Everything is Connected...

How alarming must the predictions of scientists be before we act on their warnings? Furthermore, how much of our inaction stems from our apathetic viewpoints regarding not only our fading plant and animal life but the suffering of the world’s poor? Consistently striving for more, it seems we acquire less of value. Yes, we’ve reached the immoral age of gluttony and slothfulness. We may have passed two thresholds. The first threshold is scientific, and deals with the planet’s ability to recover from years of mistreatment. Once this threshold is passed, the return to a healthy planet may be impossible. The second threshold is psychological and economic, and speaks of our rate of consumption. Most simply, human beings need more—or at least think they need more—than both society and the planet are able to produce. Notice how the two thresholds affect one another. As we exceed the consumption threshold, we reach closer to the planet’s threshold. Thus, by consuming in a more ethical manner, it may be possible to prevent the planet from reaching the point of no return. Questions of how we may consume more ethically are abundant but are certainly answerable. Purchasing U.S. grown foods, abstaining from meat consumption—for science has shown that the meat industry is just as responsible as transportation—using renewable resources, avoidance of plastic and other unnecessary production (do we need plastic water bottles?), and so forth, are all ways to consume in a more ethical manner.
The motivation to make these changes should come from our care for human beings and other creatures. As noted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “it is the poorest of the poor in the world, and this includes poor people in even prosperous societies, who are going to be worst hit” (Environmental News Service). This is true for many reasons. First, economic deprivation entails the inability to react to climate change. While the rich will have the power to relocate and build more proper infrastructure, the poor can only sit and watch. Furthermore, the poor often live in the areas most susceptible to climate change effects. Island nations or other low lying lands will be the first to experience the numerous problems brought on by rising sea levels. Similarly, animals which are currently being impacted or will be impacted in the future by climate change are dependent upon human action to curtail this impact. As awareness of this problem becomes increasingly universal, the excuses for inaction become more limited. Certainly we can’t expect the world’s poor—including the poor living in affluent nations—to bring about the necessary changes. Therefore the responsibility falls into the hands of the wealthy (here wealthy refers to middle class and above). A sort of “double effect” is at play here. First, the wealthy are responsible for bringing about the necessary change because they can afford to. Second, the wealthy are responsible because they often benefit from the economic institutions which create and perpetuate poverty throughout the world. Thus, they are responsible because of their ability to bring about change and because they benefit from economic institutions which prevent the world’s poor from bringing about change. Therefore environmental concerns are simultaneously economic concerns, and both are vital concerns for human nature as we know it.

Terror Attacks in Mumbai: First reflections

Despite a history of violence, human beings actually have a natural resistance to killing. Dave Grossman's On Killing reveals that there are various mechanisms that work to break down this resistance. Slightly irrelevant to yesterday's terrorist attacks in Mumbai—but nonetheless revealing—is the oppressive military training which desensitizes the modern soldier. By exposing the soldier to prolonged physical and mental exhaustion along with relentless violent simulation, the desensitization process is completed. On the battlefield, the solider no longer fears death and is less resistant to killing fellow human beings; fortunately there are exceptions to this generalization. How is this relevant to terrorist attacks? Documentation of terrorism reveals that persistent hopelessness breaks down the natural resistance to killing. Terrorists often live in poverty-ridden areas of the world and they struggle to live meaningful lives. This lack of comfort and meaning leads to the above mentioned hopelessness. For terrorists, this void is filled with radical doctrines that lead to the violent acts we witness. Hence, the natural resistance to killing is destroyed or at least partially veiled. This process is observed throughout the Middle East when ordinary Muslims become radical fundamentalists. The manipulation of jihad results in the following transition:
FROM:
Inner Jihad: The struggle to remain pious. This struggle exists largely inside the individual and involves the accurate observance of holy scripture and practice.
TO:
Outer Jihad: The struggle to defend Islam. This struggle includes violent acts and in the most radical cases the proliferation of Islamic doctrine via terrorism. Furthermore, this jihad includes acts of retaliation in which Islamic radicals right a wrong committed by non-Muslims—for example, many argue September 11th occurred as a result of the failed United States policy which upset Al Qaeda.
As the dust settles on Mumbai, it will be noteworthy to discover the intentions of the perpetrators. What psychological process occurred to break the natural tendency to resist murder? Conversely, were the perpetrators natural born killers (only two percent of the world population)? One thing is for sure: we live in a violent world in which human beings find motivation to kill—regardless of some inborn resistance to violence.

