(I watched the pro-vegetarian / animal cruelty awareness video)
I am an omnivore. I've thought of becoming a vegetarian, and I could do it, but I feel that a healthy diet includes a wide variety of foods and that a reasonable amount of good meat along with enough vegetables and other things can be healthy. However, this video makes it clear that the animals that Americans eat are raised under such gross conditions that beyond making their lives completely terrible and unhealthy, it makes our consumption unhealthy.
Anything that common morality has to say about the American food industry will tell you how wrong it is. If the treatment that these Animals receive was done in front of the people who are eating them, I would bet that many less people would actually want to do it. However, most Americans simply are not aware. They go on living their lives while the meat isle in the local supermarket is the closest they get to industrial farming.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Collapse Assignment 1
I thought it was interesting how the inhabitants of Easter Island seemed to be obsessed with being the best. They were very patriotic. From what I understand, the famous statues were created as a display of power of their tribe. I also believe that they were made in order to impress Gods of sorts, which in turn would protect them.
The strangest thing about Easter Island is the apparent quick end that its inhabitants came to. But, it can be connected to the quick and depletion and use of precious resources on the island. It was once a rich and plentiful spot of land, but the islanders were quick to burn through it by means of apparent large numbers and also - the statues that were build required much work and use of resources. Apparently, the trunks of trees were used to roll the enormous rocks of dozens of tons to the desired locations.
The fast burning of limited resources can easily be related to that of the current day use of oil. Oil, has been the sole source of energy for the fast expansion of industrial civilization. It can be inferred that current day civilization will run out of resources and in part, die out. This happened to the Eastern Island inhabitants, and will happen to us soon. Our economy runs on oil - hell, our supply of basic necessities runs on oil these days, and it is simply running out. Eastern Island's trees were wiped out, along with most of their sources of food. Much of the food they ate, was fish, fished out of the ocean. With no more trees, the canoes they would use could no longer be made.
The strangest thing about Easter Island is the apparent quick end that its inhabitants came to. But, it can be connected to the quick and depletion and use of precious resources on the island. It was once a rich and plentiful spot of land, but the islanders were quick to burn through it by means of apparent large numbers and also - the statues that were build required much work and use of resources. Apparently, the trunks of trees were used to roll the enormous rocks of dozens of tons to the desired locations.
The fast burning of limited resources can easily be related to that of the current day use of oil. Oil, has been the sole source of energy for the fast expansion of industrial civilization. It can be inferred that current day civilization will run out of resources and in part, die out. This happened to the Eastern Island inhabitants, and will happen to us soon. Our economy runs on oil - hell, our supply of basic necessities runs on oil these days, and it is simply running out. Eastern Island's trees were wiped out, along with most of their sources of food. Much of the food they ate, was fish, fished out of the ocean. With no more trees, the canoes they would use could no longer be made.
Final Food Assignment
I listened the Dana White song, and due to a lack of time as you suggested, none of the others. I had a laugh : ) - I got several clear messages from this video. At the start of the video, Dana describes the way that domesticated cows are raised to get fat, and get fat to be killed and eaten. This has widely been the case in agricultural farming for a long time, but it has been taken to a new level with industrial farming. Basically, it's done on a much larger scale.
Also, the funny parts of the video - the cow guru, the cows with guns, their rebellion, I think in turn send a message that says explicitly that those things can't and won't happen. Cows have no way of taking a stand and neither do any other farm animals. Chickens in choppers make an appearance to make it clear that a good number of industrial farm animals experience the same fate. These things go without saying, but this video catches attention to hopefully make a statement.
In my opinion, for the health of animals, humans themselves and our coexistence in general, humans should stray from the current tactics of industrial farming.
Also, the funny parts of the video - the cow guru, the cows with guns, their rebellion, I think in turn send a message that says explicitly that those things can't and won't happen. Cows have no way of taking a stand and neither do any other farm animals. Chickens in choppers make an appearance to make it clear that a good number of industrial farm animals experience the same fate. These things go without saying, but this video catches attention to hopefully make a statement.
In my opinion, for the health of animals, humans themselves and our coexistence in general, humans should stray from the current tactics of industrial farming.
Collapse Assignment 2
In a society run on copious amounts of oil, one has to wonder what will happen when the oil is no longer plentiful enough. Will the society completely cave in? Probably not - but some people will probably die. I've said before, that reaching peak oil could mean that the massive and continuous technological development humanity has seen in recent years will soon come to an end. Our advancements have on top of giving us countless digital toys made food production easier, allowing for a great increase in population. With the unpredicted growth of population came the need to sustain that population. More and more food needed to be produced. For a while this was fine and good - oil allowed more incredible quantities of low quality food to be produced and distributed, however that source will soon be diminished and a hungry population will suffer.
One would think that this extremely time prevalent and time-sensitive oncoming problem would be the hot topic of the century. But Matthew David Savinar discusses some reasons why the media won't publicly discuss this on his personal website.
Three reasons he posts are:
a) Most journalist's are simply unaware.
"Wall Street and the financial media are made up of human beings that are just no more interested in the Peak Oil issue than most people that you know."
b) Journalists who are aware couldn't go public without causing panic and/or getting fired from their job.
"As soon as it is recognized that for all practical purposes the situation is upon us, then a vicious "resource grab" will be initiated."
c) Major industries that have largely founded our country such as the automotive and aviation industries would be severely damaged by widespread knowledge of this.
"With automotive giants GM and Ford already on the ropes, any aggressive program of conservation would likely so blunt the demand for new cars that the two automotive giants spiraling into bankruptcy."
Basically, if word won't get out about this, and if the masses of people are not aware of this drastic oncoming change - panic will erupt. Life will get hard, people will die all the while lashing out at each other. I do not believe that the governments will any longer be able to contain much of their populous'. I think that smaller reformed societies will form and hopefully work together for a possibly better future.
It can be said that humans haven't learned from their mistakes before - but a collapse of society of this magnitude has happened ever before in recorded history.
I for one, am very curious how events will unfold.
One would think that this extremely time prevalent and time-sensitive oncoming problem would be the hot topic of the century. But Matthew David Savinar discusses some reasons why the media won't publicly discuss this on his personal website.
Three reasons he posts are:
a) Most journalist's are simply unaware.
"Wall Street and the financial media are made up of human beings that are just no more interested in the Peak Oil issue than most people that you know."
b) Journalists who are aware couldn't go public without causing panic and/or getting fired from their job.
"As soon as it is recognized that for all practical purposes the situation is upon us, then a vicious "resource grab" will be initiated."
c) Major industries that have largely founded our country such as the automotive and aviation industries would be severely damaged by widespread knowledge of this.
"With automotive giants GM and Ford already on the ropes, any aggressive program of conservation would likely so blunt the demand for new cars that the two automotive giants spiraling into bankruptcy."
Basically, if word won't get out about this, and if the masses of people are not aware of this drastic oncoming change - panic will erupt. Life will get hard, people will die all the while lashing out at each other. I do not believe that the governments will any longer be able to contain much of their populous'. I think that smaller reformed societies will form and hopefully work together for a possibly better future.
It can be said that humans haven't learned from their mistakes before - but a collapse of society of this magnitude has happened ever before in recorded history.
I for one, am very curious how events will unfold.
Collapse Assignment 2 draft
In a society run on copious amounts of oil, one has to wonder what will happen when the oil is no longer plentiful enough. Will the society completely cave in? Probably not - but some people will probably die. I've said before, that reaching peak oil could mean that the massive and continuous technological development humanity has seen in recent years will soon come to an end. Our advancements have on top of giving us countless digital toys made food production easier, allowing for a great increase in population. With the unpredicted growth of population came the need to sustain that population. More and more food needed to be produced. For a while this was fine and good - oil allowed more incredible quantities of low quality food to be produced and distributed, however that source will soon be diminished and a hungry population will suffer.
One would think that this extremely time prevalent and time-sensitive oncoming problem would be the hot topic of the century. But Matthew David Savinar discusses some reasons why the media won't publicly discuss this on his personal website.
Three reasons he posts are:
a) Most journalist's are simply unaware.
"Wall Street and the financial media are made up of human beings that are just no more interested in the Peak Oil issue than most people that you know."
b) Journalists who are aware couldn't go public without causing panic and/or getting fired from their job.
"As soon as it is recognized that for all practical purposes the situation is upon us, then a vicious "resource grab" will be initiated."
c) Major industries that have largely founded our country such as the automotive and aviation industries would be severely damaged by widespread knowledge of this.
