1.
Do you agree with any of the premises put
forward by Jensen? If so, which premises
do you most agree with? Why? Be specific and thorough in your answer.
2.
Which premises do you most disagree with? Why?
If it is more than one, go over each disagreement and provide a legitimate
counterclaim.
3.
Do you agree with his definitions of justice and
production? If so, why? If not, how would you define these terms?
4.
What are the implications of his premises? In your eyes, are there any positive
implications of his premises or are they mostly negative? Explain.
5.
How does history play a role in perpetuating the
idea that civilization is “the right way to live?” Can indigenous knowledge systems provide a
counterclaim to this idea? Why or why
not?
6.
Do you believe that our culture will undergo a
voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living?
7.
Do you believe that there is a ‘world culture’
or do you think this definition of culture is too broad? If there is a world culture, what are some
facets of that culture? If not, in your
opinion, why is there not a ‘world culture’?
1. I agree with all of them except for premise 4 and 14. I agree with 1,2,3 becaue they accurately describe the concept of civilization, which is to get the resources to yourself. Another concept is the cycle of civilizations, as every civilization rises and falls again.
ReplyDelete2. I disagree with premises 4 because 4 talk about the exploitation of people on the lower end of the societal triangle. A legitimate counterclaim is that the upper people cannot get where they are without the help of the lower people. I disagree with premise 14 because 14 talk about an innate hatred of the world. A legitimate counterclaim is that society as a whole does not hate wild, women, or children, but we as individuals can have different feelings on the views of women, wild , and children.
3. I would define the terms in context of production because production is making more output than input, whereas justice is making more input than output. The rich uses production because they own the companies and they need the finished products to hit shelves. The poor uses justice because they cannot afford for lawyers so they take the situation into their own hands.
4. They are mostly negative as most talk about the end of civilization and the end of life because they are talking about civilizations, and they follow the cycle of rise, peak, downfall, and the cycle then repeats itself.
5. History told us that the civilizations are much better of then the individual states. Some indigenous knowledge systems are much better than those of the industrial civilization.
6. No I think it will always be the same as before because we are always at fault and many do not understand that. A sane way of living will be similar to the ancient Greeks and Romans.
7. I think the world culture in a sense is the USA because most of our products and ideas spread across the entire world, as in the idea of fast food restaurants such as McDonald’s, and apple iphone.
1. I agree with the basic ideas behind each of his premises, but his conclusions are too extreme. For instance, I agree with premise 1 that civilization as it is is unsustainable, but I disagree with his claim that it can never be fixed. The problem of civilization can be solved; what he's suggesting is getting rid of it entirely, which is impossible. Very few people will support his solution, and so civilization will continue with its faults. Instead, as Ai Wei Wei said, we have to work within the system in order to fix it. The same goes for the rest of his premises- they are too extreme for most people's tastes, and their lack of support will lead to fruitlessness.
ReplyDelete2. I disagree most strongly with premise 10, which says that civilization instills in all its members a "death urge." It often seems like violence and the destruction of life is everywhere because this is usually perpetrated by those in power, which the media tends to focus on. However, most individuals in civilization are not driven to violence. A good counterclaim would be the recent Fort Lauderdale incidents, where the government banned people from feeding the homeless outside (not exactly a death urge, but it's also not promoting life). The lawmakers are the ones inflicting injustice. The individuals and organizations like Love Thy Neighbor are the ones standing up and giving out food to those in need. Moreover, there are many other cities and organizations across the country that feed people who need it all the time. The media just doesn't report these, since this is usually the norm.
3. I partially agree. Not all production is exploitation, but often, exploitation increases production. Similarly, not all justice arises from abuses of power, but too often, power holds precedence over justice. Ideally, these wouldn't be the definitions of production and justice, but their constant misuse in our society has led them to take on these definitions.
4. Jensen's premises imply that civilization is utterly doomed and can never be fixed. This is very pessimistic and useless, since it will ultimately solve nothing.
5. All civilizations throughout history have eventually fallen, and yet, humans continue to build and rebuild them. This proves that there is something about civilization that is right for us- maybe because we are social beings that prefer organization and order in the face of disorder. Indigenous societies are not necessarily distinct from civilized societies, and they too have many of the same issues Jensen outlines in his premises.
6. People will not voluntarily transform their ways of life to become sustainable, because what is sustainable for the environment or for our society isn't necessarily sustainable for the individual. In order to enact change, people's monetary interests and other interests have to align. As Jensen points out, civilization is built upon money, and if people had to choose between their own financial stability and societal stablity, most would choose the former.
