|
The human race is a legion of animals that burst into existence due to millions of years of natural selection. It is an impersonal and ruthless process, but that doesn't implicate its inefficiency. After all, we wouldn't even be here were it not for the evolutionary process.
But in the evolutionary tree of life, we are unique. We can change our behavior and personality by mere thought alone. We have brains that can store libraries of information, memories that span decades. Our brains are perhaps our greatest weapon in overcoming our flaws. And yet, we often find ourselves prey to our lesser, primitive instincts formed over millions of years ago: aggression, ritual, territoriality, the willingness to follow leaders blindly.
We often forget that we're all just specks on an insignificant rock floating through a forlorn corridor of a vast and seemingly endless universe - as such, cooperation is key to our survival. In the timeless words of Carl Sagan:
+ Show Spoiler +"Look again at that dot (referring to the Voyager 2's snapshot of the Earth from the far reaches of the solar system). That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar,” every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there — on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam." (Here is the image he was talking about, by the way: Pale Blue Dot)
Disregarding our vast potential, we tend to neglect our higher brain functions. Those of critical thinking, analysis, and intellectual compassion. Oftentimes, we reject and aggressively attack notions incongruent with our own. Instead of cooperating and working toward a greater good, we compete and destroy each other. We split the world into arbitrarily defined borders and actively persecute members of our own species. To an alien passerby, human drama must seem illogical and inane.
Every human being has his needs, his dreams and wants, hopes and aspirations; indeed, many stop at nothing to satisfy their personal material thirst, forgetting completely the human capacity for kindness and generosity. It is not a greater worldly concern to utilize our unique intelligence to rationally relinquish our personal avarice? Instead of competing against each other, we should be focused on the bigger problems of the world and our future as a species, but people are too caught up with the immediate details and consequences of their actions (governments and institutions included). We routinely forget our humble origins. Our existence is not forever guaranteed, so we had better prepare accordingly. But alas, such a long term vision of humanity seems difficult to manage.
For example, the current debate on global warming - why is there are debate at all? The objectives of the environmentalists are clear: to create a self sufficient society free from the clutches of fossil fuels. It is a worthy goal that is precluded by material greed and the interests of influential parties. An undertaking that would benefit the entire world is hampered by the objections of the few.
Another blatant example is the problem of pollution and the digging of landfills. Rationally, because there is limited space on Earth, throwing garbage into heaps is undoubtedly an unsustainable practice, yet even today we do nothing to stop it.
It is the 21st century, and we still go to war over religion and politics and greed. Technology has progressed in leaps and bounds, but half of the world is still starving. What stops us from helping our less fortunate citizens of Earth? Perhaps it is because there's just no point in doing it... right now.
We clearly foresee problems but do nothing to stop them. Politicians and corporate officials often knowingly adopt unsustainable practices and policies, and it is the cause of several social problems. For instance, the current debt crisis in the United States. Clearly, debt had been growing for years, but nothing was done to effectively counteract its accrual. Social security started as a noble and valiant cause, but is now a significant cause for concern as the working population struggles to support the previous generation.
Nearly all major countries of the world rely on the remains of dead plants and animals to function efficiently. Yet nobody drew up a concrete plan for when these resources dwindled. The electric car, a possible alternative to gas fed automobiles, was shot down by oil and motor companies alike because it would negatively affect sales. Again, nothing was done, and we are still dependent on an outdated source of energy.
In many instances, our forgetfulness and short sighted nature is linked to our abuse of the environment, but in many cases, our social structure is affected as well. Everybody is interested in the here and now, but blissfully disinclined to contemplate the problems of the future.
Currently, decision making is slow and painful process; plans which do not show immediate gains are thrown away in favor of quick fixes. Instead of working for a better future, we tend to procrastinate, leaving it up to the next generation. This is inefficient and irresponsible.
We need to wake up and begin planning not only for ourselves, but also for our future selves (and children). If, perhaps, we as a society embrace long term policies and thinking (indeed, the perspective of all humanity rather than separate countries), the world would be a better place - for good.
  
|
Problematization sounds good in theory, but fails pragmatically. It causes the very stasis that you seek to avoid, that you have the belief we cannot ascertain anything in the status quo. In fact, it is in our society and establishments that civil rights have been gained, religions have been accepted, and the world has become a better place.