"With automotive giants GM and Ford already on the ropes, any aggressive program of conservation would likely so blunt the demand for new cars that the two automotive giants spiraling into bankruptcy."
One would think that this extremely time prevalent and time-sensitive oncoming problem would be the hot topic of the century. But Matthew David Savinar discusses some reasons why the media won't publicly discuss this on his personal website.
Three reasons he posts are:
a) Most journalist's are simply unaware.
"Wall Street and the financial media are made up of human beings that are just no more interested in the Peak Oil issue than most people that you know."
b) Journalists who are aware couldn't go public without causing panic and/or getting fired from their job.
"As soon as it is recognized that for all practical purposes the situation is upon us, then a vicious "resource grab" will be initiated."
c) Major industries that have largely founded our country such as the automotive and aviation industries would be severely damaged by widespread knowledge of this.
"With automotive giants GM and Ford already on the ropes, any aggressive program of conservation would likely so blunt the demand for new cars that the two automotive giants spiraling into bankruptcy."
Collapse Assignment 2 draft
In a society run on copious amounts of oil, one has to wonder what will happen when the oil is no longer plentiful enough. Will the society completely cave in? Probably not - but some people will probably die. I've said before, that reaching peak oil could mean that the massive and continuous technological development humanity has seen in recent years will soon come to an end. Our advancements have on top of giving us countless digital toys made food production easier, allowing for a great increase in population. With the unpredicted growth of population came the need to sustain that population. More and more food needed to be produced. For a while this was fine and good - oil allowed more incredible quantities of low quality food to be produced and distributed, however that source will soon be diminished and a hungry population will suffer.
Comments on other final papers
~~~~~Mara R's Paper~~~~~
You say that no one will ever know the true meaning of life. I agree. I don't think that anyone has any better clue than the next person as to why the universe came to be, what was before it etc. The potential, origin etc. of us humans either. I think the common question "why are we here?" is an odd one. It assumes some sort of divine purpose which for some reason I think is silly.
On the other hand, I think that when a person creates their own definition of what life's meaning is it is legitimate enough for the individual. It's hard to imagine a "true" meaning of life.
Your last paragraph was very interesting. I believe it suggests that Americans don't really have a culture and because of this don't really know how to appreciate food - or else have a different understanding than that of cultured people. Well, any society has a culture, but I agree than the American one is pretty trashy when it comes to appreciating things like food. Of course, the American population is made up of people with all sorts of cultural backgrounds but children whom are born here, if they aren't lucky enough to have enough outer culture around them will only know what is fed to them by those who wish to make money. The food industry has cut every possible corner at this point.
I imagine it's wonderful to grow your own vegetables :] your garden sounds nice. The people in Italy giving homegrown vegetables to others that you described reminded me of things that I saw while I was in a small town in France. Nearly every day there was an area along a few streets that were lined with people selling and trading vegetables of their own - all home grown. It was most of the townspeople - not like, the few garden nuts, you know? I remember thinking how differently we seem to think of our food in the US.
~~~~~Kyle C's Paper~~~~~
I found your thoughts on knowledge being "poisonous" very interesting. You make a good point. I think that our desire as a species to answer all the questions may eventually be the end of us. And even on a smaller scale, most people do seem to have a relatively great deal of shit flying at them and it becomes difficult to separate important things from insignificant and material things that will die out.
Becoming Amish won't happen but if it could, you're right - in this day and age simplicity unfortunately won't cut it.
I agree that science is now the unspoken religion of choice for many people. In science we trust as it gives us explanations for once mysterious aspects of the universe.
You say that we've become too aware, and I have a similar opinion. I just also think that a certain level of awareness above what primates evidently have could help make for a better and more meaningful life. I wonder how aware we should be.
You say that no one will ever know the true meaning of life. I agree. I don't think that anyone has any better clue than the next person as to why the universe came to be, what was before it etc. The potential, origin etc. of us humans either. I think the common question "why are we here?" is an odd one. It assumes some sort of divine purpose which for some reason I think is silly.
On the other hand, I think that when a person creates their own definition of what life's meaning is it is legitimate enough for the individual. It's hard to imagine a "true" meaning of life.
Your last paragraph was very interesting. I believe it suggests that Americans don't really have a culture and because of this don't really know how to appreciate food - or else have a different understanding than that of cultured people. Well, any society has a culture, but I agree than the American one is pretty trashy when it comes to appreciating things like food. Of course, the American population is made up of people with all sorts of cultural backgrounds but children whom are born here, if they aren't lucky enough to have enough outer culture around them will only know what is fed to them by those who wish to make money. The food industry has cut every possible corner at this point.
I imagine it's wonderful to grow your own vegetables :] your garden sounds nice. The people in Italy giving homegrown vegetables to others that you described reminded me of things that I saw while I was in a small town in France. Nearly every day there was an area along a few streets that were lined with people selling and trading vegetables of their own - all home grown. It was most of the townspeople - not like, the few garden nuts, you know? I remember thinking how differently we seem to think of our food in the US.
~~~~~Kyle C's Paper~~~~~
I found your thoughts on knowledge being "poisonous" very interesting. You make a good point. I think that our desire as a species to answer all the questions may eventually be the end of us. And even on a smaller scale, most people do seem to have a relatively great deal of shit flying at them and it becomes difficult to separate important things from insignificant and material things that will die out.
Becoming Amish won't happen but if it could, you're right - in this day and age simplicity unfortunately won't cut it.
I agree that science is now the unspoken religion of choice for many people. In science we trust as it gives us explanations for once mysterious aspects of the universe.
You say that we've become too aware, and I have a similar opinion. I just also think that a certain level of awareness above what primates evidently have could help make for a better and more meaningful life. I wonder how aware we should be.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Final Paper: What makes life meaningful? (updated 6/13 AM)
What makes life meaningful?
For some people a sense of meaning in their lives comes very easily. Others not so much. I believe it's just as possible for a person to find no meaning in their life as it is to find a good deal of it. Partly, this would have to do with what a given life consists of, but more importantly - how the person whose life it is perceives it. One might consider the people and things around them whose company they enjoy the source of meaningfulness in their lives. Others, maybe slightly more introverted fellows could possibly understand the meaningfulness in their lives as coming from the level of contentment that they have with the life they are living. It's become clear to me that meaningfulness is very indefinite. Arguable too.
The time I have spent thinking about this question has lead me to continue believing something that pretty much goes without saying: An individual person's understanding of meaning in their own life is labeled by them and by them alone. Intentionally or not. A person must create a sense of meaning on their own for them to have any sense of it at all. Meaning doesn't simply rely on a persons surroundings, or with what they spend their time doing. Just as with so many things, the meaningfulness of a life depends on whose eyes you are looking through; your perspective.
Many will gauge meaningfulness on their own perceptions of success. Lets say there was a man who was born into a family that was very financially well off. From his birth he has been nearly smothered in paid-for care - butlers and maids tending to his every minor need or desire. So much so, that as he grew older it was the only way to live that ever knew and with so much at his fingertips he found little reason to explore other walks of life. If success means financial bounty and ease, then this man was born with it. And if a life in which one has all the joys that money can buy is meaningful, than this man's life would be meaningful throughout. As you are reading this, you may or may not naturally think of ways that his story could be said to describe a meaningless life. Some may think to consider meaningful aspects of life to be things having to do with social interaction or overcoming obstacles. A person born without a reason to do any work for a living likely not seize the same opportunities.
That being said, the content of a life does not have to change for a persons perception of its meaningfulness to change. Seeing as meaningfulness is not fact but opinion, an idea of what is meaningful might amend as quickly as anything else an individual might change their mind on. An individual's experiences will change their values. Children often have very different aspirations to when they are adults. With every new experience, a person has a slightly (or largely) revised view of the world. Growing up causes some people to fall to their knees at the feet of depression. A child might at at young age aspire to have some sort of heroic job when they grow older older - such as a fireman or an astronaut. What's cooler than a uniform? Usually that wont be the case. More often than not they will eventually forget about that idea and find a more reasonable or viable career choice.
When confronted with the idea that meaning in life can come with happiness and contentment alone - one might think to argue that in order to live a meaningful life a person must experience unhappiness of some sort so as to understand life in a more rounded way; if you experience no unhappiness in your whole life you cannot live a fulfilling one or a meaningful one. I can understand why one might think this, as meaning in life can be associated with a well rounded human experience. When I argue that happiness and a meaningful life go hand in hand, I like to think of happiness as a positive attitude. Happiness is not specific - it can be attributed to anything. An individual might be given an opportunity that would allow for happiness in them, but not in another person. If someone is happy for their whole lives, it would not mean that their life has been stale or that they didn't experience hardship or obstacles to overcome. I would take it as meaning that they found ways to appreciate their life throughout.