7. With increasing globalization, a world culture has started to develop. Although many have yet to assimilate, there is still a degree of homogeneity across the world. American culture is most apparent in this world culture; for example, the success of Hollywood films in foreign countries.
1. I agree with most of the premises he made which are extreme but are very true in the society today. I agree with premise 16 Jensen advocated the seperation between the real world and the spiritural world. He also stated that we can not rely on gods to get us of the current troubles. I agree because there is a division between faith and reality and it is ourselves that can solve the problems we are currently in. I also agree with premise 20 which states that soical decisions are based on monetary decisions. This is true in the TED talk we watched last time about how more and more students are choosing their major based on monetary drives instead of intrinsic interests. Such premise is supported in the societal phenonmenon today.
ReplyDelete2. I disagree with premise 12 when he seperated the people in the world based purely on economic power and his definition that the rich "have lots of pieces of green paper." People around the world have different definitions about what makes rich people rich and poor people poor. A counterclaim would be that people are different which means they have different definitions of rich and poor. I think that rich people are people who are not only materially satisfied, but also spirtually satisfied. The ownership of both love and wealth define richness in my eyes. Therefore, it is too arbitrary to group the people based on their economic power.
3. I agree with his definition of "production" because there have to be sacrifices before gaining. And it is true that the production of goods today come from exploitation of natural resources. I also agree with his definition of "justice." Even though it is extreme, but it is true in the society today since poor people do not have enough economic power to gain justice which cuase them to gain justice themselves.
4. The implications of his premises show that human civilization is mostly negative because it is the desire for power and money that impacted most of social decisions. The society is dominated by violence and hatred. Therefore, his premises are mostly negative. But there are some positive aspects in his premises when he called for a change in society before the crash of civilzation. His premises also raise awareness in the society about the human nature and the current societal system.
5. History implied that civilizations are positive because it is organization and orders that allow us to survive from generations to generations by fixing the problems in the society. Indigenous knowledge system does provide a counterclaim because violence and the desire for economic power are more common in industrial civilizations but less in indigenous religious systems which may be a good counterclaim.
6. I do not believe that such voluntary transformation will take place because the continued exploitation of the natural world will continue providing people with monetary gains. And the current societal trend shows that people will choose their own monetary interests over the sustainable way of living.
7. The advancement of technology, such as Internet, Facebook and Iphones, and the easier transportation definitely show a shift toward world culture under globalization. Therefore, the technology and inventions allow us to assimilate as one and moving toward a common world culture.
1. I agree most with premises 11 and 16. Premise 11 makes sense from ancient to modern civilization. Our culture has been working towards a prolonged occupation of humans. That is what allows us to expand. We are stretching our capacity. Our population is reaching new limits. A higher capacity seems to entail a higher threshold. We want more, and there is more of us. Therefore, this is a dilemma. Occupation is not an issue, but the implications might be. Premise 11 is true because it does not venture into those possibilities. Premise 16 is true, but reality is not as parallel as the situation presented. Spiritual influence, such as religion, is often a source of comfort. Religion can inspire passivity, but it is often taken into context. It can inspire and motivate; it can provide relief or terror. Reality is a priority, and many people do not agree, but people qualify so this is not generally a problem.
ReplyDelete2. Premises 4 and and 10 make the least sense to me. A hierarchy exists, but the workings of it are not as clear-cut as stated. Violence done by the higher to the lower is, many times, apparent. This is simply because there are less of them and more of us. Everything they do is dramatized. Rarely do they get away with anything, let alone violence. However, violence done by the lower to the higher can also be significant. Essentially, both can carry the same significance depending on the magnitude. Premise 10’s assertion is drastic. Generally, we want to improve life. Regardless of whose life, that is our intention. However, this might cut away at the natural world (which is probably what Jensen is pointing to). We are trying to accommodate ourselves to the situation. If we attempt to prolong individual lives, we might end up destroying human life in general and vice versa. I think we are inclined towards the former. Society wants to make the most out life, but the rate might destroy it. The premise might be true but only indirectly.
3. I agree with Jensen’s definition of production. Production or profit occurs past the break-even point. Although, the cuts necessary to profit can be taken from anyone, they are usually directed towards the exploited. Exploitation is a bit of a misnomer that carries negative connotation. It can be present in the most invisible sense. Stevenson’s point that “the opposite of poverty is justice” is relevant to Jensen’s assertion. It is hard to make the case that Jensen is wrong because all too often, these biases are at play.
