. This method would stop pollution from companies while promoting new cheap and clean forms of energy. While critics argue this could lead to job loss, it could actually lead to profit from the auctioned caps, and a much cleaner environment [5]. This process has already proven to be successful in an agreement called the Kyoto Protocol. Many European countries have joined it and already there has been a 3% reduction in emissions since it was started in 1990 [4]. Another potent method is government incentives. Often in the form of tax breaks, these incentives offer companies money if they are willing to use any renewable sources. These are a way to help companies and limit the effects of global warming. If many companies were to take these incentives, it would help to further develop alternative energy, thus making it more affordable and leveling the playing field between fossil fuels and renewable energy[2].
Clearly, action needs to be taken to decrease the U.S.’s dependence on fossil fuels, especially oil. These harmful resources are nonrenewable, contribute to global warming, and are imported from unstable regions of the world. Renewable resources are much more favorable in the long run; they cannot be depleted, they are much cleaner than fossil fuels, and they ultimately are more dependable than oil. In order to increase the use of these renewable sources, the United States government must take steps towards making this happen. Providing financial rewards for those who use green energy and penalties for those who refuse to adapt is necessary to get our country back on the path towards a cleaner future. If the government does not provide these opportunities, businesses and individuals will be forced to stick with fossil fuels. Spending money on green energy may be a difficult action to take now, but it is an investment in the future of our country.
For the past century, America has been struggling with an unhealthy addiction to Fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are problematic both for the world’s reliance on them and for their effects on the planet. Fossil fuels such as oil and coal are non-renewable, meaning that once we deplete them, they will be so scarce that it will be too costly to retrieve what is left of them. When burned for energy, these fossil fuels also release harmful chemicals into the air including CO2, a major greenhouse gas [1]. Once the greenhouse gases that result from the combustion of fossil fuels are released into the air, they build up in the atmosphere. This buildup allows the heat from the sun to warm the surface of the earth, but doesn't let it leave the atmosphere. This “greenhouse” effect is known as global warming. The process is deemed by climatologists around the world to be a serious threat to planet earth; the more greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide humans add to the atmosphere, the faster temperatures rise, and the more humans contribute to global warming. The United States consumes more fossil fuels than any other country in the world, and fossil fuels make up over 85% of America’s total energy consumption [2]. If the U.S. can not reform it’s energy habits, there could be detrimental consequences four the country, as well as the world.
The largest source of energy in the United States is petroleum products, better known as oil. According to Walter Youngquist, “oil fuels the modern world,” and this could not be more true [3]. The United States takes advantage of this resource more than any other country. In the modern world, oil is the most convenient source of energy. It is readily available, safe and opportune to use, and quite versatile. Oil is able to generate huge amounts of energy, and is also easy to store and ship. These factors have turned oil into the central fuel source of America. While oil is cheap and convenient, the negative aspects of it’s use are becoming apparent. Science is showing that the use of oil has a drastic impact CO2 into the Earth’s atmosphere, on global climate change. Combustion of oil releases depleting the ozone layer and causing the global temperature to rise [4]. Over time, this climate change may have a significant impact on future generations. Additionally, two thirds of necessary U.S. oil is imported from foreign nations. For example, the Middle East and Africa, two oil-rich regions, have become major economic partners with America over the trade of oil. However, these regions are both plagued by violence and instability. By importing oil from them, the United States has been supporting these unstable nations. Additionally, we run the risk of an energy crisis if we become unable to buy oil from these countries. Trading oil with these developing regions is not safe and is far too big a part of the country’s foreign policy. The United States needs to limit its use of oil so it can secure a more stable energy supply.
As a response to our dependence on fossil fuels, the U.S. has been pursuing the use of renewable energy sources. These are sources that can never run out or be completely used up. They also emit far fewer pollutants into the air than do fossil fuels. Renewable sources include solar power, wind power, geothermal, and many more [5]. Many scientists warn that if we continue to exhaust the world’s oil supply and to use harmful fossil fuels, then “future economic and humanitarian disasters are inevitable” [3]. Therefore, the United States, the country responsible for the most greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, needs to increase its energy independence from oil and shift to an energy supply that focuses on renewable energy (Wald,2009). However, many view the use of renewable energy as impractical. Renewable energy sources typically cost more money and are more difficult to use. To help overcome these obstacles, the federal government needs to create incentives towards the use of renewable energy. “The U.S. government would be wise to allocate federal funds to the development of renewables” [4]. Supporters of alternative energy say that if the United States government doesn’t find a way to replace oil, and continues to consume as it does now, then, according to scientist Alan Betts, “the cost of doing nothing will be far higher than the cost of using our technology to fix a problem that was generated by our technology in the first place.” [4]. The scientific community is clearly stating that the U.S. government needs to start taking action before it is too late.
If renewable energy sources are to compete with fossil fuels as major sources of energy, then they require serious government funding. There are many different means of doing this. First, there is a method called “cap-and-trade.” This method caps, or puts limits on greenhouse gas emissions for companies. Permits that allow companies to emit these gases are then auctioned off. This method would stop pollution from companies while promoting new cheap and clean forms of energy. While critics argue this could lead to job loss, it could actually lead to profit from the auctioned caps, and a much cleaner environment [5]. This process has already proven to be successful in an agreement called the Kyoto Protocol. Many European countries have joined it and already there has been a 3% reduction in emissions since it was started in 1990 [4]. Another potent method is government incentives. Often in the form of tax breaks, these incentives offer companies money if they are willing to use any renewable sources. These are a way to help companies and limit the effects of global warming. If many companies were to take these incentives, it would help to further develop alternative energy, thus making it more affordable and leveling the playing field between fossil fuels and renewable energy[2].
Clearly, action needs to be taken to decrease the U.S.’s dependence on fossil fuels, especially oil. These harmful resources are nonrenewable, contribute to global warming, and are imported from unstable regions of the world. Renewable resources are much more favorable in the long run; they cannot be depleted, they are much cleaner than fossil fuels, and they ultimately are more dependable than oil. In order to increase the use of these renewable sources, the United States government must take steps towards making this happen. Providing financial rewards for those who use green energy and penalties for those who refuse to adapt is necessary to get our country back on the path towards a cleaner future. If the government does not provide these opportunities, businesses and individuals will be forced to stick with fossil fuels. Spending money on green energy may be a difficult action to take now, but it is an investment in the future of our country.
