In Diamond's book he presents five possible causes for societal collapse. I believe that resource depletion/environmental causes is the major reason. If you have a prosperous society that encounters environmental issues you will probably see several of the other causes that Diamond states. Trade becomes important when you run out of resources because you are now dependent upon another countries commodities to survive, therefore boosting the importance of the trade argument. If a surrounding country is involved in the same environmental issue then that company may also be likely to attack to gain access to what resources your country have have left as well. Climate change can sometimes be related, but may simply just make matters worse. Finally, when there is an environmental emergency or resource depletion, the government can help out or get in the way. If you your country is composed of many cultures, a government may decide to give one culture preference to the remaining resources, which can in turn spark a wide variety of social issues, possibly even a civil war or genocide.
While this may not be the case for all societies, I give environmental reasons away for the largest contributor of societal collapse due to a close relationship between all possible reasons for such a collapse. In a sense, environmental reasons can be a last straw that is pulled, triggering several other reactions.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Population Control
We have now looked at the collapse of several civilizations and in some cases attributed it to population control/carrying capacity. So if these civilizations collapsed at the hand on depleting environmental resources then what happens when China depletes the resources of several African nations? Is it fair to these countries that their resources are being taken, regardless of compensation for these resources, possibly causing major environmental problems? China will not be the civilization that suffers from resource depletion, it is the country that has the resources that will suffer. I highly doubt these countries have a carrying capacity of the size of China.
So what role do other countries have in protecting other countries from resource depletion? Is it right to sit back and watch a larger country pay off a smaller country to take their resources without regard of the environmental impacts? Moreover, is it right to allow one nation to ruin it for the whole world? I have a feeling that once the resources in Africa are gone China will find other places to extract resources from. At some point we need to think about the world as a whole.
So what role do other countries have in protecting other countries from resource depletion? Is it right to sit back and watch a larger country pay off a smaller country to take their resources without regard of the environmental impacts? Moreover, is it right to allow one nation to ruin it for the whole world? I have a feeling that once the resources in Africa are gone China will find other places to extract resources from. At some point we need to think about the world as a whole.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Creation of the Bottled Water Industry
In class today we discussed Fishman's analysis of the bottled water industry. Dr. Anderson briefly mentioned that it's funny how such an industry can be created by the market when there is no need for it. But there was never any talk of why such an industry has been created.
Was the bottled water industry created by the advertising industry as suggested in class? I would agree that yes, the advertising industry is partially responsible. But what are the other factors? Could a medical/scientific push for clean water be to blame as well? With such findings the media outlets have picked up stories on the issue. I saw an article in the Volante recently with a headline asking what is in your water. This argument ties back to earlier discussions this semester about the media and the fear it can raise in some individuals. A fear that may drive a person to buy bottle water because it is slightly cleaner, or is advertised as such.
I find it very interesting to see these themes re-appearing in indirect ways with regards to questions of social justice and economy. The discussion could essentially turn into, "is buying bottled water worse than spending the little money you have on tatoos or toys?" It just goes to prove how complicated our society and social policy can become.
Was the bottled water industry created by the advertising industry as suggested in class? I would agree that yes, the advertising industry is partially responsible. But what are the other factors? Could a medical/scientific push for clean water be to blame as well? With such findings the media outlets have picked up stories on the issue. I saw an article in the Volante recently with a headline asking what is in your water. This argument ties back to earlier discussions this semester about the media and the fear it can raise in some individuals. A fear that may drive a person to buy bottle water because it is slightly cleaner, or is advertised as such.
I find it very interesting to see these themes re-appearing in indirect ways with regards to questions of social justice and economy. The discussion could essentially turn into, "is buying bottled water worse than spending the little money you have on tatoos or toys?" It just goes to prove how complicated our society and social policy can become.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Supporting Social Justice
So far this semester we have looked at various aspects of society. One issue in particular is poverty, which we talked at great lengths about what it meant to be impoverished and if it was something individuals could escape. After having that conversation I began to ponder how we could even start to fix such a problem. It is important to realize there is no easy solution, but merely a series of smaller efforts we can make towards a greater good.
I returned to my hometown of Carbondale, Kansas last weekend to visit family and friends and began a conversation with my Pastor at church. One of his first jobs preaching took place in Newell, SD, I small community just northeast of Spearfish, SD. We spoke about poverty and what it was like there. He impressed upon me that most of us will never truly understand the poverty until we are surrounded by it. But more interesting was the idea of how people there can find support. Surprisingly, it has nothing to do with government, but everything to do with caring individuals and organizations within the community that have the means to help. Several churches in the area have come together, with support of resteraunts, grocery stores, and other similar establishments, to allow those who need the help, at least a little assistance. Granted, the churches can't support everyone to eat and buy clothes all the time, but it keeps them from going hungry at least a couple times.