4. As a whole, humans are an unsalvageable group. Jensen’s implication is based on the idea that our pattern of actions is fixed and widespread. Generally his assertions and implications are negative. Any assertion having to do with the distant future can only be an educated guess. Jensen implies that we are unable to adapt, which might/might not be entirely true.
5. Success can be associated with civilization throughout history. The better the civilization, the more success. However, civilization entails industrial warfare, mass violence, and issues on a global scale. It’s difficult to subject civilization to some sort of a financial analysis to conclude cost and profit. Indigenous knowledge systems may know things (remedies, hunting skills, entertainment, etc.) that we as a society do not. On the other hand, we have technology, healthcare, and luxuries that indigenous knowledge systems could never provide. In the end, the pros and cons might even out. Indigenous knowledge systems might be an alternative, but civilization is imminent.
6. Probably not. If we did, we’d have to change our way of life. Like Jensen said, we are built for occupation and monetary gain. There is no way to revert our thought to an earlier place in time. Any change would have to be substantial and involuntary.
7. The idea of a ‘world culture’ exists in a loose and general sense. We are all exposed to almost the same thing. However, countless nuances exist across culture. For the most part, mainstream society has adopted the same general outline.
1. I do not agree with most of the premises, but of the few premises I do agree with are 12 and 20. Premise 12 says that everyone is equal, even though some people have more “green paper” than others. It is the delusion that money creates, which makes people think they are more powerful than others. In reality, whatever humans put value on is what creates the delusion, so the amount of rocks could replace green paper in the determinate of wealth. I also agree with premise 20, which says that economics is what drives social decisions. This is evident in many international issues today, including whether to help other nations due to military budgets, and whether to marry somebody based on wealth (dowry).
ReplyDelete2. I primarily disagree with premise 13. It describes how the people in power rule others by force, which I believe, refer to political leaders. However, I see that description as referring to a dictatorship government, and as a counterclaim, is the U.S government. The U.S government follows a republic government with democratic ideals. It does not force anything on its people unless people blatantly go against the law.
3. I agree with the definition of production, but fully. Production does exploit people of the lower class, but does not always “destroy” their lives; people are usually taken advantage of, but not killed. I do not agree with the definition of justice. My definition of justice is punishing the person who committed a crime in a fit manner depending on the crime committed.
4. The premises imply that civilization as a whole is going down the wrong path, negatively portraying the world. However, there is also a positive side since it sparks change in the way civilization is running things, such as the idea to put the “needs of the natural world” before the economic system.
5. History has proven that the more advance the civilization, the higher the likelihood that the civilization will survive, but history has also shown that despite the power of a civilization, each one is fated to fall sooner or later. This is brought on by the constant influx of violence in civilizations. Indigenous knowledge systems cannot provide a counterclaim to this idea, since they too have violence, it may just not be as prevalent.
6. I do not believe that our society will undergo a voluntary transformation. Most everybody prioritizes their own gains over nature, so even though a sustainable way of living has more benefits, people will not follow it to fulfill their own desires.
7. Currently there is not a full “world culture,” but we are working towards it. The continual advancements in technology are allowing more and more people to know the same things. Once everyone from all classes can obtain the same technology, a common culture can be created.
1. Premises I agree most are Premise 8 and Premise 16. For Premise 8, for survival of life on earth and the survival of the human species, the needs of the natural world are more important than the economic needs. As of right now, people do not have another place to live besides Earth, so the health of the planet determines the health of the species. In Premise 16, the actions done on this life has consequences on this life only, plain and simple. There is no magic to solve these problems.
ReplyDelete2. The Premise I disagree the most with is Premise 10. I disagree with this premise because this statement is too extreme and nonsensical. No species would support an ideal that would go against its own survival. Destroying life would consequently lead to destruction of the life of the species as well.
3. I do not entirely agree with the definitions of justice and production because there are instances that go against the definitions. It does not mean situations described in the definition do not occur because they certainly do occur, for example the exploitation of rainforest in the Amazon by major companies despite protest of the locals. However production does include situations where all of the parties involved do increase the amount of properties without the destruction of someone else property. For justice, those above do get caught for damaging the property of those below and not only receive punishment from the law but also receive immense ridicule from society.
4. The implications of the premises are mostly negative because it means that the current state of civilization is doomed in the long run. According to the premises, the only solution would be a restart of the whole system and of the species itself.
