Post before Tuesday if possible. I have no opportunity to look at your posts before class, after Tuesday morning.
- In a more enlightened and evolved world, would we accept the proposition that poverty is the natural or entropic order of things? Is it economically reasonable but inhumane to say poverty has no causes? 79
- Does the culture of commerce in America "dissolve sectarian hatreds" or do they persist in spite of it, untouched by the moral uplift the 18th century philosophes predicted? 84
- Do you think life (and literal light) in the two Koreas is a good representation of the relative merits of capitalism and communism? 90 Should we also do a fly-over of a vibrant and glowing social democracy like Sweden, before concluding that capitalism per se is the best economic system?
- Does GDP's correlation with greater longevity, health, and nutrition support a causal hypothesis? Are longevity, health, and nutrition predictors (if not causes) of greater GDP? 96
- Will the human condition improve further if we actively promote egalitarianism? Or should our entire focus be on reducing poverty? Should we kill Boris's goat or try to get Igor his own? Or is that a false dilemma? 99
- Is J.K. Rowling a representative billionaire? Is their wealth always or usually "a by-product of the voluntary decisions of billions of" consumers?
- "The influence of money on politics is particularly pernicious because it can distort every government policy, but it's not the same issue as income inequality." 102 But isn't it closely related, when money can buy inordinate influence? (See Kurt Andersen's Evil Geniuses for a deeper discussion of the link between dark money in politics and inequality.)
- "But eventually a rising tide lifts all boats." 103 Even if true, isn't this old canard insensitive to the real-world inequities of income inequality?
- "What's significant about the decline in inequality is that it's a decline in poverty." 105 So shouldn't we attack both inequality and poverty in tandem, de-emphasizing neither?
- If income redistribution results in greater access to health care, affordable housing, education, etc., for those at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder, isn't it accurate to say that the goal of "raising the bottom" (and not merely lowering the top) has in fact been achieved? 107
- Do Americans over-indulge an appetite for "golden age" nostalgia about a past that never was? 113 (Again, see Kurt Andersen's Evil Geniuses...)
- "Walmart saved the typical American family $2,300 a year." 117 But at what total cost?
- Does Pinker have a point about how "technology and globalization have transformed what it means to be a poor person"?
- Is economic growth and ever-growing personal and national consumption an intrinsic good?
- Should America institute a Universal Basic Income? 119
- Will automatization and roboticization of menial labor eventually be a "boon to humanity"?
- Has the environmental movement represented significant progress in the past half-century? 121
- Was the Pope wrong about progress? 122
- Have humans been a virus and a cancer on the planet?
- Is worrying now about the fate of our long-term descendants really a luxury? 124
- Will technology save us? Will the status quo doom us?
- Do you support "sustainability"? 127
- Is nature "as robust as it ever was," if climate change results in a less habitable world for humans and the extinction of countless species? 133
- Should we stop calling humans out as earth's despoilers and plunderers? 134
- Fossil fuel corporations have lied about climate change for decades. Why shouldn't we "demonize" them? 142
- Is nuclear energy safe enough? 147
- Do you think we will achieve an enlightened environmentalism in time to forestall the worst-case climate change scenario? Are you conditionally or complacently optimistic? Or pessimistic? Or indifferent?
- Are we safely past the threat of another World War?
- Do most of the nations of the world act as if they accept that "war is illegal"? 163
- What do you think of William James's idea, in The Moral Equivalent of War, that the "martial virtues" humans have historically associated with war ("intrepidity, contempt of softness, surrender of private interest, obedience to command") can and should be redirected to more constructive purposes?
- Will humans ever overcome war, and inaugurate *Kant's perpetual peace? Will they join a United Federation, devoted to galactic peace?
The United Federation of Planets (abbreviated as UFP and commonly referred to as the Federation) was a supranational interstellar union of multiple planetary nation-states that operated semi-autonomously under a single central government, founded on the principles of liberty, equality, peace, justice, and progress, with the purpose of furthering the universal rights of all sentient life. Federation members exchange knowledge and resources to facilitate peaceful cooperation, scientific development, space exploration, and mutual defense.
Immanuel Kant
Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch
1795
PERPETUAL PEACE
Whether this satirical inscription on a Dutch innkeeper's sign upon which a burial ground was painted had for its object mankind in general, or the rulers of states in particular, who are insatiable of war, or merely the philosophers who dream this sweet dream, it is not for us to decide. But one condition the author of this essay wishes to lay down. The practical politician assumes the attitude of looking down with great self-satisfaction on the political theorist as a pedant whose empty ideas in no way threaten the security of the state, inasmuch as the state must proceed on empirical principles; so the theorist is allowed to play his game without interference from the worldly-wise statesman. Such being his attitude, the practical politician--and this is the condition I make--should at least act consistently in the case of a conflict and not suspect some danger to the state in the political theorist's opinions which are ventured and publicly expressed without any ulterior purpose. By this clausula salvatoria the author desires formally and emphatically to deprecate herewith any malevolent interpretation which might be placed on his words... (continues)
These are two things that stuck out to me while immersing myself in the readings..