References
- Clemmitt, M. (2006, January 27). Climate change. CQ Researcher, 16, 73-96. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/
- Cooper, M. H. (1997, November 7). Renewable energy. CQ Researcher, 7, 961-984. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/
- Youngquist, W. (n.d.). Alternative Energy Sources. Retrieved from http:// www.hubbertpeak.com/youngquist/altenergy.htm
- Global Warming. (2009, October 12). Issues & Controversies On File. Retrieved from Facts On File News Services database.
- Wald, M. L. (2009, March 28). Cost Works Against Alternative and Renewable Energy Sources in Time of Recession. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/business/energy-environment/29renew.html
America's Television Addiction
Obesity. Violence. Irrational Fear. All of these are major issues with Americans, and they all have one root cause. In millions of homes across the country, the casual desire for entertainment has developed into a full on addiction. The molding and conforming of Americans to the ideas expressed on television as a serous issue for our society to overcome.
Our society values uniqueness and originality, however the widespread use of the television is homogenizing Americans at a rapid rate. Technology allows the same shows to be broadcast across the country, coast to coast, and throughout the country people are watching the same exact thing. In every home, people absorb the messages and biases of the show they are watching. Corbett Trubey pointed out that television has become "a 24-hour ad-plastered, brainwashing, individuality bleaching, stereotyping, couch-potato product." When every person receives the same information with the same messages expressed, we begin to lose the diversity that makes America the great country it is.
This repetitive message broadcast throughout the United States is not even a beneficial one, but rather a defiance of American morals. To create exciting and interesting programs, networks enjoy pushing the limits. A perfect example of this trend is the popular TV show Gossip Girl. In 2008, the show came under intense criticism for its provocative show that featured teens consuming alcohol and engaging in sexual relations. The show used this criticism to drive it's advertising by putting quotes from the Parents Television Council on advertisements. Lines such as "Mind-Blowingly Inappropriate" became positives for the show and ultimately drove their ratings up. This sent a large message to the television industry: making shows inappropriate does more good than harm.
The messages sent by these shows often have a large impact on how we handle situations in our own life. Steven Johnson argues that the complicated plots of television acts as a brain exercise and forces us to think more. However, shows will often force us to to think irrationally based on the dramatized events on television. Amid the constant plot twists on the show "24", there is a constant theme of terrorists on that have reached domestic soil, ready to blow up innocent Americans. The reality is that thousands government officials work night and day to keep America save, and actual incidents are rare. Shows like this create a paranoia in the minds of citizens as well as strong feelings of distrust towards Muslims.
All these factors of Television lead to a population addicted to television. Where children would once play outside after school, they now sit down and zone out for hours while they eat. Television creates unhealthy habits that Americans are suffering from. Obesity results from the long term viewing habits in front of TV, and the unhealthy food advertisements worsen the habits. While senators argue about health care, our biggest health problem comes from at home.
If Americans wish to continue as the most intelligent country in the world, we need to remove ourselves from TV. Healthier lifestyles will lead to healthier lives.[1][2]
Our society values uniqueness and originality, however the widespread use of the television is homogenizing Americans at a rapid rate. Technology allows the same shows to be broadcast across the country, coast to coast, and throughout the country people are watching the same exact thing. In every home, people absorb the messages and biases of the show they are watching. Corbett Trubey pointed out that television has become "a 24-hour ad-plastered, brainwashing, individuality bleaching, stereotyping, couch-potato product." When every person receives the same information with the same messages expressed, we begin to lose the diversity that makes America the great country it is.
This repetitive message broadcast throughout the United States is not even a beneficial one, but rather a defiance of American morals. To create exciting and interesting programs, networks enjoy pushing the limits. A perfect example of this trend is the popular TV show Gossip Girl. In 2008, the show came under intense criticism for its provocative show that featured teens consuming alcohol and engaging in sexual relations. The show used this criticism to drive it's advertising by putting quotes from the Parents Television Council on advertisements. Lines such as "Mind-Blowingly Inappropriate" became positives for the show and ultimately drove their ratings up. This sent a large message to the television industry: making shows inappropriate does more good than harm.
The messages sent by these shows often have a large impact on how we handle situations in our own life. Steven Johnson argues that the complicated plots of television acts as a brain exercise and forces us to think more. However, shows will often force us to to think irrationally based on the dramatized events on television. Amid the constant plot twists on the show "24", there is a constant theme of terrorists on that have reached domestic soil, ready to blow up innocent Americans. The reality is that thousands government officials work night and day to keep America save, and actual incidents are rare. Shows like this create a paranoia in the minds of citizens as well as strong feelings of distrust towards Muslims.
All these factors of Television lead to a population addicted to television. Where children would once play outside after school, they now sit down and zone out for hours while they eat. Television creates unhealthy habits that Americans are suffering from. Obesity results from the long term viewing habits in front of TV, and the unhealthy food advertisements worsen the habits. While senators argue about health care, our biggest health problem comes from at home.
If Americans wish to continue as the most intelligent country in the world, we need to remove ourselves from TV. Healthier lifestyles will lead to healthier lives.[1][2]
References
- Catlin, Roger . "Bad Reviews Make Good Ads for 'Gossip Girl'". The Hartford Courant. 3/7/2010
http://blogs.courant.com/roger_catlin_tv_eye/2008/08/bad-reviews-make-good-ads-for.html - Johnson, Steven. "Watching TV Makes You Smarter". New York Times 2005.
The Crucible & McCarthyism
In the 1940s, America was living in fear. Hiding in plain sight, Communists were infiltrating the country. Everyone from government employees to actors were being subpoenaed to testify before congress. However, the truth behind this story is that an ambitious Senator named Joseph McCarthy had scared the country into alienating large groups of innocent Americans. The paranoia that ensued lead to a congressional committee accusing and in some cases imprisoning these citizens only for their alleged beliefs. Arthur Miller’s play The Crucible explores a similar time period, a period of great fear and meritless accusations. Miller explores the similarities between The Salem Witch Trials and the House Un-American Activities Committee and the damage which they inflicted on their communities.