5. History has shown that civilization is a best available options for humans as society has improved, throughout time, in health, culture, math and science, ethics, etc. However it also reveals the flaws that civilization has. The mistakes and failure made in the past are highlighted to provide a warning to the current and future generations, though they are repeated multiple times.
6. No, because society is stubborn to change their ways unless their current ways become unsuitable to which they are force to change for survival. These changes are short term as they provide immediate help needed but nothing more.
7. I do not think there is a world culture right now, but it is forming right now. The Ethics of the West contrast far too much in comparison to those in the Middle East or the East in general to declare there is a world culture. However with the expansion in the use of technology, globalization is allowed to grow to all corners of the Earth and thus allowed to make a world culture.
7.
1. I agree with Jensen’s Premises One and Sixteen that industrial civilization is not sustainable and that the material world is primary. With civilization consuming the nonrenewable resources of the earth and breaking down then natural environment to meet the growing needs of the people, there is no lasting sustenance in our lifestyle. Furthermore, there is only a focus on the “now”, or material world; this is not necessarily a bad thing, as people must put their immediate priorities first instead of spiritual matters. We should spend less time investing on the afterlife and more time into preserving our own existence, possibly working to find methods of making our destructive eco-lifestyle less detrimental to the environment.
ReplyDelete2. I do not agree with Premises Eleven and Fourteen that the culture is driven by a death urge and that people are taught to hate life and existence. Premise Eleven exaggerates the previous assertion that civilization is not sustainable and tries to claim that a capitalistic society is destructive to life. A drive for opportunity does not have to equate to a death urge as cooperative efforts can have a beneficial effect for society and improve life. Premise Fourteen carries on this exaggerated claim in that society compels us to “individually and collectively hate life”. I think Jensen just wants to communicate the fact that opportunists are not satisfied with the status quo; a hatred for stagnation does not have to be generalized to a hatred for existence and the people included in it. What Jensen asserts is rather extreme to common thought.
3. Jensen’s definitions of production and justice carry some truth to them, but this truth is outdated and does not apply to our current society. I get the notion that this form of legislature parallels Hammurabi’s Code-type of law system, in that if a servant harms a person of higher status, it would be justifiable to kill the servant. With today’s society, production can be at an equilibrium, such as with the fair trade agricultural laws that some companies enforce. Justice does not have to be so extreme, as now we have certain degrees of repercussions for varying forms of misdemeanors and crimes.
4. What Jensen is implying through his premises is that the economic system is pushing civilization into a downwards spiral because of its unsustainability. The capitalist mindset will gradually compel us to exhaust all of our resources until there are none left. He seems to mostly reflect a pessimistic mindset because with this realization of our society, he believes people should be led to live a lifestyle that hates the destruction prevalent in our world.
5. History leads people to believe that civilization must conquer everything in order to survive, which is why coexistence does not play a prominent role in authority. There is a strong individualism in history that carry on to today as “the right way to live”. Indigenous and native systems provide a counterclaim with proof that micro-societies can succeed by living in cooperation with each other. With a small volume of people, resources can be divided to ensure both native tribes can live a sustainable lifestyle. This “micro-society”, however, is the flaw in this counterclaim because we cannot simply generalize this for a country superpower that has exponentially higher demands for resources.
ReplyDelete6. As with most things in life, our culture will eventually attempt a transformation towards a more sustainable lifestyle, but only until there is a pressing need to and it is close to the breaking point. For instance, we do not realize the need to preserve an endangered species until there are only a few left in the wild; only then will we start the procedures to preserve the amount there are left.
7. Some aspects of society can be generalized into a “world culture”, but there will be some traditions that will be unique to each culture and cannot be broadened to include all. For most cultures, there is a widespread belief to ensure the survival of its people, so measures will be taken to ensure their existence. This could mean either making sure there are enough resources to provide for the society or cooperating with others to maximize the chances of life. Unique aspects could be if one culture prioritizes the need of the family and collective sharing, whereas another culture prioritizes the needs of the self and the individualist mindset that each person has for himself.
1. I agree with most of Jensen's premises. The one I agree most with is #16 because I too believe that this world comes first. People should be more concerned about fixing their problems here, and less concerned about their personal afterlives. We can not truly know what awaits us after we die, despite faith, so it is best to assume that the life we have here on Earth is the only one that matters.
ReplyDelete2. The premise that I disagree with most is number fourteen, which basically says that all humans (either naturally or through learning) hate life and that is why we destroy the environment , our bodies, etc. This is beyond wrong. The main reason humans destroy things is not because they hate it but because they don’t understand it, or don’t realize the effect of their actions.