Meaningfulness is arguable, but no one can defy the meaningfulness that an individual can give something in their own mind. Right now I personally believe that meaningfulness can be leveled with a person's content and happiness in life. If I were to try to improve the meaningfulness of my own life - I suppose that looking inward would be the way to do it. I know that I have a somewhat bipolar personality. I'll find myself in states of real unhappiness as as well as joy and they are sometimes difficult to read (even as me). When I'm feeling down, I'll try to keep in mind the things that I find truly important. It would be meaningful, and would contribute to my overall happiness if I would try to look past the insignificant and focus on positive and significant parts of my life. Life throws shit at you, but taking one step at a time and keeping your surroundings in mind can be a life saver.
For some people a sense of meaning in their lives comes very easily. Others not so much. I believe it's just as possible for a person to find no meaning in their life as it is to find a good deal of it. Partly, this would have to do with what a given life consists of, but more importantly - how the person whose life it is perceives it. One might consider the people and things around them whose company they enjoy the source of meaningfulness in their lives. Others, maybe slightly more introverted fellows could possibly understand the meaningfulness in their lives as coming from the level of contentment that they have with the life they are living. It's become clear to me that meaningfulness is very indefinite. Arguable too.
The time I have spent thinking about this question has lead me to continue believing something that pretty much goes without saying: An individual person's understanding of meaning in their own life is labeled by them and by them alone. Intentionally or not. A person must create a sense of meaning on their own for them to have any sense of it at all. Meaning doesn't simply rely on a persons surroundings, or with what they spend their time doing. Just as with so many things, the meaningfulness of a life depends on whose eyes you are looking through; your perspective.
Many will gauge meaningfulness on their own perceptions of success. Lets say there was a man who was born into a family that was very financially well off. From his birth he has been nearly smothered in paid-for care - butlers and maids tending to his every minor need or desire. So much so, that as he grew older it was the only way to live that ever knew and with so much at his fingertips he found little reason to explore other walks of life. If success means financial bounty and ease, then this man was born with it. And if a life in which one has all the joys that money can buy is meaningful, than this man's life would be meaningful throughout. As you are reading this, you may or may not naturally think of ways that his story could be said to describe a meaningless life. Some may think to consider meaningful aspects of life to be things having to do with social interaction or overcoming obstacles. A person born without a reason to do any work for a living likely not seize the same opportunities.
That being said, the content of a life does not have to change for a persons perception of its meaningfulness to change. Seeing as meaningfulness is not fact but opinion, an idea of what is meaningful might amend as quickly as anything else an individual might change their mind on. An individual's experiences will change their values. Children often have very different aspirations to when they are adults. With every new experience, a person has a slightly (or largely) revised view of the world. Growing up causes some people to fall to their knees at the feet of depression. A child might at at young age aspire to have some sort of heroic job when they grow older older - such as a fireman or an astronaut. What's cooler than a uniform? Usually that wont be the case. More often than not they will eventually forget about that idea and find a more reasonable or viable career choice.
When confronted with the idea that meaning in life can come with happiness and contentment alone - one might think to argue that in order to live a meaningful life a person must experience unhappiness of some sort so as to understand life in a more rounded way; if you experience no unhappiness in your whole life you cannot live a fulfilling one or a meaningful one. I can understand why one might think this, as meaning in life can be associated with a well rounded human experience. When I argue that happiness and a meaningful life go hand in hand, I like to think of happiness as a positive attitude. Happiness is not specific - it can be attributed to anything. An individual might be given an opportunity that would allow for happiness in them, but not in another person. If someone is happy for their whole lives, it would not mean that their life has been stale or that they didn't experience hardship or obstacles to overcome. I would take it as meaning that they found ways to appreciate their life throughout.
Meaningfulness is arguable, but no one can defy the meaningfulness that an individual can give something in their own mind. Right now I personally believe that meaningfulness can be leveled with a person's content and happiness in life. If I were to try to improve the meaningfulness of my own life - I suppose that looking inward would be the way to do it. I know that I have a somewhat bipolar personality. I'll find myself in states of real unhappiness as as well as joy and they are sometimes difficult to read (even as me). When I'm feeling down, I'll try to keep in mind the things that I find truly important. It would be meaningful, and would contribute to my overall happiness if I would try to look past the insignificant and focus on positive and significant parts of my life. Life throws shit at you, but taking one step at a time and keeping your surroundings in mind can be a life saver.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Transformation Paper
The idea of an oncoming transformation of society is absolutely fascinating. To me it is very unnerving, but also exciting.
I feel that there is little to no hope in changing the ways of a stubborn culture, or escaping (in time) the addiction to easy paths of development/expansion (oil among them; governmental corruption as well). That stubbornness, along with ignorance and greed (and laziness if there is such a thing) is a terribly insatiable combination which has been known to lead cultures into eventual downward spirals. The civilization in which we live simply cannot be sustained. Growth of our nation has seen rapid success, but the American way of life may soon be forced to a relatively abrupt halt. Unfortunately, along with much of everything that a good deal of people have ever known. As we've discussed in class, oil has been nearly the sole source of fuel for human kinds recent (past hundred years) machine laden prosperity. A movie we viewed in class described the incredible exponential growth of the human population over the last two hundred or so years. During the 1800's, there were approximately one billion people in the entire world. Since then, the earth's population has septupled. In more recent years, the growth has been faster and faster - truly an exponential incline of population. By 1930 there were about 2 billion people, and by 1960, 3 billion. Since 1999, the population has increased by over a billion in less than a decade. All of this has been possible as a result of humankind's use of those fossil fuels. This extremely accessible and fertile outside energy had allowed for far less to be done for a far greater production. Kind of like ridiculously cheap, efficient labor.
Global warming and other earthly issues have been topics of concern for hundreds of years. Public concern seems to fluctuate for some reason, and we've seen recent interest although the economic downturn seems to have swayed focus on it. Even so, the problem persists, and it can be widely blamed on careless mistreatment of our environment. Abuse that has come with to the rapid expansion of industrial society and the burning of fossil fuels.
The human population has seen steady escalation for the past while. This is partly due to the popularity of agriculture. Agricultural communities are stationary. Domesticated crops and livestock make for a greater supply of food that requires less physical work. This permits a greater number of mouths to be fed. Not many bad things can be said about bountiful production of food; but when the mass production that allows a population to grow massive can no longer be upheld, there is a problem.
It is difficult to predict the future and most people tend to live for little victories. it is very easy to grapple on to an easy way out and just go with the flow. Living life against the grain - whatever it may be during a lifetime, is simply more difficult. The tendency to do this explains why even people aware of a global problem might watch bad things happen with their mouth's shut and their hands off.
People are impossible. A graphic and extreme change might be needed to save humanity from itself. For years a fight has been fought to control society's dependency on oil. Any success there has been will apparently not be enough. Hybrid cars are not the answer. Running out of oil may be the kick in the balls that people need to experience to allow for change to happen. When an addict is deprived of heroin it can be painful. Addicts think that they are going to die if they don't get the drug they desire. It might honestly feel just so. The brain will tell you "if you don't eat you will die!". A person addicted to heroin has a voice that says "if you don't do this you will die!" It's not true (although I've heard of a body shutting down as a result). Society is in a way hardwired, after such a feeling of progress, to burn incredible amounts of energy - energy which is most easily obtained from limited sources. To stop using energy in such a way would cause a massive withdrawal - arguably similar to that of a narcotics user. Parts of society it would shut down, and the healing process could be very slow and gradual.
A recent thought: We pave over a lot of space. Of course there is very much surface area on the planet, but as humanity grows so rapidly we've seen humanity's footprint on the world deepen further than most could have imagined. Anyhow.. that space we pave over, or effect by other means (I am picturing cities), that won't get fixed. I can't imagine anyone tearing down a city to allow the earth to heal. And in those locations, miles of the ground completely covered and destroyed. Before pavement, previous cultures remains have been buried by layers of earth and soil, allowing for a renewed surface area. Never before has the earth seen a New York City. It's so dead that that I believe hope of renewal is a bit diminished. It seems like massive irreversible damage, and although we've seen that before, this one gets to me. Whose idea was that anyway? God, we suck. I'm going to go watch Life After People now. (I've never actually seen it).
Humanity can NOT keep building towards the sky. As much as we don't want to hear it, entropy will always take effect : ) . The higher we build, the farther we must fall to be on the ground again, where our feet belong. Peak oil may mean the peak of industrial growth. We may just fall. My mother agrees.
