(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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)