ReplyDelete1) Why do you think negative things such as crime, violence, and hate populate the news outlets rather than something of a positive nature? Do you believe that this contributes to the optimism gap that we face today? (41)
2) Do you agree that time heals all wounds? (48)
1. Certainly it contributes. I don't particularly blame news media for this distortive emphasis, it's their job to report the exceptional and out-of-the-ordinary... and it's our job to realize that they're doing so. But I do appreciate the greater emphasis being placed by some news organizations (Washington Post, CBS Sunday Morning) on "good news" -- even if it's not "news" by the conventional definition. We need to remind ourselves that there's plenty of good in the world. (See the Dennett essay below.)
Delete2. Time generally does provide enough of a buffer that we can live with almost any disappointment or heartbreak, eventually. But "heals"? No, not the most severe wounds. Patches, maybe.
I do not think that time heals all wounds. I think that time makes it seem easier to cope with the scars depending on the severity of the damage. But I also believe that the damage manifests into different facets of an individual's life with time if not adequately remedied. An example of this could be a child that has not had enough food. They will always treasure food and take more than they need in fear that they will not have anymore.
ReplyDeleteAnother example could be a female that has survived abuse or an assault. Time does not heal these wounds because there are various triggers. Over time, they can manifest into different areas until they feel secure and the individual feels there is an achievable remedy for the hurt. Many utilize counseling and spirituality as a means of shedding past wounds and reframing mentality.
Right, time gives us an opportunity to discover coping and survival strategies that work to a greater or lesser degree. Forgetfulness is a big one.
Delete
ReplyDelete• "But eventually a rising tide lifts all boats." 103 Even if true, isn't this old canard insensitive to the real-world inequities of income inequality?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYOjWnS4cMY
There's a lot to unpack with this is America by Childish Gambino. Suffice it to say that even the rich can feel marginalized in a society that holds innate inequities in power and social justice. There are great improvements in technology in our society today but that doesn't mean that each person living in our country has an improvement in their life because of technology. My first thought was how the American railroad changed the lives of the Native American people and their livelihoods through the extermination of the Buffalo. We claim to live in a capitalist society and a society where all men are created equal but at the same time the last real estate bubble burst and those who created it did not serve any prison time and the financial institutions that were responsible were given support from the American government and thereby the taxpayers to support the behavior that created the situation in the first place. I look too the situation in Florida presently Ann think about the building that went on at a time when inspections may not have been done as meticulously as they could have. I asked a friend of mine that came from Florida and is older about the situation in Florida. His response was that he saw problems with but contractors of that era being overly influenced by the influx of cocaine affecting the business climate and how judgments were being made about the structural integrity of the buildings. Yes technology can help all people in some ways but that doesn't mean that it does help everyone. The last example I will give is of the availability of the vaccine in our state and the small amount of people vaccinated compared to the population.
The rich get richer in ways that a rising tide won't reach, for the poor and middle class. For one thing, rich people don't tend to live in condos where corners were cut due to greed or drug-addled lack of judgment or whatever. Pinker says the fact that advantages in a capitalist society are unequally distributed does not detract from the fact that more advantages accrue to everyone than would otherwise obtain. That's small consolation, isn't it, when lives are lost.
DeleteThe vaccine situation is a little complicated, given the prevalence of falsehood in our public discourse. Misinformation seems an equal-opportunity resource, in this society. The rich are no less prone to believe what's false, and in the most prominent and obvious instances are moreso.
The reason the vaccine example is relevant is to show the importance of "all boats." Some choose not to share in the resources available no matter the cost.
Delete
ReplyDelete• Do most of the nations of the world act as if they accept that "war is illegal"? 163
Anyone born after 1945 has not been alive during a war declared by the United States Congress. According to the Oxford English Dictionary
war is: hostile contention by means of armed forces, carried on between nations, states, or rulers, or between parties in the same nation or state; the employment of armed forces against a foreign power, or against an opposing party in the state.
Legal is: Recognized as such in the eye of the law; (of a child) legitimate.
If it were true that most nations of the world accept that war is illegal, then there would be no need for bloody conflict. Espionage is an act of war. How many nations in existence today have participated in espionage against another country? Enlightenment bases idealism on reason and if a nation, just as a person is truly enlightened it would understand the difference between words and actions. We exist in a universe of chaos and just because we want things to be a certain way it does not mean that they are. Because the transactions we make for goods and services seem clean and unsullied does not mean that they are. Just as many in the United States believe that slavery is illegal yet buy things produced from slavery many believe that war is illegal yet live in a country that is the largest producer of arms in the world. The United States thrives on war and the multi-national military industrial complex has very little threat of slowing down much less stopping the progress of human annihilation on multiple levels to enrich the comparative few who benefit from that entity.