One key element to both the Salem Witch Trials and the House Un-American Activities Committee was punishment for refusing to confess. This system essentially rewards those who falsely confess, perpetuating the cycle of fear and accusations. This is evident when Tituba is being interrogated by Hale. “No, no, don’t hang Tituba!” she cries, “I tell him I don’t desire to work for him.”(44) She continues to name Sarah Good and Goody Osburn as witches, continuing the witch hunt. According to Puritan ideology, confessing to witchcraft means you wish to return to God, and therefore are not punished. A similar situation occurred in congress during the McCarthy era. In 1947, the HUAC subpoenaed a number of members of the Hollywood film industry concerning suspected communist activities. When ten witnesses refused to cooperate with the committee, citing First Amendment freedoms, they were charged with contempt of congress and sentenced to prison time. Others who cited Fifth Amendment protection from self-incrimination could often avoid charges, but many still lost jobs by doing such[1]. When one is faced with public humiliation or even death if they refuse to confess, they will often say anything to clear their name. Both systems encourage lying and lead to further false accusations.,
Both witchcraft and communism and were extremely serious accusations in their respective time periods, and simply being suspected could drastically alter one’s life. In the highly religious community of Salem, Massachusetts, witchcraft was a hangable offense. In the process of sorting out the wicked from the worthy, nineteen people were hung, countless lives were ruined and an entire town plunged into infamy. While nobody died as a result of the Red Scare, the careers and reputations of many important and influential Americans were ruined. The drastic outcomes of these situations show the consequences of a paranoid and xenophobic society.
It is difficult to think that in modern America, the leaders of our country would not stand up against the persecution of men simply for their beliefs. However, Joseph McCarthy and other congressmen worked hard to make sure that anyone who questioned the threat of communism were seen as communist emphasizes and un-American. Miller brings attention to this by showing the similar situation in Salem. Anyone who publicly questioned the validity of the witch trials would automatically be suspected of Witchcraft. As Judge Danforth describes, “a person is either with this court or he must be counted against it, there be no road between.” (58) It is possible that those with doubts about the accused witchcraft, such as Hale, could have prevented the executions had there not been such pressure to agree with the court.
After these various witch hunts had ended and their damage done, those who persecuted the innocent saw their own downfall. In an epilogue, Miller notes that Abigail would become a prostitute in Boston, while Parris “was voted from office, walked out on the highroad, and was never heard of again.” (146) Senator Joseph McCarthy suffered a similar fate after the Red Scare era ended. After being formally condemned by the Senate for his tactics, McCarthy left public office. He continued to rally against communism, with little support, and eventually died of an inflamed liver [2]. These endings are symbolic of the nature of these characters. Parris, Abigail and McCarthy all accused others to gain power, and destroyed lives in the process. Ironically, these actions would come to destroy their own lives and define them as people.
We are told to learn from the mistakes of history or else we are destined to repeat them. We would like to think that our society has advanced to an age in which a witch hunt could never happen, and yet the McCarthy era shows us that we are still capable of irrationally accusing innocent people and forcing them through a broken system. Arthur Miller’s portrayal of the Salem Witch Trials shows us how a quickly a witch trial can escalate and forces us to think twice before condemning others based upon hearsay or perceived beliefs.
One key element to both the Salem Witch Trials and the House Un-American Activities Committee was punishment for refusing to confess. This system essentially rewards those who falsely confess, perpetuating the cycle of fear and accusations. This is evident when Tituba is being interrogated by Hale. “No, no, don’t hang Tituba!” she cries, “I tell him I don’t desire to work for him.”(44) She continues to name Sarah Good and Goody Osburn as witches, continuing the witch hunt. According to Puritan ideology, confessing to witchcraft means you wish to return to God, and therefore are not punished. A similar situation occurred in congress during the McCarthy era. In 1947, the HUAC subpoenaed a number of members of the Hollywood film industry concerning suspected communist activities. When ten witnesses refused to cooperate with the committee, citing First Amendment freedoms, they were charged with contempt of congress and sentenced to prison time. Others who cited Fifth Amendment protection from self-incrimination could often avoid charges, but many still lost jobs by doing such[1]. When one is faced with public humiliation or even death if they refuse to confess, they will often say anything to clear their name. Both systems encourage lying and lead to further false accusations.,
Both witchcraft and communism and were extremely serious accusations in their respective time periods, and simply being suspected could drastically alter one’s life. In the highly religious community of Salem, Massachusetts, witchcraft was a hangable offense. In the process of sorting out the wicked from the worthy, nineteen people were hung, countless lives were ruined and an entire town plunged into infamy. While nobody died as a result of the Red Scare, the careers and reputations of many important and influential Americans were ruined. The drastic outcomes of these situations show the consequences of a paranoid and xenophobic society.
It is difficult to think that in modern America, the leaders of our country would not stand up against the persecution of men simply for their beliefs. However, Joseph McCarthy and other congressmen worked hard to make sure that anyone who questioned the threat of communism were seen as communist emphasizes and un-American. Miller brings attention to this by showing the similar situation in Salem. Anyone who publicly questioned the validity of the witch trials would automatically be suspected of Witchcraft. As Judge Danforth describes, “a person is either with this court or he must be counted against it, there be no road between.” (58) It is possible that those with doubts about the accused witchcraft, such as Hale, could have prevented the executions had there not been such pressure to agree with the court.
After these various witch hunts had ended and their damage done, those who persecuted the innocent saw their own downfall. In an epilogue, Miller notes that Abigail would become a prostitute in Boston, while Parris “was voted from office, walked out on the highroad, and was never heard of again.” (146) Senator Joseph McCarthy suffered a similar fate after the Red Scare era ended. After being formally condemned by the Senate for his tactics, McCarthy left public office. He continued to rally against communism, with little support, and eventually died of an inflamed liver [2]. These endings are symbolic of the nature of these characters. Parris, Abigail and McCarthy all accused others to gain power, and destroyed lives in the process. Ironically, these actions would come to destroy their own lives and define them as people.
We are told to learn from the mistakes of history or else we are destined to repeat them. We would like to think that our society has advanced to an age in which a witch hunt could never happen, and yet the McCarthy era shows us that we are still capable of irrationally accusing innocent people and forcing them through a broken system. Arthur Miller’s portrayal of the Salem Witch Trials shows us how a quickly a witch trial can escalate and forces us to think twice before condemning others based upon hearsay or perceived beliefs.
