First Philosophy Questions

To what extent am I bound to improve the world?

What is the most “useful” way to spend my time?

To what extent can I secure my own happiness?

Shay Says: Religion in Schools

I have never understood the conflict between Creationism versus Darwinism. There is no reason for confliction. Creationism is the explanation of the world based on faith, Darwinism is the explanation based on observation. The policy of separation of Church and state effectively bans public schools from teaching religion as school is a government run institution. On the other hand, this does not ban the teaching of Darwinism. Though this explanation of the origin of humanity conflicts with Creationism, it is not a religious teaching. As a result it is legitimate to teach, but not legitimate to teach as the only correct version of the story. It must be offered as the scientific explanation of the creation of humanity, nothing more and nothing less. Whether one chooses to believe this version of the story is still of personal choice, but people should be offered the scientific explanation because it is a necessary part of operating in modern society. Evolution is a central part of modern biology and as a result, anyone interested in scientific pursuits must be aware of it. Depriving children of its explanation could put some children at a disadvantage should they be interested in science. The only disadvantage of teaching Darwinism is that it has the potential of shaking a child’s faith in his or her religion. Still, since it is only being provided as an alternative explanation, the child would be making a choice to value science over religion, and thus his rights to religious freedom remain unscathed. Though I understand that parents might be uncomfortable with the chance that their child might make this choice, such choices are part of what being an American is. Freedom to identity is a central American value and providing options of belief only helps make each individual just that.

.the blog.: The Environment Journal Response

Blaming Americans for pollution is unfair. Yes much of pollution is a result of American consumerism, but it is not the average American’s fault that he is well off enough to purchase a large number of goods. Anything that is produced by humans damages the environment. Just because Americans have the power to purchase many of these man made goods does not make them accountable. Sure, there are many American corporations that have made environmentally irresponsible decisions such as Asarco, but the majority of Americans are not directly affiliated with these businesses. Also, such environmentally irresponsible decisions are an international problem. Things are cheaper when made dirty; that’s just business. Until green business becomes profitable, there will be unnecessary pollution for the sake of profit. Even if is this accomplished, there will still pollution because humanity has failed to reach an equilibrium point in its population growth. Humanity has exceeded its carrying capacity and inevitably takes more from the environment than the environment can safely give. Until technology brings humanity to the point where people no longer rely on the Earth to provide the raw materials for the things humanity desires and needs, the environment will suffer. It is ignorant to blame America for pollution. Environmental instability is a problem larger than any one nation or even group of nations. It is a problem as large as humanity itself.

Sarah Says: Native Americans Vs. Americans Response

While I am aware that Native Americans have been persecuted by Americans throughout our history, there were a few details that really surprised me. One of which was the Handling of the Indian Removal Act of 1830. President Jackson to completely defied the Supreme Court and remained the President of the United States without so much as a slap on the wrist. He violated the intentions of the constitution by ignoring his role in the government and the theory of separation of powers. His ability to do this really calls into question the power of laws. If the most public government official can publicly ignore the supreme court and, in doing so, ignore the highest law of the land (the Constitution) without punishment, then what do laws really mean?
In regard to the contemporary issue of Native American mascots, I am completely against their use. Though the intention is not to make fun of Native Americans, the result is that many Native Americans are insulted by their use. Arguing that these symbols are central to school culture is just silly. These symbols are a part of another culture that has nothing to do with school rivalries and basketball, and it is insulting to use these religious and cultural symbols as logos for school teams. Imagine the controversy that would arise if a school had a stereotypical Muslim as their mascot. The difference is that Native Americans have become so far removed from most American societies that people have trouble identifying parts of their culture that are commonly used in mascots and logos as either sacred or offensive. The point is that changing a school mascot is a fairly easy and painless process. There really is no reason not to change considering the dignity of a historically mistreated people is at stake.

Final Product

Best viewed in full screen.

Words

Literary Analysis

In Columbus Was a Dope by Robert Heinlein, scientific progress is described as an inevitability. It is human nature to desire progress and, over time, accept change caused by attempts to progress. Humans, as a species, are not content with the status quo. People are hungry for improvement and believe that everything can always be better. Heinlein demonstrates this through a conversation between acquaintances in a futuristic setting discussing the motivation of exploration.

It begins with a few men in a bar talking about an eminent voyage to Proxima Centauri. One of them, Dr. Appleby, is to be aboard the ship bound for the distant star. Mr. Barnes, one of the other men, is arguing with Dr. Appleby, writing off the adventure as a waste of time. When Barnes asks Dr. Appleby why he is taking the trip, inquiring what motivation he had for putting his life and the lives of his wife and daughter at risk, the Appleby responds, "It can't be explained... What took Peary to the North Pole? Why did Columbus get the Queen to hock her jewels? Nobody has ever been to Proxima Centauri — so we're going." In other words, he was going for the sake of progress. He was pushing his limits and the limits of human kind for the sake of advancement that he could not yet understand. Despite its mystery, Dr. Appleby felt this progress was still inexplicably important. Though he could see no gain from the expedition, he knew that it was so valuable that he was willing to give the rest of his life up to the journey, as it would take over sixty years. He knew that his children would be the ones to see the trip finished, and his grand children would be the ones to finally return, and he was willing to make this decision for all of them because he felt the allure of a new, exciting future so strongly.

Though Barnes couldn’t understand Dr. Appleby’s value in exploration for the sake of unknown progress, the kicker to this story is that the very place he was speaking was the result of people taking value such risks. Indeed, the bar that they were lightly conversing in was located on the moon, yet Barnes couldn't see the irony in his statements. This further demonstrates humanity's tendency to embrace change. Even though it was in Barnes's character to be satisfied with the status quo, the status quo that he accepts is the result of thousands of years of sometimes violent and dangerous progress that he has no trouble justifying.

Thus, humanity is in constant, purposeful motion towards a different future, and, upon the arrival of something new, humanity is quick to accept the change and continue moving forward. Scientific progress is in human nature.