“No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
3. I agree with his descriptions of justice and production, but do not consider them to be “definitions”. Our economy and justice system do favor the more affluent, but that is a flaw, that is not by design. I would define “production” as creating something and “justice” as giving someone what they deserve.
4. All of his premises are negative and very depressing. The only positive aspects are that if people read them, and realize the severity of the problems he describes (corruption, environmental destruction, etc), we might be able to improve them. In order to solve a problem, you first have to recognize its existence.
5. Indigenous knowledge systems can tell us that not all people want to destroy the environment for their personal gain. Indigenous people want to live in harmony with their surroundings. On the other hand (counterclaim), one could argue that these indigenous civilizations are not fully developed, and therefore, with time, could end up “hate[ing] the natural world” just as Jensen says we do.
6. I cannot say whether our culture will undergo any transformation in our way of life. Nobody can. I would like for society to change, but that is not likely. A societal transformation is not the only way that humans can continue living. As science fiction movies tell us, we can expand our civilization and harvest resources from other planets and stars. That is highly unlikely in the near future, but so was going to the moon, and here we are.
7. There is no such thing as a world culture, because people of different cultures are so different. Perhaps in our modern age of globalization, the framework for a world culture could have been already created. However things like language barriers, time zones, and other isolation-related factors prevent a world culture from existing.
1. I agree with several of them, particularly numbers 15 and 20. Premise 15 states that “love does not imply pacifism.” This is especially true considering the quote “all is fair in love and war.” Ideally, love is thought of as simple and possessing the ability to cause peace, however it also has the ability to cause war and pain. Protecting what/who we love and even jealousy can cause a fierce reaction, as love is complex. Premise 20 applies to current events as Florida’s Amendment 2 was denied because of the will of big drug companies who didn’t want to lose money to a potential medical marijuana industry.
ReplyDelete2. Premise 14 states that we are encultured to hate life, which I believe is a gross generalization. According to Jeremy Bentham, humans are pleasure-pain organisms. We act in ways that will lead us to pleasure and avoid pain, which includes perpetuating an idealism of peace and love. He implies that by ignoring the destruction of our world, we therefore hate it. This isn’t necessarily true because passive hopelessness doesn’t equate to active hatred.
3. I believe that both definitions have some truth to them- that in current society we see poverty rise due to the rich getting richer, and those rich people don’t necessarily have to follow the same rules of justice as everyone else. However, I don’t agree that this is ALWAYS the case nor do I believe it is moral. Production sometimes involves sweatshops and poor wages, but it is possible to have safe and moral production (small businesses). Celebrities and powerful people often evade jail time that a normal citizen would receive for the same crime, however I don’t see the powerful “killing or destroying” the lives of those below for retribution.
4. Most of the implications are negative. He implies that humans naturally follow a hierarchy in which social mobility is impossible, and it consists of very rich vs. very poor. He also implies that we value our industrial society and technology over our environment and are willing to destroy the earth for progress.
5. In history we are taught that ancient people lived very short lives, due to lack of stability or medicine. The agricultural revolution allowed for nomadic groups to settle down, creating less stress. As infant mortality rate dropped and the average age of the population rose, people considered civilization the right way to live. Indigenous populations don’t have these “luxuries” although their level of happiness isn’t necessarily lower.
6. I believe that our culture is sustainable, although not 100% sane or efficient as our political system is the epitome of irrationality and disorganization. As long as the irrational are in charge, we won’t witness a revolution any time soon.
7. I don’t believe there is a world culture, because each religion and/or country fosters a different way to live. Some promote industry, some promote simplicity. Indigenous tribes often have no concept of modern technology, politics, or economy.
1. I agree with the first, eighth, and sixteenth premises, because of our unsustainable use of natural resources we are ruining nature. Which might turn what was once a beautiful landscape into a desolate wasteland.
ReplyDelete2. I disagree with premise ten, because of the hasty generalization of the majority of the members of society.I do not believe that most people and our culture is driven by an urge to destroy life. While this may be true for some members i think it is extreme to state such a thing about the majority of human beings.
3. I believe that his definitions of justice and production are wrong. While i believe that this is how they are used in society to some extent that does not determine the definition of the words but more their application. I would consider the definition of justice as treating someone upon their behavior, while i would consider production the manipulation of raw materials in order to sell, in the hopes of receiving something else in return.