Of course, this is all hypothetical.
I feel that there is little to no hope in changing the ways of a stubborn culture, or escaping (in time) the addiction to easy paths of development/expansion (oil among them; governmental corruption as well). That stubbornness, along with ignorance and greed (and laziness if there is such a thing) is a terribly insatiable combination which has been known to lead cultures into eventual downward spirals. The civilization in which we live simply cannot be sustained. Growth of our nation has seen rapid success, but the American way of life may soon be forced to a relatively abrupt halt. Unfortunately, along with much of everything that a good deal of people have ever known. As we've discussed in class, oil has been nearly the sole source of fuel for human kinds recent (past hundred years) machine laden prosperity. A movie we viewed in class described the incredible exponential growth of the human population over the last two hundred or so years. During the 1800's, there were approximately one billion people in the entire world. Since then, the earth's population has septupled. In more recent years, the growth has been faster and faster - truly an exponential incline of population. By 1930 there were about 2 billion people, and by 1960, 3 billion. Since 1999, the population has increased by over a billion in less than a decade. All of this has been possible as a result of humankind's use of those fossil fuels. This extremely accessible and fertile outside energy had allowed for far less to be done for a far greater production. Kind of like ridiculously cheap, efficient labor.
Global warming and other earthly issues have been topics of concern for hundreds of years. Public concern seems to fluctuate for some reason, and we've seen recent interest although the economic downturn seems to have swayed focus on it. Even so, the problem persists, and it can be widely blamed on careless mistreatment of our environment. Abuse that has come with to the rapid expansion of industrial society and the burning of fossil fuels.
The human population has seen steady escalation for the past while. This is partly due to the popularity of agriculture. Agricultural communities are stationary. Domesticated crops and livestock make for a greater supply of food that requires less physical work. This permits a greater number of mouths to be fed. Not many bad things can be said about bountiful production of food; but when the mass production that allows a population to grow massive can no longer be upheld, there is a problem.
It is difficult to predict the future and most people tend to live for little victories. it is very easy to grapple on to an easy way out and just go with the flow. Living life against the grain - whatever it may be during a lifetime, is simply more difficult. The tendency to do this explains why even people aware of a global problem might watch bad things happen with their mouth's shut and their hands off.
People are impossible. A graphic and extreme change might be needed to save humanity from itself. For years a fight has been fought to control society's dependency on oil. Any success there has been will apparently not be enough. Hybrid cars are not the answer. Running out of oil may be the kick in the balls that people need to experience to allow for change to happen. When an addict is deprived of heroin it can be painful. Addicts think that they are going to die if they don't get the drug they desire. It might honestly feel just so. The brain will tell you "if you don't eat you will die!". A person addicted to heroin has a voice that says "if you don't do this you will die!" It's not true (although I've heard of a body shutting down as a result). Society is in a way hardwired, after such a feeling of progress, to burn incredible amounts of energy - energy which is most easily obtained from limited sources. To stop using energy in such a way would cause a massive withdrawal - arguably similar to that of a narcotics user. Parts of society it would shut down, and the healing process could be very slow and gradual.
A recent thought: We pave over a lot of space. Of course there is very much surface area on the planet, but as humanity grows so rapidly we've seen humanity's footprint on the world deepen further than most could have imagined. Anyhow.. that space we pave over, or effect by other means (I am picturing cities), that won't get fixed. I can't imagine anyone tearing down a city to allow the earth to heal. And in those locations, miles of the ground completely covered and destroyed. Before pavement, previous cultures remains have been buried by layers of earth and soil, allowing for a renewed surface area. Never before has the earth seen a New York City. It's so dead that that I believe hope of renewal is a bit diminished. It seems like massive irreversible damage, and although we've seen that before, this one gets to me. Whose idea was that anyway? God, we suck. I'm going to go watch Life After People now. (I've never actually seen it).
Humanity can NOT keep building towards the sky. As much as we don't want to hear it, entropy will always take effect : ) . The higher we build, the farther we must fall to be on the ground again, where our feet belong. Peak oil may mean the peak of industrial growth. We may just fall. My mother agrees.
Of course, this is all hypothetical.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Final Paper: What makes life meaningful? (draft)
What makes life meaningful?
For some people a sense of meaning in their lives comes very easily. Others not so much. I believe it's just as possible for a person to find no meaning in their life as it is to find a good deal of it. Partly, this would have to do with what a given life consists of, but more importantly - how the person whose life it is perceives it. One might consider the people and things around them whose company they enjoy, the source of meaningfulness in their lives. Others, maybe slightly more introverted fellows could possibly understand the meaningfulness in their lives as coming from the level of content that they have with the life they are living. It's become clear to me that meaningfulness is very indefinite. Arguable too.
The time I have spent thinking about this question has lead me to continue believing something that almost goes without saying. A person's understanding of meaning in their own life has to be labeled by them. Intentionally or not. A person must create a sense of meaning on their own for them to have any sense of it at all. Meaning doesn't simply rely on a persons surroundings, or with what they spend their time doing. Just as with so many things, the meaningfulness of a life depends on who's eyes you are looking through - the perspective you have.
Many will gauge meaningfulness on their own perceptions of success. Lets say there was a man who was born into a family that was very financially well off. From his birth he has been nearly smothered in paid-for care - butlers and maids tending to his every minor need or desire. So much so, that as he grew older it was the only way to live that ever knew and with so much at his fingertips he found little reason to explore other walks of life. If success means financial bounty and ease, then this man was born with it. And if a life in which one has all the joys that money can buy is meaningful, than this man's life would be meaningful throughout. Although even as you are reading this, you might naturally think of ways that his story could be said to describe a completely meaningless life.
That being said, the content of a life does not have to change for a persons perception of its meaningfulness to change. Seeing as meaningfulness is not fact but opinion, an idea of what is meaningful might amend as quickly as anything else an individual might change their mind on. A persons experiences will sometimes change what that person values. That's why children often have very different aspirations as kids than when they are adults. Their preferences also change. With every new experience, a person has a slightly (or largely) revised view of the world. Growing up causes some people to fall to their knees at the feet of depression. A child might at at young age aspire to have some sort of heroic job when they grow older older - such as a fireman or an astronaut. Usually that wont be the case. More often than not they will eventually forget about that idea and find a more reasonable or viable career choice.
Meaningfulness is arguable, but no one can defy the meaningfulness that an individual can give something in their own mind. Right now I personally believe that meaningfulness can be leveled with a person's content and happiness in life.
For some people a sense of meaning in their lives comes very easily. Others not so much. I believe it's just as possible for a person to find no meaning in their life as it is to find a good deal of it. Partly, this would have to do with what a given life consists of, but more importantly - how the person whose life it is perceives it. One might consider the people and things around them whose company they enjoy, the source of meaningfulness in their lives. Others, maybe slightly more introverted fellows could possibly understand the meaningfulness in their lives as coming from the level of content that they have with the life they are living. It's become clear to me that meaningfulness is very indefinite. Arguable too.
The time I have spent thinking about this question has lead me to continue believing something that almost goes without saying. A person's understanding of meaning in their own life has to be labeled by them. Intentionally or not. A person must create a sense of meaning on their own for them to have any sense of it at all. Meaning doesn't simply rely on a persons surroundings, or with what they spend their time doing. Just as with so many things, the meaningfulness of a life depends on who's eyes you are looking through - the perspective you have.
Many will gauge meaningfulness on their own perceptions of success. Lets say there was a man who was born into a family that was very financially well off. From his birth he has been nearly smothered in paid-for care - butlers and maids tending to his every minor need or desire. So much so, that as he grew older it was the only way to live that ever knew and with so much at his fingertips he found little reason to explore other walks of life. If success means financial bounty and ease, then this man was born with it. And if a life in which one has all the joys that money can buy is meaningful, than this man's life would be meaningful throughout. Although even as you are reading this, you might naturally think of ways that his story could be said to describe a completely meaningless life.
That being said, the content of a life does not have to change for a persons perception of its meaningfulness to change. Seeing as meaningfulness is not fact but opinion, an idea of what is meaningful might amend as quickly as anything else an individual might change their mind on. A persons experiences will sometimes change what that person values. That's why children often have very different aspirations as kids than when they are adults. Their preferences also change. With every new experience, a person has a slightly (or largely) revised view of the world. Growing up causes some people to fall to their knees at the feet of depression. A child might at at young age aspire to have some sort of heroic job when they grow older older - such as a fireman or an astronaut. Usually that wont be the case. More often than not they will eventually forget about that idea and find a more reasonable or viable career choice.