A Plea to the Presidential Candidates

Both John McCain and Barack Obama must discontinue their nationalistic views immediately. John McCain’s assertion that Americans are the best workers in the world is false and even dangerous. Considered most simply, what factual evidence does he have to base this statement upon? Is it actually true that America contains the best workers? McCain would have benefited from simply stating that American’s are hard working individuals. No one can or should deny this. Furthermore, he would still sound patriotic, and patriotism seems to be his overall message. The problem with stating that Americans are the best workers is that it breeds unnecessary favoritism. Our society becomes increasingly global with each passing day, blurring the lines between Americans and other human beings. Therefore, we should be breeding good relations between America and other countries by asserting that all human beings are capable of being great workers. Moreover, the coffee farmer who receives disproportionably low wages works much harder than the average America worker, simply in dealing with degradable conditions—not to mention the Asian sweatshop employee. By stating that Americans are the best workers, the candidates are asserting that America is one of the best—if not the best—country in the world. Can we say this with a straight face while simultaneously acknowledging the dependence America has on the world market? It is worth noting that Barack Obama, the apparent liberal in the campaign, has maintained this same notion, even if less often than McCain. To better our relations in the world, it seems necessary to begin treating all human beings in the manner we try (and often fail) to treat Americans. This discussion is obviously blurred when one realizes that all Americans are not treated equally. Human beings are human beings, plain and simple. For the love of your apparent God, please start thinking this way.

Distraction as a Political Tactic

For a moment, the presidential race seemed far too easy for Barack Obama. Nonetheless, the announcement of the Republican vice presidential nominee presented a formidable challenge for the Democratic party. Not because the nominee had much merit in terms of political doctrine, but because she provided the distraction needed for the Republicans. Sarah Palin's entrance into the presidential race seemed to be an attempt to pull Clinton supporters towards the right. This theory is quickly forgotten when one recalls that Sarah Palin stands in opposition to Hillary Clinton on virtually all issues. Therefore, a vote for Sarah Palin will be a vote based upon feminist aspirations rather than relevant political and social issues. That is not to say that women don't deserve an equal say in the political sphere, it's actually quite the opposite. Women deserve to be valued on their judgments, beliefs, standards, and experience, in the same way a man would. In other words, to favor a woman on less substantial points is to downplay their values and magnify the importance of their gender. Sarah Palin's presence in the election is having this unfortunate effect. Polls show that voters favor her for her "hockey mom" background, seemingly ignoring her stance on women's reproductive rights among other issues. Sarah Palin is a needless distraction from an important political discussion on the current issues.

Flawed Ethics

Immanuel Kant’s historical conception of morality was absolutely accurate insofar as it dealt with human relations. He argued that we must treat other human beings as ends, rather than simply as means. This argument is logical and even morally sound. Unfortunately, it says little concerning the treatment of non-human creatures. Kant’s justification for the moral treatment of human beings is human rationality. Because humans are rational creatures, it would be immoral to treat them as simply means to a desired end. The type of rationality which Kant refers to is specific to human beings and seems to separate us from other living creatures. But does the lack of rationality among non-human creatures justify treating them as means? When we abstain from harming or disrespecting a fellow human being, we don’t do so simply because of our acknowledgment of their rationality. Instead, we also acknowledge their ability to experience fear and pain. Kant’s conception of morality loses its strength here because it seems to ignore this fact. It is clear that non-human creatures can and do experience fear and pain, and this fact is ample justification for moral treatment of said creatures. Therefore, Kant’s conception of morality must be expanded to include all creatures with the ability to experience fear and pain. Indeed, rationality seems largely irrelevant in terms of moral treatment.