4. The conclusion that can be drawn from Jensen's premises is that humans are terrible beings that have been born to hate the world, themselves, and nature. There are no positive conclusion within his premises they seem to be the ramblings of a man indulging in pessimism, without any real solutions to the problems, but this all that can be concluded from the preface of his book of course. I am sure he could at least enlighten us in some faint sign of happiness.
5. I believe that indigenous knowledge systems show us that human life is sustainable and that we do not necessarily have to follow their path or ways of living, but that we need to change the way we look at the world and be more aware of the impact we have on nature.
6. I am not sure i can comment for our entire society and the culture we live in, i myself believe that we can transform our culture into a more sane and sustainable way of living, but i have yet been able to read the minds of the rest of society.
7. I do not believe there is a world culture i believe that there are some aspects that could be considered universal, but i believe there are to many different beliefs within different societies to allow for a "world culture".
1. I actually think that all the premises have a hint of truth to them. However, I think the reason that I don’t agree with them is because they often are too extreme in my opinion. The premises that I do like are also usually the ones that can be interpreted in many different ways. For example, my favorite premise was the one that essentially said love does not necessarily equal pacifism, as many people fight for what they love and do crazy things.
ReplyDelete2. Like I said before, all of them have some truth to them, but I really dislike the ones that take it too far with generalizations. For example, I think it was premise 14 that stated we are born and brought up to hate a long list of things, including women and nature. On one hand, I agree that we are able to be influenced by our environment to sometimes lean towards to dislike things. On the other, I don’t like the way he phrased it so surely and made it seem that this was a natural thing we were born with, without external forces.
3. Honestly, yes. You have to think of the malice in the world and apply it to these terms, so I think his definition was kind of accurate. However, I do wish this was not the case as my own definition of justice is “correcting anything that is wrong,” regardless of the person.
4. I think the implication is that civilization is corrupt and will always fail due to corruption. I think this is a very negative and pessimistic view.
5. History shows us that these “doomed civilizations” actually worked; if not, we would not even be here. However, it also shows that even the greatest of civilizations have fallen, while some indigenous systems are successful without “systematic civilization.”
6. No, I think it will remain the same as long as we continue to be successful.
7. I think that all cultures do have some standards in common, therefore, there is a “world culture.” For instance, we all believe unnecessary killing is bad. Furthermore, now that we have so much technology to bring us together, the world is constantly becoming more unified and connected.
1. I agree with premises 6,7, and 8 because all of these premises detail the inevitable “crash” of civilization if it maintains its current pace and structure. In particular, Jensen urges action in premise 7 by urging a quick dismantling of current civilization into something better because he does not believe that civilization on its current path will ever lead to anything sustainable or good. I especially agree with premise 8 because the earth will always be here even if our civilization collapses - we need to be more forward thinking in our consumption and lifestyles. Initially, I disagreed with almost all of these premises but looking at Jensen as an environmentalist rather than a philosopher makes me less critical of his writings.
ReplyDelete2. I disagree with premise 10, because Jensen asserts that human beings are filled with an urge to hate life. It seems that Jensen is overly pessimistic because he fails to include a broader perspective in his writings - they seem all focused on the injustices in the world. More of a romantic emphasis on the beauty of life, the inherent love that fills our relationships with people even if they occur in dingy apartments, the greatness of civilization, all these aspects of the good in humanity are left out so that he can simply criticize the problems of civilization.
3. Justice is not when the powerful punish the less powerful, it is when retributive action is inflicted upon those who violate a certain set of moral and legal codes. His definition of justice simply indicates his dislike of class structures. Also, production is the synthesis of any item from a set of raw materials, it does not have to carry a negative connotation associated with the types of unsustainable factory production that occur today. Just like the rampant water pollution that came before the foundation of environmental codes in the late 20th century, our current problems are short term (in my opinion) and will be solved as we move forward in time.
4. His premises are mostly negative because they fail to provide any sort of moral highground from which these bold assertions about humanity can be made. They seem overly critical of our way of life and fail to provide any sort of solution - leaving you saying “So what? Do you have a better idea?” The only positive thing about these premises is that they stress an importance on environmental sustainability.
5. History plays a role in the idea that civilizations are “the right way to live” because we see the greatness of civilized people - their accomplishments in war, science, technology, language, agriculture, etc. Less civilized people are forgotten because they usually do not possess any written language or sense of historical record, their footprint on the world being so small as to becoming undetectable. Indigenous knowledge systems can provide a counterclaim by showing the wisdom and happiness that less civilized people have, but civilization has always provided the answers that allow us to progress as a race.