Meaningfulness is arguable, but no one can defy the meaningfulness that an individual can give something in their own mind. Right now I personally believe that meaningfulness can be leveled with a person's content and happiness in life.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Food Paper (unfinished)
Daily life has revolved around food for as long as we have existed. It seems that most organisms spend a bulk of their time obtaining the nourishment they need to survive. Today, food remains a significant aspect of our culture. Of course, it is an every day necessity to a human body, so this would make sense. Even the densest and most complicated first world life of an individual would have to include a time for nourishment. And why would anyone want otherwise? Food is pleasant and satisfying. It is sustaining and eating can be even a cathartic experience. The sustenance one consumes gives them the energy for all else in their lives, just as it has done during every step of humanity's history.
The human civilizations you see today are many things. They are forms of government; they are congregated religious and racial masses, etc. The overwhelming percentage are also agricultural. The United State's is a agriculturally based world economic power and evidently, most American families are stationary (any US residents really), part of being in an agricultural group. The projected ideal American life involves settling into a well furnished house or apartment with enough money to pay for a smooth and easy living - in one place (unless of course you have a summer home in the Hamptons). This entails reliance on the industrial agricultural system. Most Americans are provided food in exchange for a currency which they earn working a job that requires very specific talent, if any. Most likely, the majority of adults would be unable to live and thrive as a hunter and gatherer if that life were thrust upon them. Never having experienced the need to provide food for themselves, they probably wouldn't be very good at it. The average American sticks to menial tasks asked of them and buy their food from the market (painfully general).
Modern industrial agriculture has drastically lowered the quality of the food we eat...
The human civilizations you see today are many things. They are forms of government; they are congregated religious and racial masses, etc. The overwhelming percentage are also agricultural. The United State's is a agriculturally based world economic power and evidently, most American families are stationary (any US residents really), part of being in an agricultural group. The projected ideal American life involves settling into a well furnished house or apartment with enough money to pay for a smooth and easy living - in one place (unless of course you have a summer home in the Hamptons). This entails reliance on the industrial agricultural system. Most Americans are provided food in exchange for a currency which they earn working a job that requires very specific talent, if any. Most likely, the majority of adults would be unable to live and thrive as a hunter and gatherer if that life were thrust upon them. Never having experienced the need to provide food for themselves, they probably wouldn't be very good at it. The average American sticks to menial tasks asked of them and buy their food from the market (painfully general).
Modern industrial agriculture has drastically lowered the quality of the food we eat...
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Health Paper (unfinished)
As the class discussed, the concept of health is sometimes confined by Americans to physical fitness and even to simply, ideal appearance. However, over the course of this unit we've explored other aspects of human health - both physical and mental. My own definition of health was broadened by these idea's, for I hadn't ever really considered different aspects of mental health such as "moral" and "emotional" health as their own forms of health (and I would consider these as a part of mental health). But through this new understanding I have come to believe that health, in the human world, is often a matter of opinion - even physical health (some views might be slightly further out of line than others).
test blah
test blah
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Questions about health
~ What are the different types of health and how to do they tie into and feed off each other?
~ What ailments or other health issues WOULD NOT EXIST if not for human industrial society?
~ In current day society how much can we really do to prolong a lifespan due to good health?
~ In what ways can you be happy while living with a lack of physical health? Are these a direct result technology?
~ In what ways, if at all, is physical health more or less significant for the wellbeing of a human in relation to another species of animal? Why?
~ For what reasons are people considered mentally ill? Has this changed?
~ In what ways does the media shape our image of health?
~ Is the image of health proposed by the media in the US truthful? Which parts and how much? And if not how is it fake/wrong?
~ How is health viewed differently in different cultures? How does the image of a healthy person differ?
~ How has knowledge of health changed due to research and development over the years and what in our lives has this affected?
~ What ailments or other health issues WOULD NOT EXIST if not for human industrial society?
~ In current day society how much can we really do to prolong a lifespan due to good health?
~ In what ways can you be happy while living with a lack of physical health? Are these a direct result technology?
~ In what ways, if at all, is physical health more or less significant for the wellbeing of a human in relation to another species of animal? Why?
~ For what reasons are people considered mentally ill? Has this changed?
~ In what ways does the media shape our image of health?
~ Is the image of health proposed by the media in the US truthful? Which parts and how much? And if not how is it fake/wrong?
~ How is health viewed differently in different cultures? How does the image of a healthy person differ?
~ How has knowledge of health changed due to research and development over the years and what in our lives has this affected?
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Animal Paper
The majority of humans have long considered themselves as different from the other animals on this earth.
Over the years, humans have tried to give structure to the world around them – to label and name aspects of the universe in order to create a world in which they had a bit more control. (I use the term “they” loosely, as not every human really considered these things) So far as we know no other animal on the planet keeps track and records of “time”, though they are clearly aware of night and day and maybe even the periods we consider to be the hours of morning, afternoon and evening as separate sects of a day. We assume this through their behavioral patterns. However humans were the first to name it. The idea of “time” is a human creation. Humans have given this aspect of the universe anatomy. One could argue that the ability to do this does make humans different from others. Humans truly have added an outline to all that they could. They count the hours in a day down the minutes and seconds and milliseconds and beyond. They count the days in a year. And all of this is based on the earth’s rotation and its orbit around the sun. This schedule of time allows humans to speak of an exact date and time in the distant future. This, I believe, grants a certain amount of power. Honestly, it’s a feat to even know what the sun is made of or this planet’s relation to it. But humans have a name for all of these things. Because of the gradually expanding book of names for these aspects of our universe, humans seem to have grown arrogant. Now, instead of just experiencing an emotion or enjoying nice weather we try to understand and analyze these things. As a species, humans have gotten to a point where they have to consider everything. When looking at this in context of the idea that humans are losing track of their animality – it is a downward spiral. Amongst the popular culture of humanity, humans have actually created a world to themselves. When the typical person considers their priorities and concerns, it is likely that what they are dealing with is human-made. Relative to other animals, much of our way of life is incredibly unnatural. Human “Structure” is much a part of what they live for. Even the idea of unnatural is human-made. Anything that is part of another wild animal's life is considered natural. "Unnatural" is associated with humans.
One of the major downfalls that humans have forced themselves into endurance of (at least in popular American culture) is much of the loss of the awareness of their bodies. This is because so much of a human’s attention is centered around this human-made world. Again, human priorities often lie within this created, structured world. It is a Veil of Reality, so to speak. Humans have come to rely more heavily on their brains over their bodies. I believe that it would make for much happier life if humans would more consider their mind and body as one. Every inch of a body is connected to the mind so there is an obvious interdependence at work. Not all humans are very far behind on this, but I believe that most other animals have a much greater sense of it – or else, that’s all they know. It seems that typically other animals, will spend their lives simply surviving. Feeding themselves, feeding their family – however life works for them, they do things on a need / want basis for their bodies. Sure other animals sometimes go for mental stimulation and entertainment, but a much greater proportion of effort utilizes the body than the average human it seems. In the worst of cases, humans don’t even use their bodies to travel around. As long as the mind gets to where it wants to be it doesn’t matter to them. I’m speaking of things as common as cars. A non-human animal might wake up in the morning and hunt or search for its food. On the other hand a human in the worst case might wake up in the morning to drive to work, sit in an office, get a paycheck, drive home – and somewhere in there go to the supermarket or restaurant to buy their food. You can even order food online these days. Technically one wouldn’t have to leave a room in human culture. In my eyes, a greater sense of the body would absolutely make for a more fulfilling life.
It is difficult to argue that in certain areas the human mind does indeed excel beyond that of other known animals. I feel that the human awareness of their own mind is one of their most defining features. Metacognition, as it’s called, is essentially “thinking about thinking”. I won't claim that I know whether or not other animals ever examine things in a metacognitive way - but humans... they have questioned their own existence. That is I believe how the major religions of humanity have become such popular trends. They directly relate to questioning one's own existence. Religions and theories such as evolution have all been attempts of making sense of human and animal existence alike. One notorious question to come out of all this is a summary in a simple phrase: "Why are we here?" I suppose it is directed at a God or is possibly rhetorical. For many I'm sure the question is thought to be eternally unanswerable. Contrary to this characteristic of humans, other animals have nothing close as far as I know. Suicide, I think, is human-made as well. One of the ultimate forms of consideration about one's own existence is the idea of doing without it. With no existence, of course, there is no idea. A human considering suicide is contemplating un-existing. I do not think other animals have figured out suicide.