America & The Mexican Drug War
In the past decade, over 4000 American soldiers have died while serving in Iraq, and over 1000 in Afganistan (ICasualties: Operation Iraqi, 2009). In addition, both these wars have cost our country over one trillion dollars (National Priorities Project, 2010).Despite the great toll these wars have taken on our country, we have been told that they will protect our national security and keep citizens safe. While the security these wars has created is debatable, the U.S. has been much more reluctant to respond to another threat right on the U.S. border. The Mexican Drug war has already claimed the lives of thousands of people including a number of Americans and continues to devastate many small towns throughout Mexico. To ensure the safety of American and Mexican citizens, the U.S. Government needs to drastically increase their role in the Mexican Drug War.
The issue of illegal drug cartels is no new issue for Mexico. After the 1910 Mexican revolution, the newly formed government allowed military officials to take a share of drug profits in exchange for enforcing order and non-violence.(Katel, 2008, p. 1019). Despite some minor scandals, the drug cartels continued to spread throughout the country, and throughout the Mexican government. In the late 1960s, the skyrocketing use of marajuana lead the U.S. government to intensify it’s policy towards Mexican drug smuggling. In 1969, President Nixon went as far as to order the search of every car, boat or airplane entering the U.S. from Mexico. A few years later, the Mexican Government showed it’s intent to stop the drug trade by sending 10,000 soldiers into the Sinola mountain range. This plan, named “Operation Condor,” effecively diminished the growth of drugs for the time being, but would end up further spreading the reach of the drug cartels. The U.S. and Mexican governments celebrated these victories as the end of the Mexican drug trade, but that victory would be short lived.
By the mid-1980s, the drug trade had once again returned to Mexico and the United States was investing hundreds of millions of dollars in fighting the cartels. After the successful raid of a large marijuana plantation by the DEA, cartel leaders kidnapped and tortured a DEA agent and his pilot. After the DEA identified a suspect in the murders, the man was tipped off by a Mexican police commander and fled (Katel, 2008, p. 1022). These murders as well as the apparent corruption among the Mexican police drew lots of attention to the drug issues in Mexico. U.S. Customs commissoner William von Raab accused the Mexican government of widespread corruption, claiming that “Whenever Customs has a joint drug interdiction operation in a certain area in cooperation with Mexican police, if the Mexicans are told about it in advance, the activity always seems to drop off in that area,” ("'My Position Hasn't," 1986). Mexican authorities worked hard to fight the spreading corruption, at some points firing hundreds of police officers and arresting others (Katel, 2008, p. 1022). Policies by the Mexican government were able to reduce some of the corruption and violence, but the drug trade still remained a very prominent party of the country.
The drug cartel activity remained relatively low until 2000, when the country faced a massive political shift. After 71 years in power, the Revolutionary Industrial Party of Mexico was replaced with Viccente Fox. Fulfilling his promise to be tough on drug cartels, Fox began prosecuting army officers and state officials for their ties to drug gangs. He began campaigns to swiftly capture cartel leaders and lock them up. The efforts of the Fox administration were unprecedented and were seen as a sign of hope to many. However, the drug cartels had become far too strong and influential, and easily pushed past Fox’s efforts. In 2006, Viccente Fox was succeded by Felipe Calderón, who continued to dedicate a great deal of resources to the drug war (Katel, 2008, p. 1024). Calderón once again used military power to put pressure on drug cartels and thoroughly investigated suspected police forces, but drug cartels remained powerful and more violent than ever.
It will be nearly impossible for America to defeat the Mexican drug cartels if we can’t even trust the Mexican officials sworn to defeat them. Corruption is a major problem in Mexico among both law enforcement and government officials. Many instances have shown the great levels of incompetence among Mexican police officers. In 2001, notorious drug trafficker El Chapo Guzman was able to escape from maximum security prison simply by bribing his guards (Katel, 2008, p. 1024). Despite repeated efforts to eliminate government ties to drug cartels, the Mexican government has been unsuccessful. This is a difficult problem for the United States to confront, as it does not have authority over Mexican officials. It could, however, offer the services of U.S. intelligence agencies to run investigations into alleged corruptions and turn over the names of offenders to the Mexican government. Diplomatically, this may be a difficult task, but it is clear that the government can not eliminate the drug cartels until the cartels are removed from the government.
While directly aiding Mexico is beneficial to disrupting the drug cartels, the U.S. Government must also consider methods of reducing the demand for illegal drugs. Some states like California and Oregon have legalized the use of Marijuana for medical purposes and decriminalized the possession of small quantities of it (Suellentrop, 2009). Over 60 percent of drug cartel profits come from the sale of Marijuana, so domestic production of the drug would be a significant dent in the power of the drug cartels (Fainaru & Booth, 2009). Legalizing marijuana would also provide other benefits such as increased tax revenue and a decreased number people arrested on Marijuana charges. If Mexican drug cartels remain the main source of marajuana, the result could be an even bigger threat to our national security. According to the National Drug Intelligence Center, some Mexican cartels have chosen to start marijuana farms on American soil to streamline the production and avoid smuggling drugs across the border. Drug opperations run by the Mexican cartels have the potential for the type of violence that is occurring in Mexico, which would directly put Americans at risk. The easiest way to eliminate the demand for these farms is to legalize marijuana and allow it to be grown domestically.
While legalizing Marijuana is a feasible approach to reducing the demand for illegal drugs, stronger drugs such as cocaine and heroin must be dealt with in different ways. The current system of harsh punishments for drug possession does little to reduce repeat offenders or break addictions. Many argue that a system which promotes rehabilitation rather than punishment for drug crimes will reduce drug problems throughout the country (Daremblum, 2009). In addition to helping those addicted to drugs, the government can reduce future drug use by supporting drug education programs in schools. These programs are shown to reduce drug use by students and will lower the demand for illegal drugs in the future. Congress must be proactive with these steps to help eliminate the need for illegal drug smuggling in the future.
America not only provides a market for the sale of illegal drugs, but it is also the primary source of guns for the drug cartels. In 2008, the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms (ATF) testified that approximately 90 percent of weapons used by these gangs are purchased in America. It is clear that regulating and limiting gun sales would help reduce the violence in the south, but this idea is very controversial. The second amendment to the U.S. constitution which states that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” has invoked heated debate over what types of weapons are constitutionally protected. One plan is to reinstate the 1994 Assault Weapons ban. The ban outlawed many popular military-grade semi-automatic weapons such as the AK-47 and the AR-15, and prohibited weapon characteristics such as threaded muzzles or grenade launchers. The law was written to last for ten years, and in 1994, the ban expired.("U.S.-Mexico Relations.," 2010) While speaking before congress this May, Mexican President Felipe Calderón noted that the increase in violence in Mexico occured only shortly after the expiration of the assault weapon ban. Calderón encouraged congress to restore the assault weapon ban, but was met with mixed reactions (Knowlton, 2010). The bas is opposed by almost all republicans and many democrats as well. The simple mention of reinstating the ban by Attorney General Eric Holder in 2009 created a political firestorm and was almost instantly dialed back by the White House (Isikoff, 2009). Despite the large opposition to the ban, limiting the sale of assault rifles would stop cartels from easily obtaining new weapons. Americans enjoy our right to bear arms, but it is costing thousands of lives down in Mexico.