+ Show Spoiler +Deleuze and Guattari can go fuck themselves
|
This is one of those situations where I take the time to read every word of a long post and then realize that I really have no clue what the hell the OP was even trying to say because he never mentions a single specific example of what the hell he is talking about, instead choosing to speak in vague and meaningless cliches like "question our beliefs" and "instead of arguing, let's compromise."
Huh? Question what and compromise how? There is a reason these debates exist and that's because the answer to these very specific questions are very important. Saying "let's think differently about things" does nothing at all to actually help people see things from a new perspective. You have to offer the perspective yourself.
|
On July 21 2011 13:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:
This is one of those situations where I take the time to read every word of a long post and then realize that I really have no clue what the hell the OP was even trying to say because he never mentions a single specific example of what the hell he is talking about, instead choosing to speak in vague and meaningless cliches like "question our beliefs" and "instead of arguing, let's compromise."
Huh? Question what and compromise how? There is a reason these debates exist and that's because the answer to these very specific questions are very important. Saying "let's think differently about things" does nothing at all to actually help people see things from a new perspective. You have to offer the perspective yourself.
Yeah pretty much this. No offense man, but that post was a lot of generic terms and overused evaluations of society.
|
Agree with everyone else. Basically you're saying that our indecision is hampering societal change, using generic speech and non-examples.
So really what you're saying is that the only way for society to function and evolve in a positive manner is through forced cooperation under strong and decisive leadership.
That sounds a lot like Facism to me, which is my favorite political system. You're right, it's about time we got something done.
|
On July 21 2011 13:31 Darclite wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2011 13:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:
This is one of those situations where I take the time to read every word of a long post and then realize that I really have no clue what the hell the OP was even trying to say because he never mentions a single specific example of what the hell he is talking about, instead choosing to speak in vague and meaningless cliches like "question our beliefs" and "instead of arguing, let's compromise."
Huh? Question what and compromise how? There is a reason these debates exist and that's because the answer to these very specific questions are very important. Saying "let's think differently about things" does nothing at all to actually help people see things from a new perspective. You have to offer the perspective yourself. Yeah pretty much this. No offense man, but that post was a lot of generic terms and overused evaluations of society.
seriously... Sounds like a bunch of whining after awhile. I'm kinda deaf to this crap after having it shoved down my throat for the last couple of years and being told its my fault in the process.
|
The whole post sounded a lot like environmentalist propaganda from 5 years ago. Do you really think that everything is that black and white? It's not like the leaders in countries were given a choice of having a problem and not having it, and then they chose the problem just to annoy people.
Look at things like being dependant on oil. Oil/coal/gas make up about 70-80% of the energy production. Suddenly giving up all of that and changing to something else would require a huge new discovery. As for changing into electric cars, you do realise that we would have to up energy production quite a bit to keep all those cars supplied with electricity. That means burning even more fuel in power plants. You can't force change, if there are no viable options available.
|
The first half seemed good, like it was building up to something. It just never got there. The whole piece showed a lack of understanding about the functions of the world - too many assumptions were made of things that probably shouldn't be assumed.
|
On July 21 2011 12:53 masami.sc wrote:
For example, the current debate on global warming - why is there are debate at all? The objectives of the environmentalists are clear: to create a self sufficient society free from the clutches of fossil fuels. It is a worthy goal that is precluded by material greed and the interests of influential parties. An undertaking that would benefit the entire world is hampered by the objections of the few.
In the early 1960's Rachel Carson wrote the book Silent Spring which proved, using many examples from scientific literature and her professional biological observations, that pesticide usage in the U.S. was directly affecting the quality of human life and their devastating effects on localized ecology. The proof was so solid that a controversy started that ended in the creation of the EPA and many environmental laws from 1970 onwards. Even with all the proof and momentum chemical companies fought tooth and nail to discredit the work and the author. Looking back on many other scientific theories we hold as solid we can see many instances where the scientific and public communities rejected them. The same goes for climate change.
Another blatant example is the problem of pollution and the digging of landfills. Rationally, because there is limited space on Earth, throwing garbage into heaps is undoubtedly an unsustainable practice, yet even today we do nothing to stop it.