In our reality.. in my reality, I believe that thinking too much is not a good thing. To reach a good place, one has to either relax and accept things, or push their thoughts to a level beyond. Beyond seems really hard.
I got a little off topic but everything written is relative. I do think that humans are animals. And I do think that humans should remain at terms with this fact. It would make the organic parts of our lives as animals much easier.
Over the years, humans have tried to give structure to the world around them – to label and name aspects of the universe in order to create a world in which they had a bit more control. (I use the term “they” loosely, as not every human really considered these things) So far as we know no other animal on the planet keeps track and records of “time”, though they are clearly aware of night and day and maybe even the periods we consider to be the hours of morning, afternoon and evening as separate sects of a day. We assume this through their behavioral patterns. However humans were the first to name it. The idea of “time” is a human creation. Humans have given this aspect of the universe anatomy. One could argue that the ability to do this does make humans different from others. Humans truly have added an outline to all that they could. They count the hours in a day down the minutes and seconds and milliseconds and beyond. They count the days in a year. And all of this is based on the earth’s rotation and its orbit around the sun. This schedule of time allows humans to speak of an exact date and time in the distant future. This, I believe, grants a certain amount of power. Honestly, it’s a feat to even know what the sun is made of or this planet’s relation to it. But humans have a name for all of these things. Because of the gradually expanding book of names for these aspects of our universe, humans seem to have grown arrogant. Now, instead of just experiencing an emotion or enjoying nice weather we try to understand and analyze these things. As a species, humans have gotten to a point where they have to consider everything. When looking at this in context of the idea that humans are losing track of their animality – it is a downward spiral. Amongst the popular culture of humanity, humans have actually created a world to themselves. When the typical person considers their priorities and concerns, it is likely that what they are dealing with is human-made. Relative to other animals, much of our way of life is incredibly unnatural. Human “Structure” is much a part of what they live for. Even the idea of unnatural is human-made. Anything that is part of another wild animal's life is considered natural. "Unnatural" is associated with humans.
One of the major downfalls that humans have forced themselves into endurance of (at least in popular American culture) is much of the loss of the awareness of their bodies. This is because so much of a human’s attention is centered around this human-made world. Again, human priorities often lie within this created, structured world. It is a Veil of Reality, so to speak. Humans have come to rely more heavily on their brains over their bodies. I believe that it would make for much happier life if humans would more consider their mind and body as one. Every inch of a body is connected to the mind so there is an obvious interdependence at work. Not all humans are very far behind on this, but I believe that most other animals have a much greater sense of it – or else, that’s all they know. It seems that typically other animals, will spend their lives simply surviving. Feeding themselves, feeding their family – however life works for them, they do things on a need / want basis for their bodies. Sure other animals sometimes go for mental stimulation and entertainment, but a much greater proportion of effort utilizes the body than the average human it seems. In the worst of cases, humans don’t even use their bodies to travel around. As long as the mind gets to where it wants to be it doesn’t matter to them. I’m speaking of things as common as cars. A non-human animal might wake up in the morning and hunt or search for its food. On the other hand a human in the worst case might wake up in the morning to drive to work, sit in an office, get a paycheck, drive home – and somewhere in there go to the supermarket or restaurant to buy their food. You can even order food online these days. Technically one wouldn’t have to leave a room in human culture. In my eyes, a greater sense of the body would absolutely make for a more fulfilling life.
It is difficult to argue that in certain areas the human mind does indeed excel beyond that of other known animals. I feel that the human awareness of their own mind is one of their most defining features. Metacognition, as it’s called, is essentially “thinking about thinking”. I won't claim that I know whether or not other animals ever examine things in a metacognitive way - but humans... they have questioned their own existence. That is I believe how the major religions of humanity have become such popular trends. They directly relate to questioning one's own existence. Religions and theories such as evolution have all been attempts of making sense of human and animal existence alike. One notorious question to come out of all this is a summary in a simple phrase: "Why are we here?" I suppose it is directed at a God or is possibly rhetorical. For many I'm sure the question is thought to be eternally unanswerable. Contrary to this characteristic of humans, other animals have nothing close as far as I know. Suicide, I think, is human-made as well. One of the ultimate forms of consideration about one's own existence is the idea of doing without it. With no existence, of course, there is no idea. A human considering suicide is contemplating un-existing. I do not think other animals have figured out suicide.
In our reality.. in my reality, I believe that thinking too much is not a good thing. To reach a good place, one has to either relax and accept things, or push their thoughts to a level beyond. Beyond seems really hard.
I got a little off topic but everything written is relative. I do think that humans are animals. And I do think that humans should remain at terms with this fact. It would make the organic parts of our lives as animals much easier.
Q&A for Internet Research
Q&A for Internet Research
What are the leading causes of death for people that have lived to an old age?
The following is a quote from an article found on the Internet titled Changing Causes of Death of Elderly People in the United States, 1950-1990 by David W.E. Smith
“There are large peaks about 1970 in both the mortality rate of ischemic heart disease and the percentage of total deaths attributed to this cause. The peaks have been followed by declines. Death rates from cancer and the percent of deaths attributed to cancer have increased during 1950-1990.”
Now, dated within the said 40-year range this article is clearly a little old. But I think it represents how development in medical research as well as developing knowledge about health and nutrition has to some extent has changed people’s behavior in the areas causing these problems – for worse and better. The rates fluctuated as a result.
What are the leading causes of death for people that have lived to an old age?
The following is a quote from an article found on the Internet titled Changing Causes of Death of Elderly People in the United States, 1950-1990 by David W.E. Smith
“There are large peaks about 1970 in both the mortality rate of ischemic heart disease and the percentage of total deaths attributed to this cause. The peaks have been followed by declines. Death rates from cancer and the percent of deaths attributed to cancer have increased during 1950-1990.”
Now, dated within the said 40-year range this article is clearly a little old. But I think it represents how development in medical research as well as developing knowledge about health and nutrition has to some extent has changed people’s behavior in the areas causing these problems – for worse and better. The rates fluctuated as a result.
Interviews with old people
Interviews with old people
I typically come in contact with very few old people. My last living grandparent – my father’s mother – passed away two or so years ago, and until then, was really the only old person I ever spoke to. However, she had a friend there that my parents were relatively close with. Her name is Sylvia Levey and she is spry for a 90-year-old. She was the only old person I could think of… so I called her for the interview.
~Q&A was as follows. Answer’s are not word by word accurate~
_______________________________________
Q: How independent would you say you are? Do you live on your own/do you have any kind of extra help?
A: There is a nice black girl who lives with me in my apartment. She cooks and cleans for me.
Q: Do you take medication?
A: (I’m pretty sure she takes a bunch of pills.) Oh yes. I am arthritic and I take pills to help. I take vitamins as well.
Q: Of your medical expenses, how much is covered by insurance?
A: (She said that she paid for her all her meds.)
Q: How much money would you be willing to spend on large medical expenses?
A: I am lucky. I have money to spend on the things I need.
_______________________________________
The conversation was short and sweet. We spoke for a short while. Her life doesn't seem very interesting in my eyes. She is not very physically active. Typically she gets a wheelchair ride to a salon to get her hair done once a week and spends the rest of her time sleeping, eating, bathing etc. with the help of her aid lady, and watching TV. Most of her friends are dead. Infrequent visits from relatives. She was happy to talk to me, but got tired and her helper-aid-person-lady-girl got on the phone and let me know that she had to go. Though she was sweet, her old was showing.
I typically come in contact with very few old people. My last living grandparent – my father’s mother – passed away two or so years ago, and until then, was really the only old person I ever spoke to. However, she had a friend there that my parents were relatively close with. Her name is Sylvia Levey and she is spry for a 90-year-old. She was the only old person I could think of… so I called her for the interview.
~Q&A was as follows. Answer’s are not word by word accurate~
_______________________________________
Q: How independent would you say you are? Do you live on your own/do you have any kind of extra help?
A: There is a nice black girl who lives with me in my apartment. She cooks and cleans for me.
Q: Do you take medication?
A: (I’m pretty sure she takes a bunch of pills.) Oh yes. I am arthritic and I take pills to help. I take vitamins as well.
Q: Of your medical expenses, how much is covered by insurance?
A: (She said that she paid for her all her meds.)
Q: How much money would you be willing to spend on large medical expenses?
A: I am lucky. I have money to spend on the things I need.