While it is unlikely that congress will be able to pass substantial legislation restricting gun sales, there are other steps that can be taken to limit the supply of weapons to the Mexican drug cartels. Agencies such as the ATF are working to try to figure out how to stop the purchase of guns in the U.S. by Mexican cartels. Cartels often will recruit American citizens with clean records to purchase their weapons, known as “straw buyers”. In an attempt to discover the main sources of these guns, the ATF has set up a new program to help track weapons. The program, named eTrace, is designed to allow the Mexican government to trace any U.S. gun back to it’s dealer. Unfortunately, many claim the program has been unsuccessful, citing a 31 percent success rate from 2009. ATF deputy director Kenneth Melson defends eTrace, stating that "the information was being submitted by people who didn't know how to trace guns," (Corcoran, 2009). Regardless of the success of this individual system, eTrace is the type of program that the government needs to invest in to cut off the supply of weapons to Mexico.
The drug war taking place in Mexico is directly connected to the actions of the United States and it’s citizens. To protect our national security and the security of Mexico, the U.S. needs to increase it’s role in the Mexican Drug war. America’s lack of action on this issue could lead to widespread violence in the country, much like in Mexican cities. Fighting the cartels may be difficult and expensive, but it is necessary to protect American citizens.
World War I
World War I showed the world how horrible a war could be when so many countries were involved. Although the actual war started when Serbia assassinated Franz Fernandez, the true cause of the war was Germany's aggressive behavior and cruel tactics. Germany was responsible for wrongfully invading Belgium, forming the Triple Alliance, and carelessly testing the relationship between France and Britain.
Although Britain did start the naval race shortly before World War I, Britain was the least to blame out of the major European powers. Throughout this war, Britain tried to avoid confrontations. Britain's involvement in the war came from a need to become allies with other countries for protection, and when Britain's allies, like France, were attacked, Britain was dragged into the war with them. Britain's only aggressive move in this war was their creation of the HMS Dreadnought, a large, powerful battleship which rendered all other ships obsolete. Germany created their own version of a super-naval ship, launching the two countries into a naval race, which, according to the pamphlet "The End of Old Europe" by Josh Brooman, was won by Britain when they built the HMS Queen Elizabeth. As an island nation, a strong national border protection was very important to Britain's defense. Germany had a much smaller coastline, and their navy was less important, especially since Germany borders France and Russia. Germany's naval aggression was unnecessary and was another reason why Germany was at fault for World War I.
Much of the bloodshed of World War I was the result of the large alliances that dragged uninvolved countries, like Britain, into the war. The alliance system began over thirty years before the war started when Germany asked Austria-Hungary to form an alliance. This treaty was extended to Italy in 1882, forming the Triple Alliance. This alliance scared France and Russia, who became allies. With Europe squaring off against each other, Britain was forced to become become allies with France to protect themselves. Ultimately, all the major powers in Europe had taken sides and were ready for battle, all because of Germany's initial alliance.
In 1897, Germany had a thriving economy and a strong army, but the German government decided that was not enough. This was why, that year, they announced Germany's new "World Policy". This policy established that Germany would try to become more imperialistic and capture new territories. This new policy was not easily accomplished, and Germany made many enemies along the way. Their objective was to take over countries that could be an asset to their empire, mainly in rural Africa and the middle east. Germany's path to imperialism demonstrated how they strived to become a world power without regard to who they hurt along the way.
When France and Britain signed an alliance, Germany was doubtful that the two former enemies would really defend each other in battle. Germany decided to test their relationship, and almost started a war in the process. In 1905, Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm visited Morocco, a country France was trying to make one of their colonies. He told the Moroccan people that it was important that Morocco remain an independent country. At a conference, all the European powers except for Germany's ally Austria-Hungary and Morocco voted against Germany's idea of an independent Morocco and France took over Morocco. Once again, Germany tried to test the waters in Morocco when they sent a gunboat to Morocco to "protect German interests", which was interesting because the packet "Background: Power Politics and the Coming of War" states that German interests in this region were already protected by a special treaty. Soon after the boat arrived, a German foreign minister demanded that France hand over the French Congo to Germany. France, not wanting to start a war with Germany, handed this territory over, avoiding a confrontation. Twice Germany had tested France's readiness for battle, which showed that Germany was eager to start fighting.
When Germany was preparing for war, they saw that they would probably be faced with fighting on two fronts; both Russia and France were enemies of Germany. Count Alfre Von Schlieffen, a general of the German army, created a plan that would allow Germany to fight France and Russia without splitting their army. Schlieffen realized that Russia had a slow train system, so if Germany invaded France, then quickly turned towards their Russian border, they could avoid splitting their army. However, the plan also called for Germany to attack France through Belgium, which had declared themselves neutral. A letter to Belgium from Germany in the book "What Were the Causes of World War I?" states that Germany expected Belgium to let them use their "railways, roads, tunnels, or other similar works." This cruel invasion was the reason that Britain declared war on Germany, to help protect Belgium from the radical German powers. Germany's invasion of Belgium was a perfect example of their raw aggression and hostility that started this war.
World War I became one of the worst wars in human history, and this all could have been avoided had Germany not take the actions that they did. Germany needs to pay for their crimes, and we need to make sure that a country like Germany never starts such a horrific war again.
Although Britain did start the naval race shortly before World War I, Britain was the least to blame out of the major European powers. Throughout this war, Britain tried to avoid confrontations. Britain's involvement in the war came from a need to become allies with other countries for protection, and when Britain's allies, like France, were attacked, Britain was dragged into the war with them. Britain's only aggressive move in this war was their creation of the HMS Dreadnought, a large, powerful battleship which rendered all other ships obsolete. Germany created their own version of a super-naval ship, launching the two countries into a naval race, which, according to the pamphlet "The End of Old Europe" by Josh Brooman, was won by Britain when they built the HMS Queen Elizabeth. As an island nation, a strong national border protection was very important to Britain's defense. Germany had a much smaller coastline, and their navy was less important, especially since Germany borders France and Russia. Germany's naval aggression was unnecessary and was another reason why Germany was at fault for World War I.