So my conclusion comes down to a mixture of government incentives and private sector help. We can't rely on the government to provide the means to help impoverished areas because, quite frankly, the government has no idea what is really going on in these areas and how to best support it. We must rely on those in these areas to provide the help. But most people will not provide this if it is too much a burden, financially or a matter of convenience, to them. So to encourage people to help I believe the government should provide some kind of incentive, be it tax breaks or a liaison to provide minimal government assistance like food stamps. These individuals, for example, could take these food stamps to provide food to supply help houses or local families.
There are many other ways this can be done, but it has become obvious, that as great as our country is, we need to become more involved in it. We can't rely on elected officials to always know what is best. We MUST take responsiblity and ownership in our country.
I returned to my hometown of Carbondale, Kansas last weekend to visit family and friends and began a conversation with my Pastor at church. One of his first jobs preaching took place in Newell, SD, I small community just northeast of Spearfish, SD. We spoke about poverty and what it was like there. He impressed upon me that most of us will never truly understand the poverty until we are surrounded by it. But more interesting was the idea of how people there can find support. Surprisingly, it has nothing to do with government, but everything to do with caring individuals and organizations within the community that have the means to help. Several churches in the area have come together, with support of resteraunts, grocery stores, and other similar establishments, to allow those who need the help, at least a little assistance. Granted, the churches can't support everyone to eat and buy clothes all the time, but it keeps them from going hungry at least a couple times.
So my conclusion comes down to a mixture of government incentives and private sector help. We can't rely on the government to provide the means to help impoverished areas because, quite frankly, the government has no idea what is really going on in these areas and how to best support it. We must rely on those in these areas to provide the help. But most people will not provide this if it is too much a burden, financially or a matter of convenience, to them. So to encourage people to help I believe the government should provide some kind of incentive, be it tax breaks or a liaison to provide minimal government assistance like food stamps. These individuals, for example, could take these food stamps to provide food to supply help houses or local families.
There are many other ways this can be done, but it has become obvious, that as great as our country is, we need to become more involved in it. We can't rely on elected officials to always know what is best. We MUST take responsiblity and ownership in our country.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Intention of Rules
In class today we discussed the role of the Insurance companies in the health care debate. This got me wondering who the rules are made for in political and economic institutions. The health care companies are upset and asked, with an unknown amount of bias, a company to conduct research on the cost of the proposed health care plan. But you have to stop and ask yourself the question, which cost are we talking about? Are we talking about the cost per individual or the cost the insurance companies will be forced to take on? This difference is important to note. It is my belief that insurance companies try getting out of paying whenever possible, as it costs them money. Could this new health care plan simply be forcing insurance companies to own up to their responsibilities and provide the care they have, in some cases, failed to give?
If this is not the issue then is it personal? Do the insurance executives not want to take the coverage they currently receive? What could other reasons be? Even though we know it's hard to change institutions once they are created, at what cost are we willing to forgo to allow certain injustices to continue?
If this is not the issue then is it personal? Do the insurance executives not want to take the coverage they currently receive? What could other reasons be? Even though we know it's hard to change institutions once they are created, at what cost are we willing to forgo to allow certain injustices to continue?
Friday, September 25, 2009
The Power of Media
I was sitting in class today, just as any other day, when my phone started to go crazy as I received numerous texts about a lock down in Tea. I know several people are are going to Tea Area High School in Tea, so naturally I was alarmed when I heard about the lock down.
The story of the lockdown is that the superintendent ordered a lock down of all schools in town, according to SOP (standard operating proceedure) , because of early morning police reports of a man outside near the Elementary school with a gun. At first this seems like a natural reaction. Happening at 8:15, right as school started, it was vital that school officials ensure everybody is safe. My first question is why lock down all of the schools in town? Just because there was a man near the elementary school with a gun doesn't mean there was one by the high school. It turns out that the man was simply getting ready to go out hunting.
What I find troubling is that is that a man was seen with a gun and instantly everyone is scared. What has the media done to us? Seriously!? I remember stories from my dad about how they could keep guns locked in their vehicles. Has the biased, reactive, media made society think this negatively about a man simply carying a gun near his house? Moreover, to think so negatively about it that not only was the closest school put on lock down but also the remaining schools in town? Did the events of Columbine, Virginia Tech, and other school shootings and the lack of recognition of all of the days without school shootings make our reaction this severe? If you think about it if you only thought of 10 schools and only having 1 school shooting a year you would have (10 schools * (36 weeks * 5 days a week)) -1 non-school shootings. Which is approx. 0.0006%. So if you think of the thousands of schools that exists, there is an incredibly small chance one just one school shooting, yet alone 2 in the same town.
As a society we are accustomed to reacting to, mainly, the bad events without giving much notice to the good events. When we mold into this reactionary behavior we begin to impose more rules and proceedures for the sake of an "unreasonable sense of insecurity." I hope when I have kids and send them off to school that a whole city doesn't get shut down because I happen to have my garage door open and a gun visisble.
The story of the lockdown is that the superintendent ordered a lock down of all schools in town, according to SOP (standard operating proceedure) , because of early morning police reports of a man outside near the Elementary school with a gun. At first this seems like a natural reaction. Happening at 8:15, right as school started, it was vital that school officials ensure everybody is safe. My first question is why lock down all of the schools in town? Just because there was a man near the elementary school with a gun doesn't mean there was one by the high school. It turns out that the man was simply getting ready to go out hunting.