_______________________________________
The conversation was short and sweet. We spoke for a short while. Her life doesn't seem very interesting in my eyes. She is not very physically active. Typically she gets a wheelchair ride to a salon to get her hair done once a week and spends the rest of her time sleeping, eating, bathing etc. with the help of her aid lady, and watching TV. Most of her friends are dead. Infrequent visits from relatives. She was happy to talk to me, but got tired and her helper-aid-person-lady-girl got on the phone and let me know that she had to go. Though she was sweet, her old was showing.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
***NOTE***
Posts are not in chronological order. The oldest post from over the February break is the one about my own living funeral.
Group Questions - Old Folks and Health Care
1) What percentage of old people are on anti-depressants?
2) How many pills do you take daily/weekly?
3) How much money are you spending and/or willing to spend on medical expenses?
4) How independent are you? How independent does the condition of your health allow you to be?
5) Do you use Viagra? Does sex play any part in your life at this point? (I would not feel comfortable asking this one)
6) Do you ever neglect medical attention for any reason?
7) Do you have life insurance?
8) How often, if ever, do you need medical attention?
9) What are the leading causes of death for people that have lived to an old age?
10) How adequate is the medical attention provided for old folks who need it?
2) How many pills do you take daily/weekly?
3) How much money are you spending and/or willing to spend on medical expenses?
4) How independent are you? How independent does the condition of your health allow you to be?
5) Do you use Viagra? Does sex play any part in your life at this point? (I would not feel comfortable asking this one)
6) Do you ever neglect medical attention for any reason?
7) Do you have life insurance?
8) How often, if ever, do you need medical attention?
9) What are the leading causes of death for people that have lived to an old age?
10) How adequate is the medical attention provided for old folks who need it?
My Own Living Funeral...
In the context of the way most funerals are in American culture - it seems that a living funeral might involve close friends and of course, family. In some actual funerals, common acquaintances are even invited - such as co-workers. A funeral can draw a large gathering as a single person often touches the lives of many others. Similar things can be said about a baby being born - it is celebrated, and it appears that in general life and death are appreciated and celebrated (for lack of a better word). However, in this culture - contrast to the way Morrie (Tuesdays with Morrie) had come to view his own impending death - the idea of death is usually a fearful one. As simple as it possibly is, death is feared for its unknown.
I considered the list of people that I might invite for a while. I wrote down some names, starting with my parents which were followed with just a few people who I consider my closest friends. After this, I couldn't really think of anyone else that I would want to attend an event like this if I had one. I believe I'm lucky enough to say that a I have a good number of friends - people who would attend a living funeral in a heartbeat if they were asked - but I don't think I'd like to host a large living funeral if at all. I know that the idea of a large regular funeral seems awkward to me. Death is an inevitable part of life. As we live and breathe, death comes naturally. As I said before, people are scared of it because it is mysterious. I don't believe anyone that says they know what death is like. Personally, I lean towards the scientific explanations, but that's just me.
I'm getting off topic ~ ~
On the idea of a living funeral - I think that if, for a dying person's own comfort, they want to see a certain amalgam of people, it is a nice idea. When I think of what my own would be like, I'd want to leave my so-so friends out of it (sorry), and hopefully, see the people whom I'm sure care about me for one reason or another. Again, my parents and a small group of friends. People who's lives I know that I've touched in a big enough way, so far as I know, and vice versa. I'd probably want to give my farewells to the rest of them however.
On another note, big parties for ones OWN self, even once in a lifetime ones wouldn't make me feel good. As was happening with Morrie, aside from the funeral - people who loved him came to him on their own time!
I considered the list of people that I might invite for a while. I wrote down some names, starting with my parents which were followed with just a few people who I consider my closest friends. After this, I couldn't really think of anyone else that I would want to attend an event like this if I had one. I believe I'm lucky enough to say that a I have a good number of friends - people who would attend a living funeral in a heartbeat if they were asked - but I don't think I'd like to host a large living funeral if at all. I know that the idea of a large regular funeral seems awkward to me. Death is an inevitable part of life. As we live and breathe, death comes naturally. As I said before, people are scared of it because it is mysterious. I don't believe anyone that says they know what death is like. Personally, I lean towards the scientific explanations, but that's just me.
I'm getting off topic ~ ~
On the idea of a living funeral - I think that if, for a dying person's own comfort, they want to see a certain amalgam of people, it is a nice idea. When I think of what my own would be like, I'd want to leave my so-so friends out of it (sorry), and hopefully, see the people whom I'm sure care about me for one reason or another. Again, my parents and a small group of friends. People who's lives I know that I've touched in a big enough way, so far as I know, and vice versa. I'd probably want to give my farewells to the rest of them however.
On another note, big parties for ones OWN self, even once in a lifetime ones wouldn't make me feel good. As was happening with Morrie, aside from the funeral - people who loved him came to him on their own time!
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Evolving Paper
Life does not have to be meaningless. At least, almost anyone will tell you this. So what in fact makes it meaningless or possibly meaningful?
First I’ll give a brief overview of a certain outlook to this question that is tumbling around in my head at this particular moment. In the reality that I live in, so far as I understand it, there really are no definite truths – only perceptions, and every perception that a person may have is formed by previous experiences and knowledge, their personality etc. I believe that bias exists everywhere. When considering such questions – like what defines meaning in a life – I believe that we must take this understanding with us.
People tend to follow the crowd so to speak, and consequently millions of Americans are able to say that they share a common understanding of what makes up a meaningful life. Additionally, in a society such as ours where media has been contributing to the average American’s life for as long as it has and as much as it has, the messages it gives are generally accepted as truth. In modern day American society there are countless examples of media inspired morality and media driven messages about how one should aspire to be in order to fulfill their desire to live correctly or meaningfully. Public figures such as movie and rock stars, on screen people that others are taught to admire, often live (or at least provide the image of) “meaningful” lives possibly filled with money-based wealth. In other words people are told what they should like then shown what it is supposedly like to have it. The many millions desire to be like the very few and because of this, a person might spend their whole lives trying to attain bits and pieces of that way of life they have been made to understand as meaningful.
Evidence of people falling to influence such as this is seen all over the place. As a matter of fact almost all that we believe to be important is a result of things we have been told. Given, in most minds this can’t be completely bad because it is hard to imagine development without outside influence. However, it seems that some people strive to follow relatively linear paths to specific ways of life imposed on them to be the most meaningful thing they can aim for (even if that isn’t how they would describe it). These goals often affiliated with similarity to the lives of their “American idols”.
First I’ll give a brief overview of a certain outlook to this question that is tumbling around in my head at this particular moment. In the reality that I live in, so far as I understand it, there really are no definite truths – only perceptions, and every perception that a person may have is formed by previous experiences and knowledge, their personality etc. I believe that bias exists everywhere. When considering such questions – like what defines meaning in a life – I believe that we must take this understanding with us.
People tend to follow the crowd so to speak, and consequently millions of Americans are able to say that they share a common understanding of what makes up a meaningful life. Additionally, in a society such as ours where media has been contributing to the average American’s life for as long as it has and as much as it has, the messages it gives are generally accepted as truth. In modern day American society there are countless examples of media inspired morality and media driven messages about how one should aspire to be in order to fulfill their desire to live correctly or meaningfully. Public figures such as movie and rock stars, on screen people that others are taught to admire, often live (or at least provide the image of) “meaningful” lives possibly filled with money-based wealth. In other words people are told what they should like then shown what it is supposedly like to have it. The many millions desire to be like the very few and because of this, a person might spend their whole lives trying to attain bits and pieces of that way of life they have been made to understand as meaningful.
Evidence of people falling to influence such as this is seen all over the place. As a matter of fact almost all that we believe to be important is a result of things we have been told. Given, in most minds this can’t be completely bad because it is hard to imagine development without outside influence. However, it seems that some people strive to follow relatively linear paths to specific ways of life imposed on them to be the most meaningful thing they can aim for (even if that isn’t how they would describe it). These goals often affiliated with similarity to the lives of their “American idols”.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Folk Culture Holiday Analysis: Thoughts on the New Years event. (Incomplete)
I would like to discuss what is possibly one of the more universal holidays among people that live in the United States: new years eve and morning. Of course, this event has becomes a treat for the media, as it is now widely publicized i.e. things like
the dropping of the ball at midnight on the 31st in Times Square, New York City. The most popular part of this holiday that I see in folk culture is the creating of goals for ones self in the New Year called “New Years resolutions”. (“New Year” is automatically capitalized in word, I found that mildly interesting) Portrayed in popular culture, but probably most prominent in folk, New Years resolutions are to inspire change for the better in the way a person lives their lives. In other words a New Years resolution supposedly exists so that a person can try to make their lives more meaningful through one means or another.