Much of the bloodshed of World War I was the result of the large alliances that dragged uninvolved countries, like Britain, into the war. The alliance system began over thirty years before the war started when Germany asked Austria-Hungary to form an alliance. This treaty was extended to Italy in 1882, forming the Triple Alliance. This alliance scared France and Russia, who became allies. With Europe squaring off against each other, Britain was forced to become become allies with France to protect themselves. Ultimately, all the major powers in Europe had taken sides and were ready for battle, all because of Germany's initial alliance.
In 1897, Germany had a thriving economy and a strong army, but the German government decided that was not enough. This was why, that year, they announced Germany's new "World Policy". This policy established that Germany would try to become more imperialistic and capture new territories. This new policy was not easily accomplished, and Germany made many enemies along the way. Their objective was to take over countries that could be an asset to their empire, mainly in rural Africa and the middle east. Germany's path to imperialism demonstrated how they strived to become a world power without regard to who they hurt along the way.
When France and Britain signed an alliance, Germany was doubtful that the two former enemies would really defend each other in battle. Germany decided to test their relationship, and almost started a war in the process. In 1905, Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm visited Morocco, a country France was trying to make one of their colonies. He told the Moroccan people that it was important that Morocco remain an independent country. At a conference, all the European powers except for Germany's ally Austria-Hungary and Morocco voted against Germany's idea of an independent Morocco and France took over Morocco. Once again, Germany tried to test the waters in Morocco when they sent a gunboat to Morocco to "protect German interests", which was interesting because the packet "Background: Power Politics and the Coming of War" states that German interests in this region were already protected by a special treaty. Soon after the boat arrived, a German foreign minister demanded that France hand over the French Congo to Germany. France, not wanting to start a war with Germany, handed this territory over, avoiding a confrontation. Twice Germany had tested France's readiness for battle, which showed that Germany was eager to start fighting.
When Germany was preparing for war, they saw that they would probably be faced with fighting on two fronts; both Russia and France were enemies of Germany. Count Alfre Von Schlieffen, a general of the German army, created a plan that would allow Germany to fight France and Russia without splitting their army. Schlieffen realized that Russia had a slow train system, so if Germany invaded France, then quickly turned towards their Russian border, they could avoid splitting their army. However, the plan also called for Germany to attack France through Belgium, which had declared themselves neutral. A letter to Belgium from Germany in the book "What Were the Causes of World War I?" states that Germany expected Belgium to let them use their "railways, roads, tunnels, or other similar works." This cruel invasion was the reason that Britain declared war on Germany, to help protect Belgium from the radical German powers. Germany's invasion of Belgium was a perfect example of their raw aggression and hostility that started this war.
World War I became one of the worst wars in human history, and this all could have been avoided had Germany not take the actions that they did. Germany needs to pay for their crimes, and we need to make sure that a country like Germany never starts such a horrific war again.
Mao: The Man Who Changed China
Emperor Mao Zedong's beliefs changed the way that China exists to this day. His ideas revolutionized Chinese culture and lifestyle for decades. His changes resulted in the deaths of millions of people, wasted time and brainwashed the people of China to follow his often misguided lead.
A part of Mao's rise to power involved millions of people dying. Regularly land was taken from the landlords and given to the peasants who worked the land. This was a positive change in that it improved the lives of many Chinese people. Unfortunately, Mao also encouraged the public humiliation and murder of these landlords. Thousands of these men were put on stages, harassed and killed. Although the landlords made life miserable for the Chinese farmers and peasants, they were simply the children of a corrupt system. Had they chosen not to be landlords, they probably would have had to become farmers and suffered the same as the peasants. Mao's Great Leap Forward made an effort to push China ahead but it ended up hurting China more than it helped. For example, Mao's Great Sparrow Campaign caused famine which killed 20 to 30 million people [1]. Mao's Great Leap Forward did not work, but Mao refused to accept the failure and continued on with his plans. Mao is quoted [2] as saying "'Half of China may well have to die'" regarding the Great Leap Forward. Additionally, during Mao's Cultural Revolution, the Red Guards (a group of young people in China who supported Mao) humiliated, tortured and killed those who opposed Mao. Millions were killed, and they weren't even all against Mao. Schoolteachers who had taught children to support Mao were punished for representing authority. The Red Guards were merciless, even killing other Red Guards who they thought were not the true Red Guards.
Mao's intentions had always been to help improve China, and this is exactly why he ordered canals to be built for irrigation during the Great Leap Forward. The construction of the project took huge amounts of men, many of which died, and used many of the countries resources, like steel. When Mao decided to try to return to power in 1966, he enlisted the Red Guards would travel across China convincing people to support Mao and punishing those who didn't. This threw the country into turmoil and stopped it from progressing. This period is known as the "10 Wasted Years" because it suffered through so much violence and fighting that education and technology were set back and the economy was nearly destroyed. Another article[3] concludes, "The Cultural Revolution ruptured China's political system, maimed the nation's intelligentsia, disrupted the economy and, at times, brought Chinese society to the brink of civil war." When Mao first took power, he moved the country forward and saved time but he ended up wasting time later.
The people of China thoroughly believed that Mao could achieve the perfect society that he talked about and were willing to do everything they could to help him accomplish it. Whenever Mao asked the people of China to do something for the country, they almost instantly responded. The negative of this response is that many people stopped their regular work and jobs to try and help Mao, which was catastrophic. During the Great Leap Forward, Mao often asked for citizens to accomplish tasks to help improve the country, but these tasks frequently had bad outcomes. In 1958, Mao made the Great Sparrow Campaign where he asked for citizens to kill as many sparrows as possible to help crops. After years of killing sparrows, the Chinese realized that sparrows primarily ate insects that eat crops. This disruption of the food chain destroyed many crops and caused the Great Chinese famine. To assist in the building of canals, Mao asked citizens to produce steel for its construction. Villages set up steel furnaces all over and people melted down their pots and pans to help. In the end, after so many people had stopped working and sacrificed their possessions, it was discovered that this steel was brittle and could not be used. Mao had so much influence and control over the people of China, that even his bad orders were carried out by the mass of the population.