6. I definitely do believe that our culture will undergo a transformation to a sustainable way of living, but I doubt that this change will be voluntary - rather it will come out of necessity as our resources are strained and we begin to see the world dying in front of our very eyes. This change will definitely happen, as in the past few years we have developed more green technology and began to see the folly of living unsustainably.
7. Historically, there has not been a ‘world culture’ because each culture was so isolated from each other due to a lack of communication as well as a general phobia for other cultures. While political leaders and the ultra-rich often traveled the world, it has only been very recently that common people have the resources to experience other cultures and absorb them. However, a global ‘world culture’ is emerging due to the internet, as people across the world begin to listen to similar music, watch the same movies, etc. The internet will pave the way forward for a more homogenized global culture.
1. I agree most with premise fifteen. Love can cause 'crimes of passion'. One such justifiable act would include a mother shooting a home invader attempting to kill her children. In this capacity, love can take extremely violent forms when it seeks to protect loved ones.
ReplyDelete2. I disagree most with premise fourteen. Jensen completely dismisses the concepts of risk and sacrifice. As Seneca said, "It's not because things are difficult that we dare not venture. It's because we dare not venture that they are difficult." Much of our damage caused is unintentional. Most of us do not go out and destroy nature just for the fun of it. Our damage is generally collateral, a side effect of attempting greatness and meeting failure along the way. We attempt to solve our kinks in technology as we go along.
3. These statements use hyperbole to exaggerate certain specific problems in certain specific situations and magnify them to universal issues. I feel that the author is overgeneralising. Production in civilization may cause detriment to someone, but there is always someone somewhere who will have a problem with progress. Production can definitely be ethically sound and disturb certain people. For example, building a public park in the middle of the city interferes with corporate interests yet benefits the greatest good for the greatest number. Justice is also not always so skewed. People seek to take certain examples of celebrities, but those are not usual cases. In general, our law system works. Sure there are bail bonds, but they are a form of punishment in themselves and generally magnified for rich people.
4. His premises imply that we must hate the world and everything else if we allow nature to be destroyed. Frankly, these are too negative. He points out what can happen in an extreme scenario where everyone neglects to take any care of the environment. Already we are getting more Eco-friendly everyday and lessening our carbon footprint. We can certainly exist in a world where we take something away from the environment, and yes, we are giving back.
5. The saying goes that the victors write the history, and civilization has given us the guns. So history shows us that civilization has allowed us to win in this 'survival of the fittest' competition as the Western world created empires and dominated the globe in the early Industrial Age. Indigenous knowledge systems can provide the counterclaim that their system has allowed us to live more happily away from the slavery of the economic machine as human beings. However, we willing subject ourselves to this in order to preserve our way of life. We are safe from raiding tribesmen. Everyone has enemies to attack them, but we have greater safety the further we industrialize.
6. Culture is already going through a voluntary transformation right now. In the most industrialized areas where there is extreme pollution such as New York and London. We see the most tree huggers rising up there. They have been so disillusioned with excess pollution that many ignore that a golden mean is possible.
7. There is no world culture. Not yet. Many third world nations such as Africa and the Philippines have sustainable civilizations. However, India has just as poor living conditions and industrialization has not exactly made things that much better so far. This results in contrasting perspectives on solutions for the sustainability problem. Our approaches are different because of our different situations.
1.) I agree with premise 1 the most. I have always believed this to be true. Yes, we are progressing as a society. Yes, cleaner alternatives are available. However, the clean alternatives are generally more expensive and will rarely be used. Humans are looking at things in the short run but fail to acknowledge the consequences in the long run. With the rapid deforestation and with that, extinction of animals, the natural balances of ecosystems will be thrown off.
ReplyDelete2.) I disagree most with premise 10 and 14. It's either because I don't understand them or both are just overwhelmingly pessimistic. I don't understand how everyone is full of hate and has a "death wish". I, personally, do not feel like I want to die, nor do I hate everyone and everything. These two points are too radical and pessimistic for me to agree with.
3.) I partially agree with his definitions of both justice and production. There is always a hierarchy with humans. Laborers at the bottom and owners at the top. When thinking of his definition, I think of sweat shops in which workers slave for almost nothing in return in the worse conditions. They are taken advantage of for their disposition and they have no right to revolt due to their low status on the social hierarchy.
4.)In my eyes, I see purely negative implications. He seems to be extremely pessimistic on human nature and has a hobbesian view of the world. However, the pessimism seems to be stemming from that of society, so he may be more Rousseauian since he views society as a corruption to our innate human behavior.