What I find troubling is that is that a man was seen with a gun and instantly everyone is scared. What has the media done to us? Seriously!? I remember stories from my dad about how they could keep guns locked in their vehicles. Has the biased, reactive, media made society think this negatively about a man simply carying a gun near his house? Moreover, to think so negatively about it that not only was the closest school put on lock down but also the remaining schools in town? Did the events of Columbine, Virginia Tech, and other school shootings and the lack of recognition of all of the days without school shootings make our reaction this severe? If you think about it if you only thought of 10 schools and only having 1 school shooting a year you would have (10 schools * (36 weeks * 5 days a week)) -1 non-school shootings. Which is approx. 0.0006%. So if you think of the thousands of schools that exists, there is an incredibly small chance one just one school shooting, yet alone 2 in the same town.
As a society we are accustomed to reacting to, mainly, the bad events without giving much notice to the good events. When we mold into this reactionary behavior we begin to impose more rules and proceedures for the sake of an "unreasonable sense of insecurity." I hope when I have kids and send them off to school that a whole city doesn't get shut down because I happen to have my garage door open and a gun visisble.
Monday, September 21, 2009
The Role of Technology in Community
So much has changed in the age of the internet. You can talk to a friend down the street or thousands of miles away in the comfort of your own home with immediate feedback. You can start a webcam and send images to China or even buy clothes; all, possibly, in your pajamas in the middle of the night. With the instantaneous connectivity of the internet, there is also a wealth of information, some true some not, available at your fingertips at the click of a mouse. This new, technological, age has begun whether we like it or not.
With this connectivity the internet brings, what has happened to "community?" Some people may say it's almost gone away entirely as we once knew it. On the other hand, some may make the claim that it's simply expanded the idea of community. I, however, fall in the middle ground.
It really depends on where you are and who you are. Smaller towns risk a higher impact because the amount of people to draw from is much smaller, whereas larger towns can afford for more people to not take an active role in civil organizations, government, and community. It's a numbers game in a sense that if the internet takes away 25% of the time the average person would spend in the community, a smaller town would have less people to step in to fill that time. It is important to keep in mind, however, that if everyone became less involved in community that the community would inevitably suffer. I say this because no longer do you have people going down to the ball diamonds on summer nights because it's something to do.
This argument is not to imply that the internet, solely, is responsible. People, in general, are just too busy. We are packing so much into our schedules that we hardly have any time. What use to be a dinner at home has turned into eating fast food in the car between work, meetings, and other activities. Are people involved still? YES! The problem is people value these commitments less than previous generations. It's a matter of, I can come every other meeting, or I'll come to the meetings but I don't want any responsibility, or even the "drop the kids off for an hour" attitude that some parents take with their kids activities.
The bottom line is we need to use technology smarter. I know spending hours on end on youtube or facebook may be entertaining, but we need to limit ourselves. The internet is an excellent source of information and an extremely quick way to share important information. But we should never discount personal communication. You can't learn to lead/be a part of a group of people online the way you lead a group of Boy Scouts, participate in a school organization, or simply enjoying a cup of coffee with a group of close friends. The internet takes away so much, but gives just as much, or arguably more, back. It's a simple matter of using it wisely.
So where does that leave community? It leaves community where the internet stops.
With this connectivity the internet brings, what has happened to "community?" Some people may say it's almost gone away entirely as we once knew it. On the other hand, some may make the claim that it's simply expanded the idea of community. I, however, fall in the middle ground.
It really depends on where you are and who you are. Smaller towns risk a higher impact because the amount of people to draw from is much smaller, whereas larger towns can afford for more people to not take an active role in civil organizations, government, and community. It's a numbers game in a sense that if the internet takes away 25% of the time the average person would spend in the community, a smaller town would have less people to step in to fill that time. It is important to keep in mind, however, that if everyone became less involved in community that the community would inevitably suffer. I say this because no longer do you have people going down to the ball diamonds on summer nights because it's something to do.
This argument is not to imply that the internet, solely, is responsible. People, in general, are just too busy. We are packing so much into our schedules that we hardly have any time. What use to be a dinner at home has turned into eating fast food in the car between work, meetings, and other activities. Are people involved still? YES! The problem is people value these commitments less than previous generations. It's a matter of, I can come every other meeting, or I'll come to the meetings but I don't want any responsibility, or even the "drop the kids off for an hour" attitude that some parents take with their kids activities.
The bottom line is we need to use technology smarter. I know spending hours on end on youtube or facebook may be entertaining, but we need to limit ourselves. The internet is an excellent source of information and an extremely quick way to share important information. But we should never discount personal communication. You can't learn to lead/be a part of a group of people online the way you lead a group of Boy Scouts, participate in a school organization, or simply enjoying a cup of coffee with a group of close friends. The internet takes away so much, but gives just as much, or arguably more, back. It's a simple matter of using it wisely.
So where does that leave community? It leaves community where the internet stops.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