Although Mao had good intentions and in many ways helped improve the lives of the Chinese people, he should not be celebrated because he did more bad than good and as a result the country wasted time and resources and the lives of millions of people where lost during his rule over China.
Mao's intentions had always been to help improve China, and this is exactly why he ordered canals to be built for irrigation during the Great Leap Forward. The construction of the project took huge amounts of men, many of which died, and used many of the countries resources, like steel. When Mao decided to try to return to power in 1966, he enlisted the Red Guards would travel across China convincing people to support Mao and punishing those who didn't. This threw the country into turmoil and stopped it from progressing. This period is known as the "10 Wasted Years" because it suffered through so much violence and fighting that education and technology were set back and the economy was nearly destroyed. Another article[3] concludes, "The Cultural Revolution ruptured China's political system, maimed the nation's intelligentsia, disrupted the economy and, at times, brought Chinese society to the brink of civil war." When Mao first took power, he moved the country forward and saved time but he ended up wasting time later.
The people of China thoroughly believed that Mao could achieve the perfect society that he talked about and were willing to do everything they could to help him accomplish it. Whenever Mao asked the people of China to do something for the country, they almost instantly responded. The negative of this response is that many people stopped their regular work and jobs to try and help Mao, which was catastrophic. During the Great Leap Forward, Mao often asked for citizens to accomplish tasks to help improve the country, but these tasks frequently had bad outcomes. In 1958, Mao made the Great Sparrow Campaign where he asked for citizens to kill as many sparrows as possible to help crops. After years of killing sparrows, the Chinese realized that sparrows primarily ate insects that eat crops. This disruption of the food chain destroyed many crops and caused the Great Chinese famine. To assist in the building of canals, Mao asked citizens to produce steel for its construction. Villages set up steel furnaces all over and people melted down their pots and pans to help. In the end, after so many people had stopped working and sacrificed their possessions, it was discovered that this steel was brittle and could not be used. Mao had so much influence and control over the people of China, that even his bad orders were carried out by the mass of the population.
Although Mao had good intentions and in many ways helped improve the lives of the Chinese people, he should not be celebrated because he did more bad than good and as a result the country wasted time and resources and the lives of millions of people where lost during his rule over China.
References
- Judith Wyman "A Great Leader, Who Made Some Mistakes"
- Adi Ignatius "The Mao That Roared"
- "Mortalizing Mao"
Perspective & Our Town
Everyone has a moment that they are looking forward to. Times like weekends, holidays and days off help guide us through our life. While this way of thinking has many positive aspects, we lose the appreciation of all details of the moments that pass us by. Because we may see moments like holidays as "better" moments, we often fail to see the quality of the smaller ones that we overlook. We see these "small moments" in Thornton Wilder's play Our Town. The play takes us to a small town in New England and we see how simple it is, to the point where we may get bored due to the similarity to our lives. After witnessing events in the play we might have formerly perceived as big and important portrayed as relatively simple and straightforward, we begin to question how important these events are in our life. Not until death does one of the characters realize how much of life was ignored. But after death, she can see how much everyone goes through life without noticing the events that are occurring all the time. To show us that these lessons are true in our own lives, Wilder uses devices such as the lack of props and directly connecting us to the cast to enable us to better relate to the play. He then uses drastic shifts in focus and perspective on events in our lives to drive home what is truly important in life. Finally, by quickly jumping around through time, Wilder shows us that while time passes, our lives stay relatively the same. Wilder uses these techniques to set up the important lessons about how to live our lives. Our Town shows us that everything in life is unique and special, so we should appreciate every moment.
The lack of props helps generalize the play and makes it easier to relate the story to our own lives to teach us that every moment is important in our life. The absence of props is the first thing that is even in the play: the first stage direction reads "No curtain. No scenery." (p. 4) The lack of props is a key element of this play. By removing them, we are forced to create our own imaginary surroundings. By creating our own environment, we become connected with the play and can easily relate the town in the story to our own town. A short bit later, the Stage Manager is showing us around the town. He announces "There's some scenery for those who think they have to have scenery" (p.7). The Stage Manager is telling us that while some people "think they have to have scenery," we should fill in these gaps with scenery from their own life. Because Wilder's objective is to show us a better way to live our life, we must be able to see that the characters in the play are no different than we are. When we can connect with the characters in the story, we can learn how to better relate to them and appreciate the big and small moments of our life.
Throughout the play, Wilder uses a rather unconventional shift in focus by frequently moving back and forth between big and small events to show the significance of each moment. In the beginning of the play, we are taken to a simple and insignificant moment in Grover's Corners, Dr. Gibbs stopping to talk to Joe the paperboy. While many see this as boring and lacking plot, it is meant to represent the actions we take every day that become part of our routine and begin to lose meaning. Dr. Gibbs asks him if anything serious is going on in the world, to which Joe replies "Yessir. My schoolteacher, Miss Foster,'s getting married to a fella over in Concord"(p.9). This statement shows that our perception of big and little events is relative. Most people would consider that a big event in the world would deal with much larger issues than a local teacher getting married, but in the eyes of Joe, this is very big news. This transition between big and small events shows us that small moments in life are just as important as big ones.
Wilder uses another device to us perspective on our lives by dramatically shifting through time, showing the lack of change as time goes on. Early in the play, the Stage Manager introduces Doc Gibbs and his wife. Immediately after introducing them, he states "Doc Gibbs died in 1930...Mrs. Gibbs died first-long time ago, in fact" (p.8) By already knowing about his death, we view his actions in the play differently. Had Doc Gibbs known he would die in 1930, he would have lived life differently, appreciating every moment and spending time with his family. Wilder is trying to teach us the way that we should live our lives. We do not know anything about what happened between now and when he died, but we can assume that most of his life was the same as it had always been. By living a simple life and not taking notice to his surroundings, we can simply remove years of his life from the story without changing it. Although many people live their life aiming at a point in the future, once that moment arrives their life will still be basically the same, and the time spent waiting is time lost and unappreciated. The compression of time shows us the importance of time and how each unique moment should be appreciated rather than rushing towards a point in the future.