The law, in matters of war, has been less than relevant. From Korea to Vietnam to Iraq to so many other examples, it's been too easily ignored. When presidents have wanted to engage in armed conflict they've gotten their way. But we shouldn't concede their moral right to wage undeclared war, we should continue to pursue "perpetual peace." You may say I'm a dreamer, but...
DeleteWhen reality interferes with the narrative we think we believe, are we as individuals just as likely to believe something that is untrue? We, as humans gloss over our inconvenient memories with alternate realities. This has been proven by science. Do we do this in real time as well?
ReplyDeleteI'm sure we're all guilty of constructing false narratives not only of the past, but of present and future as well. We're the storytelling species, and our stories are often fables. The remedy is to admit this, and to call one another out... not accept it as a fate of our human nature, but as a very bad habit. Those can be broken.
DeleteDoes Pinker have a point about how "technology and globalization have transformed what it means to be a poor person"? p. 117
ReplyDeleteYes, I believe that is true, but the circumstances for each poor person are certainly nuanced. I grew up in a family whose income was well below the poverty line. Yet, I had a roof over my head, food to eat (much from our own garden in the backyard), clothes to wear (mainly hand-me-downs or cheap Wal-Mart or Dollar Store fashion), and the occasional luxury of a Little Debbie to treat my sweet tooth. I was aware that I was “a poor person” in comparison to many of my friends, yet from the standpoint of those who were poorer than me, I was living well.
I agree with Pinker that we have moved the bar on what it means to be poor, and I feel that is a valid perspective and overall a good thing—that fact looks great on paper. But, looking at things from an “everything is relative” lens, I think when you are the one currently living poor, the reality that you are “less poor than folks used to be” is hard to see or care about as it is again, relative to one’s current experience with poverty. For example, someone living on the streets or in poor conditions are certainly more likely now to have a cell phone than they were a century or less ago. One could make the point that cell phones are more of a necessity these days for finding a job or housing than they were in the past. Does the fact that more “poor people” now have washing machines or a stove mean that their lives are any less hard than before? Perhaps, but since I live in the present, I’m not sure I can quite celebrate it.
Note: I do not believe that Pinker is diminishing the plight of individuals who are homeless or poor—he is presenting facts and data that have really made me think about a lot of things differently and with a more positive mindset—it’s just a perspective that I think we shouldn’t forget about.
Right, social comparison is very hard to avoid in a society whose culture of commerce constantly entices us to believe (falsely) that a little more material wealth than we presently possess is the essential key to our happiness. But it can be a bit gratifying to realize, however "poor" or disadvantaged we may feel ourselves to be, that we'd not want to have been born a century ago. The rising tide that deposits cell phones and medical science at our feet (if we have the right plan or policy) is in fact something we should be grateful for.
Delete1. If people were given the same opportunities/resources (ex. education, healthcare, etc.), how would this effect income inequality in our society? Would our society look more like those in Denmark, New Zealand, etc.? (pg. 99-100)
ReplyDelete2. In your opinion, would you say our society is more or less materialistic than in the past? Is it possible to compare accurately since we have such easy access to so many products today?
3. How can promoting experiences rather than 'things' benefit our society? How could it hurt it? (pg. 135)
1. Surely so. Hillary said in that debate that we're not Denmark. I don't think that should be a point of pride.
Delete2. By the measure of consumer spending, the cost of living, etc., we're definitely more materialistic. But are we more covetous of material wealth than our forebears? That's harder to measure. America as a land of opportunity has always meant striving for more stuff, as well as more happiness. Up to a point that's not bad. Beyond a certain point, it's shallow.
3. I think of this more in terms of personal benefit. Experiences leave a residue of memory and sometimes growth, where things grow old and less rewarding. The psychologists say experiences are more "enriching" in the non-literal sense.
1. I appreciated Pinker’s disclosure that he is personally “conditionally optimistic” about humanity rising to the challenge around climate change/greenhouse gases. (p. 154-155) I’ll admit to a lesser amount of faith in humanity than Pinker. I find it easy to get overwhelmed with the data and feel like I don’t have control (or the knowledge) over the decisions that need to be made to keep climate disaster away. How concerned are you about the state of the climate in the coming years? Are you pessimistic, complacently optimistic, or conditionally optimistic?
ReplyDelete2. Apparently, the “good ol’ days” of the 1950s weren’t so good after all (p. 113-114). Do you think we’ll look back on the later part of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century and consider them our generations “good ol’ days?” If so, will future data prove us wrong?