When looking at only this aspect of the holiday, it seems that it has a lot of potential to be meaningful. Goal setting and attempts to improve ones self, however that may be seems like a great thing. And part of the reason it isn’t easy to undercut the good aspects of this holiday is because personal goals aren’t clearly tainted with bullshit.
Another mainstream aspect of this holiday, very prominently among youth today, is the consumption of alcohol on New Years Eve. It seems to in many cases once again, 'simply what you do' on New Years Eve. One must drink alcohol at a social gathering. In my experience, it’s widely considered strange if you’re alone and/or not having a good time with alcohol on New Years Eve. Similarly to Saint Patrick’s Day, alcohol, to many has become the primary focus of this holiday. The more f*cked up you get, the better your stories and the better one could say their New Years was. I am only speaking from the way I see it in my own subculture, but this way of thought seems to be in the media here and there.
I theorize that people’s view of New Years was once more focused around the social aspect of being with the people you like and love at the beginning of a New Year until alcohol quickly became a more prominent factor. In my opinion, coming to terms with your own value of friends and family is a meaningful idea that is connected to this holiday.
the dropping of the ball at midnight on the 31st in Times Square, New York City. The most popular part of this holiday that I see in folk culture is the creating of goals for ones self in the New Year called “New Years resolutions”. (“New Year” is automatically capitalized in word, I found that mildly interesting) Portrayed in popular culture, but probably most prominent in folk, New Years resolutions are to inspire change for the better in the way a person lives their lives. In other words a New Years resolution supposedly exists so that a person can try to make their lives more meaningful through one means or another.
When looking at only this aspect of the holiday, it seems that it has a lot of potential to be meaningful. Goal setting and attempts to improve ones self, however that may be seems like a great thing. And part of the reason it isn’t easy to undercut the good aspects of this holiday is because personal goals aren’t clearly tainted with bullshit.
Another mainstream aspect of this holiday, very prominently among youth today, is the consumption of alcohol on New Years Eve. It seems to in many cases once again, 'simply what you do' on New Years Eve. One must drink alcohol at a social gathering. In my experience, it’s widely considered strange if you’re alone and/or not having a good time with alcohol on New Years Eve. Similarly to Saint Patrick’s Day, alcohol, to many has become the primary focus of this holiday. The more f*cked up you get, the better your stories and the better one could say their New Years was. I am only speaking from the way I see it in my own subculture, but this way of thought seems to be in the media here and there.
I theorize that people’s view of New Years was once more focused around the social aspect of being with the people you like and love at the beginning of a New Year until alcohol quickly became a more prominent factor. In my opinion, coming to terms with your own value of friends and family is a meaningful idea that is connected to this holiday.
Winter Break: Thought and response.
Each year millions of Americans alike wait anxiously in anticipation during the few preceding months before the holiday season. Two different holidays descending from two different religions / cultures are the major events of this “joyous” time - Christmas and Chanukah. However Christmas is without a doubt the star of these occasions in American popular culture. The flashy holiday inspires billions of dollars to be spent by organizations and consumers alike. The most important aspects of Christmas as portrayed to us by corporate culture involve buying things to help celebrate and to give loved ones presents in order to show them you care. Organizations have seized the opportunity to make lots of money through the traditions of this holiday and have taken those traditions into their own hands by inspiring lots of purchasing during that time through advertising and other means. These messages, as so often happens with corporate influence, have bled into the messages of American folk culture. Celebrating Christmas in the way that we do, and buying gifts for each other have become simply what one does during this time. Children are born into families with parents that cherish their Christmases as a family by providing them with a corporate version of the holiday, just as they often were themselves. Or else, the media and messages floating around child and parent alike have told them how to be. People go as far as to buy expensive extravagant decorations, usually lights and things covered in the holiday’s themed colors. Santa Claus and the mystical story of how his elves create the toys that he delivers to children have been a huge corporate contribution to early childhood fascination with Christmas.
The message being given my corporate, popular culture about Christmas is one that is instilled in people early. So many children these days are brought up in a world where having things and obtaining distracting objects presented as useful are the ways that they can achieve the greatest happiness.
An example of the extent to which many American children value getting things on Christmas can be seen in this video:
Now, we may look at this and think it is hilarious or terrifying or both, some of us may even like hang that little boy off the edge of something high above the ground, but these kids were possibly hopped up on sugar, or just extremely vocal – however their reaction resembles that of the popular view on Christmas that is waffle ironed into children’s minds. I myself was raised with great excitement towards the gifts I would receive on Christmas. I couldn’t wait for that one morning where I would wake up to presents underneath a tree each year. The whole event was great fun – it was intoxicating. Even today I enjoy receiving gifts. To an extent it seems fine to me. It is when people lose sight of other, possibly important things to the overwhelming love for consumption that I believe meaning is diminished. The holiday season in great proportion has become an excuse to make money for those few people up top and this is the major reason that meaninglessness arrives in the typical consumer’s life.
The only reason I can say things in the way that I do, such as the last sentence of the previous paragraph is because of my own biased opinion. (Disclaimer)
The message being given my corporate, popular culture about Christmas is one that is instilled in people early. So many children these days are brought up in a world where having things and obtaining distracting objects presented as useful are the ways that they can achieve the greatest happiness.
An example of the extent to which many American children value getting things on Christmas can be seen in this video:
Now, we may look at this and think it is hilarious or terrifying or both, some of us may even like hang that little boy off the edge of something high above the ground, but these kids were possibly hopped up on sugar, or just extremely vocal – however their reaction resembles that of the popular view on Christmas that is waffle ironed into children’s minds. I myself was raised with great excitement towards the gifts I would receive on Christmas. I couldn’t wait for that one morning where I would wake up to presents underneath a tree each year. The whole event was great fun – it was intoxicating. Even today I enjoy receiving gifts. To an extent it seems fine to me. It is when people lose sight of other, possibly important things to the overwhelming love for consumption that I believe meaning is diminished. The holiday season in great proportion has become an excuse to make money for those few people up top and this is the major reason that meaninglessness arrives in the typical consumer’s life.
The only reason I can say things in the way that I do, such as the last sentence of the previous paragraph is because of my own biased opinion. (Disclaimer)
Inaugeration Day Assignment
I’d like to speak briefly on Obama’s oath into presidency. It attracted great attention for a lot of focus on what appeared to be one notable mistake – the trip up during his oath giving. Expectedly, right wing politicians jumped on Obama’s tail given this opportunity. On Wednesday, the following day after the inauguration, Obama was made to say the oath once more, without falter. It was claimed that he was not technically president because the oath was not been said correctly. Personally I don’t see great importance in something like this, as it was clearly (as far as I see) a slight mistake. He began a line early. Also, I believe that it was not entirely his fault. Chief Justice Roberts seemed to pause improperly during the first line. So despite the mistake, the oath was as sincere as an American president can achieve. Those who made the complaint were trying to expose flaws the new president, even if they were insignificant. I also noticed that Obama jokingly paused incorrectly during the second line of the oath, probably to attempt to redeem himself after having screwed up previously. I think this was a lighthearted attempt to do just that, although, probably not a good idea. It might, as it may have, given the same people incentive to then say that Obama does not take his presidency seriously. He is certainly charismatic though.
The disproportionate attention that this attracted expresses the stubbornness of politicians who are strong to one way of thinking or another.
As a side note, one of the most interesting things that crossed my mind during the festivities of the inauguration, was the point of view of a very old French philosopher and civil rights spokesperson - who is known by the paper name of Voltaire.
"Mankind will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." -Voltaire.
I won't dwell on this, but it completely undercuts the importance of a presidency, its hype, and all that is televised about it. Having the mind that I do, I don't believe that there is a clear correct way to view this statement. It depends on perspective. Reasons can be given that Voltaire is speaking truth as well as just the opposite.
(I realize this response lacks reactions to points made during his actual speech. Possibly more to come..)
The disproportionate attention that this attracted expresses the stubbornness of politicians who are strong to one way of thinking or another.
As a side note, one of the most interesting things that crossed my mind during the festivities of the inauguration, was the point of view of a very old French philosopher and civil rights spokesperson - who is known by the paper name of Voltaire.
"Mankind will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." -Voltaire.
I won't dwell on this, but it completely undercuts the importance of a presidency, its hype, and all that is televised about it. Having the mind that I do, I don't believe that there is a clear correct way to view this statement. It depends on perspective. Reasons can be given that Voltaire is speaking truth as well as just the opposite.
(I realize this response lacks reactions to points made during his actual speech. Possibly more to come..)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)