Unlike most plays, Our Town is unique in its connection between the cast and the audience to teach us the importance of appreciating insignificant events. In Act 1, the Stage Manager calls Professor Willard and Mr. Webb on to the stage to talk to us about Grover's Corners. He directly addresses the audience, asking "Is there anyone in the audience who would like to ask Editor Webb anything about the town?" (p.24). Actors placed in the audience respond to the Stage Manager with questions, such as a woman in a box seat who asks "Is there any culture or love of beauty in Grover's Corners?" (p.26). By directly involving us in the play, Wilder breaks the "fourth wall," and we can more easily relate to the story. Audience members do not feel the separation of themselves and the play because the play involves them and those around them. This is important because Wilder is trying to prove a point to us about the way that we live our lives, and by including us in the play, we can clearly see how our lives are the same as the characters in the story. By involving us in the play, we can better see Grover's Corners as our town, allowing us to more easily understand or appreciate Wilder's message.
Wilder points out that things that we may see as very important to our life are really not as significant as we may think. In the middle of Act II, the Stage Manager brings us back in time to when George and Emily were still in high school. He sets the scene by saying "George has just been elected President of the Junior Class... And Emily's just been elected Secretary and Treasurer. I don't have to tell you how important that is." (p. 63) The Stage Manager uses sarcasm here for us to understand how we exaggerate the importance of events. Although George and Emily probably saw their election as very important, this distracts them from noticing the truly important events. The truly important event occurs after this, when George and Emily walk home together. The Stage Manager is sarcastically calling these positions important so we realize that although something like being elected president of your class may seem important at the time, it is insignificant in the picture of your whole life.
This play helps us understand that what many people see as the most important day in a person's life is no different than any other day. In Act II, we see the wedding of Emily and George. During the ceremony, Mrs. Soames turns around to talk to us. "Don't know when I've seen such a lovely wedding," (p.77) she says. Although Mrs. Soames is enjoying the wedding, it seems like a typical wedding to us. Mrs. Soames has built up the idea in her head that the wedding will be "lovely", so when it turns out to be a routine wedding, she assumes it is "lovely." From this we see that when we expect enjoy an event, we usually do. Unfortunately, we also tend to have the opposite expectation of other regular days. When we plan on having a normal day, we fail to notice the simple pleasures of the day; we simply pass them off as routine. Wilder wants us to appreciate every day for the way it is, not to just label the important days "good" and ignore the rest. Every day of our lives are unique, the ones with large events may seem more important, but they are really just as significant as any other day.
Act III begins to wrap up Wilder's lessons by clearly showing us that we do not fully appreciate life. The act starts with the funeral of Emily, however the focus of the act is not on her funeral but her experience in the afterlife. Emily enters the afterlife at her funeral and sits down in a chair next to Mrs. Gibbs. She is happy to be there, but she is still thinking like a living person. She begins to tell Mrs. Gibbs about their new drinking fountain, and tells her "We bought that out of the money you left us," to which Mrs. Gibbs replies "I did?"(p.88) Mrs. Gibbs understands the true importance of life, while Emily still thinks that money and possessions make life good. Wilder is showing us that we, like Emily, spend our lives focused on objects instead of experiences. We can never truly be happy until we can learn to simply enjoy life. Emily soon realizes that she is thinking differently than the rest of the dead and asks Mrs. Gibbs "When does this feeling go away?-Of being... one of them?"(p.89) Emily is starting to comprehend what the living do not: that life should be enjoyed for the small events that happen every day, not the big events that happen rarely.
While many moments of our life seem boring and ordinary, Emily shows us how unique these moments really are. After Emily has died, the Stage Manager informs her that she may return to a day in her life. However, others among the dead advise her against taking this journey, calling it unwise. Emily disagrees, claiming "It's a thing I must know for myself" (p.92). Mrs. Gibbs provides one last piece of advice: "Choose the least important day in your life. It will be important enough" (p.100). In spite of this, she still chooses a rather important day, her 14th birthday. Emily's return to her past life is a shocking experience, as she realizes how much of her life she has passed by. She appears fourteen years into the past, watching the daily routine of the town. Everything that happens we have seen before, common things such as the milkman delivering bottles of milk and making conversation with others. Emily is delighted to be back in her town at first, but she soon begins to see her life under a different light. After spending time back in life, she breaks down in tears. "Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it?-every, every minute?" (p.108) she asks the Stage Manager. By reliving her life, she notices that no one stops to appreciate all that is happening every moment. From an outsider's perspective, she can see the world moving around her, while others maintain a narrow focus. Wilder uses this scene to reach out to us and urge them not to wait until it's too late to appreciate the world. If we can acknowledge the fine details of life every day, we would live a better life. Waiting for holidays and occasions to enjoy life is a waste of our time on this planet. As Emily discovers only after her death, we miss so much of every day as we rush towards the future, ignoring the present.
As the play comes to a close, we are reminded how everything in our life is viewed relatively and what may appear small upon first glance may be much greater. After returning to the others in the graveyard, Emily informs the deceased that it truly was a mistake to return to her life, as she has realized the way that humans ignorantly live their lives on Earth. After this, Mrs. Gibbs looks to the sky and exclaims, "Emily, look at that star. I forget its name"(p.101). This final quote sums up the fact that relatively small things can be huge. A star in the sky appears as just a speck, an intricate snowflake in a blizzard. However, that star in the sky can be millions of times bigger than our planet, and composed of an incomprehensible amount of energy. We look up to the sky and all we see is a field of bright dots, but close observation reveals much more than that. In our own lives, we find ourselves only paying attention to things that are blatant and in our face. Just like the star, paying close attention to small moments reveals more than we could ever imagine. Wilder uses this to teach us that our life consists of overlooking small things and paying attention to what holds our focus. For the small moments to which we do notice, such as a star in the sky, our knowledge is too often limited to a brief label, such as a name. Mrs. Gibbs only knows the star for it's name, not the wonders which occur on it. Mrs. Gibbs reference to the star in the sky truly provides us a way to see how many moments we let slip through our grasps, unappreciated.
The play Our Town warns us to appreciate every moment of our life or we will end up missing the truly important ones. While the first two acts of the play may bore the viewer, the third act shows that it is our life that we allow to be so boring. This proves Wilder's point better than any line could, by making us think about our lives and the way we handle day to day events. Wilder teaches us that to live a fulfilling life, we must appreciate every moment no matter how big or small. By ignoring what is happening around us and only looking towards the future, we miss out on the simple yet magical moments of the present.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)