Actually disposing our waste in refuse heaps has been going on back to antiquity. In the times of ancient Rome, if one were to dump all their trash into a big hole and bury it there would be little problems (save for groundwater runoff). People back then lived more sustainably because they didn't have a choice, not because they were mindful. Large-scale pollution problems (like the ones you're probably referring to) are the result of the industrial revolution. Even through the 1920's "conservationism" meant little more than "raping the Earth more efficiently" (that's my take on the Pinchot-Muir battles during the time of Teddy Roosevelt). Going back to the original U.S. colonists we can clearly see that they had no idea how to live off the Earth sustainably. You can read a lot more about American history and environmental attitudes in Ted Steinberg's "Down to Earth: Nature's Role in American History".
Concerning landfills, as a chemical engineer I can tell you that they're complex systems of water recirculation, clay capping, and cellular digestion - the opposite of just "throwing garbage into heaps". They're not perfect, and neither is our disposal of wastes. There are issues with the biodegradability of plastics, hard metals in e-waste, and leachate/groundwater interactions. The solution lies in the proper disposal of plastics, metals, and electronics, not necessarily pitching the idea of landfills altogether (and if you've got a better idea I'd LOVE to hear it).
Nearly all major countries of the world rely on the remains of dead plants and animals to function efficiently. Yet nobody drew up a concrete plan for when these resources dwindled. The electric car, a possible alternative to gas fed automobiles, was shot down by oil and motor companies alike because it would negatively affect sales. Again, nothing was done, and we are still dependent on an outdated source of energy.
Nobody drew up alternatives because they didn't understand the impact of what they were doing. 150 years ago industry started using a cheap and abundant silicate insulator called asbestos. One hundred years later causal links to cancer started to pop up. Does this mean they should have known better in the mid-1800's? That's immaterial (as well as your claim). Once we became knowledgable action was taken to mitigate disease, though clearly it is still an issue as evident by asbestos exposure lawsuit commercials on daytime tv.
Calling the use of oil (and coal, for that matter) "outdated" is simply absurd. Do you have any idea how much research goes into those areas and how complicated the mining, cracking, and distillation processes are? I'm not exactly doing it justice by saying "A LOT". This whole paragraph (and most of your claims, for that matter) reek of ignorance.
Why is the U.S. not shifting their energy usage? Because a viable alternative is not economically feasible. Like it or not, business is run on a philosophy of self-interest. Switching to electric cars would have a catastrophic effect on the industry and put thousands to millions of people out of work. One could also make the same argument for loading up an area the size of South Dakota with wind turbines to mitigate coal and oil power plants. And don't get me started on nuclear energy versus no known way to safely dispose of nuclear wastes. If you're so concerned with the state of our energy usage why don't you get yourself a degree in chemistry or engineering and do something about it?
In many instances, our forgetfulness and short sighted nature is linked to our abuse of the environment, but in many cases, our social structure is affected as well. Everybody is interested in the here and now, but blissfully disinclined to contemplate the problems of the future.
Prove it.
Currently, decision making is slow and painful process; plans which do not show immediate gains are thrown away in favor of quick fixes. Instead of working for a better future, we tend to procrastinate, leaving it up to the next generation. This is inefficient and irresponsible.
Seeing as I'm becoming an engineering researcher for the very reason of taking responsibility for the future, I find your sweeping claims mildly offensive.
Change is a slow process. Deal with it.
A complete paradigm shift, like the kinds that would make your suggestions happen, don't happen with words alone. Go DO something about it.
|
What you're saying is that we should and could all work together for the benefit of "humanity".
But, why is that? You said it yourself, our brain in our greatest asset and greatest opponent, it is with our brain that we realise that the world is not presented in black and white, it's colourful, there is no "absolule" solution to everything, there is no "You win" screen popping up when you've finished working a job, raising 2 kids, living a 80 year old life when you take your last breath.
Ofcourse everything comes down to your ultimate belief, but in the end, why does a serial killer with 20 people on his conscience, get treated as a failure compared to the biologist who invented a new form of sustainable energy?
Ofcourse out society has rules, and it only works if those rules are upheld for the most part, and i'm not sure how well i'm trying to bring this across, but why exactly should you worry about others? Why shouldn't you put a gun to your head and shoot yourself if you felt like life is too much of a hassle? Why shouldn't you stick a knife in your neightbours throat if he looked at you in the wrong way? Why should you worry about the future generations when you'd be much more happy yourself by not doing it?
Now i myself has been raised in this society, and i'm already "corrupted" to be helpful, and i'd never be able to harm anyone, but it's a point worth considering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