1. Conditionally optimistic. We know what we have to do, to slow the rapidity of climate change's disruptive impacts. We have to break our addiction to fossil fuel, first of all. I'm more optimistic that that will happen today than I was a few months ago. At least our country's leaders are no longer pulling us aggressively in the wrong direction.
ReplyDelete2. I think there's an inveterate nostalgia and sentimentality in the way humans reconstruct the past, that's been intensified lately by the reactionary political elements who insist that we once were "great" (in the '50s for instance, when the only "we" that really counted was white and male etc.) and need to be that way again. Make America White Again is not a recipe for progress.
My two questions from Enlightenment Now Chapters 8-11
ReplyDelete1. Frankfurt argues how inequality is not morally objectionable, rather poverty should be considered so. "From the point of view of morality, it is not important everyone should have the same" (pg. 98-99). Can this be considered true that inequality is not moral rather poverty?
2. Why is it that social media has encouraged younger people to show off their experiences rather than things such as cars and wardrobes? Why is the era of the Beach Boys and American Graffiti over? Why do American 18 year olds not have a driver's license? (pg. 135)
1. I think the poverty-inequality link is more integral than Frankfurt admits. Significant inequality is a reliable predictor of poverty. Everybody need not have the same, in a just society but it's crucial that nobody be reasonably perceived as having more privileged access to opportunity and resources. That perception definitely exists is our country.
Delete2. Well, the Beach Boys aren't over for those of us who still listen to them. And American Graffiti has had more than one rendition, if we can believe that the play/film were remotely accurate depictions of the '50s. I think the more pressing question might be why we are so infatuated with recycling our recent past, and less focused on creating a new and different and better future (which was always the more compelling Enlightenment value).
Our older daughter was in no hurry to get her license, but her sister couldn't wait. Nor could I, or most others of my generation. I'm not sure why. Maybe there's now a greater appreciation that the automobile is too frequently a death trap?
Do you agree that time heals all wounds?
ReplyDeleteIf you were to ask me this question when I was younger, my response would have been yes. Now that I am older and have gone through more experiences, my answer is no, time does not heal all wounds. Throughout time, I believe that it helps a person cope with what they have experience. This does not mean that they will forget about what a certain person has done to them. I like the response that Dr. Oliver typed above: "Patches". Time can patch over the pain of an experience but not fully heal. An example that comes to mind is perhaps a break-up. That person can cope with the feelings they have over time but not forget the feelings that they have gone through.
And yet, psychologists confirm our tendency to overrate the depth and duration of our disappointment at (say) an election loss by our preferred candidate (though I think that wouldn't have held for many of us in 2020). And we tend to exaggerate how happy we'll be (or how long we'll be happily elevated) by a win. Breakups can be more personally searing because more intimately emotional, but those patches are key to our resilience. Fortunately we do experience time as a linear forward march. Imagine how it would be, if we hopped randomly about in time (like Captain Picard did in the last episode of Next Generation, in case you're familiar with that). Patches would be pretty ineffective in that case, I imagine.
DeleteDo you agree that time heals all wounds? (p. 48) [Kelly's Question]
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe time helps heal wounds, but I cannot personally say that time will lead to complete healing of a wound. I think time allows us an opportunity to dwell on other things, shifting our focus, but I cannot submit that time will truly meet the requirements of all the healing entails. There are several parts to the definition of healing. Time can partially encompass a few different parts of these definitions: "alleviate (a person's distress or anguish)" and "cause (a wound, injury, or person) to become sound or healthy again". Yet, the definition also states, "correct or put right (an undesirable situation)". I don't believe time has the capability to do this. At least, in my own experience, this has not been the case.
But... those who suffer such anguish that they begin seriously to question whether life is worth living should realize that they're processing those feelings from a present-time perspective of deep pain. They would benefit, as Jennifer Michael Hecht says, from the realization that their future self/selves may have a significantly different perspective.
DeleteAre we safely past the threat of another World War?
ReplyDeleteMy simple answer would be no.
The United States has continuously appeared to have strained relationships with other nations throughout history. It is natural that countries would disagree on things just due to simple beliefs, but the US seems to be at the center of many strong disagreements. These discrepancies could be based on our leaders or on the policies we present. Within the past few years, the US also did not seem interested in remaining in alliances which would keep positive relationships with other nations.
Just last year, Nick Carter (Britain's Chief of Defense Staff) stated in a Reuter's article that "we are living at a moment in time where the world is a very uncertain and anxious place." All countries have been through difficult events that have proven to be strenuous. While disagreements are natural, this could be a great time for countries to begin relying on each other's strong suits. This seems to be wildly optimistic, though.
Here is the link to the article!
Deletehttps://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-remembrance-war-idUKKBN27O06Q
I'll also feel better when the Doomsday Clock people begin to wind it back... and when genuine global nuclear disarmament is achieved.
Deletehttps://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/