5.) History is a way of gaining insight on our successes and our failures. Since "history repeats itself" it is beneficial to study history in order to prevent similar mistakes. Since humans tend to flourish in a civilization, we tend to view it as the ideal way of living. However, even the greatest nations eventually fall. The indigenous knowledge systems can serve as a counterclaim since they've existed for thousands of years while being seemingly sustainable
6.) I am no fortune teller, but I do not think that humans will undergo a transformation into a sane and sustainable civilization. I'm a bit of a pessimist when viewing human natures and feel that humans are too obsessed with money to get anything good done.
7.) I'm not exactly sure what he means by "world culture". I guess to an extent there is a "world culture" due tot he fact that we are all human beings. We share the same emotions and even express them in similar ways. Though we may not speak the same language, a laugh is a laugh and a cry is a cry.
1. I find it difficult wholeheartedly agreeing with any of Jensen's premises due to their exaggerated and sensationalized nature. However, I do find some truth behind premises 11 and 19. In premise 11, Jensen says that "civilization has been a culture of occupation." Whether or not this is moral, I believe that this is necessary for its establishment and functionality. Civilization must settle and obtain resources for its survival. To this point in history, this has been the most effective toward humanity's development. I also see truth in premise 19. In today's society, there is an exploitation of the natural world's resources and an indifference towards the consequences. People think that it is justifiable, but they fail to see the ramifications of their continued practices into the future.
ReplyDelete2. I take the greatest exception to Jensen's tenth and fourteenth premises. In premise 10, Jensen assets that culture and most of its members are insane. Also that "culture is driven by a death urge, an urge to destroy life. I feel that Jensen takes an unfair, unnecessary pessimistic perspective on humanity to further his argument. He again makes a similar argument in premise fourteen where he says we are uncultured, "to hate life, hate the natural world, hate the wild, hated wild animals, hate women, hate children, hate our bodies, hate and fear our emotions, hate ourselves." I believe that where there are negative aspects that culture may engender, his premises completely overstate the bad parts, and overlooks the good things as well. He fails to consider the compassion and philanthropy that is seen in our culture. There are some bad aspects of four culture, but overall I view our culture in a much more positive light, where we seek to better ourselves and others. Again, an indifference to a situation does not necessitate hatred.
3. I see where he is approaching from in his definitions of production and justice; however, again I see that it is skewed in its claims. He is saying that production is people are the top taking from the people at the bottom with no consequence, while justice is those at the top punishing those at the bottom taking things from them. I have seen some situations where corporations have taken resources and exploited third world countries. In that sense, this is unethical and is a significant problem. Whereas in a different sense, production has provided people with the opportunity to survive, which is better than there alternative. Some modes of production are quite beneficial to those at the bottom through either employment or cheaper products. Justice has also been greatly extended over the past few centuries. While it still has its fault, it is improving and does a better job of parity and equality today.
4. His implications is that humanity cannot sustain and live in its present structure of civilization. It is largely negative in its calling of serious problems that culture has engendered on its members. His assertions are dark in its view, and he believes that we cannot continue to live like this. I feel that his view is too negative and is quite exaggerate, but he sees that there will be a great downfall if we do not change our ways.
5. Yes I do believe that history points toward civilization being the right way to live. I am not saying it is the best possible way that we can, but looking into history, civilization has been the most effective system for humanity development. Humanity has made its greatest strides when it has settled down into civilization. Before humans had reached the point, we were quite primitive. Civilization has led to great human innovation and advanced us to where we are today. I do not think that indigenous knowledge systems cannot provide much of a strong argument. There are examples of few of these indigenous people thriving and sustaining their way of life; however, in large part, these systems have been dying off rapidly to where there are few that remain. Humans have made the greatest leaps in civilization.
6. Currently, I believe that it will be highly difficult for our culture to undergo a voluntary transformation until it is absolutely necessary. As I previously mentioned, a large number of people are indifferent towards the consequences that the way we are living will hold in the future. They fail to see the problems that occur from the unsustainable way in which they are living. Most people are not aware and some may not even care unless they see the real consequences that can effect them personally.
Delete7. While it is difficult to grasp, I do believe that there is a semblance of a "world culture" that exists. This lays in our common humanity, no matter what environment or specific ethnic culture in which we were raised up into. I believe that this "world culture" involves people wanting to survive and be successful in their lives and also have love, pleasure and security.
1. I most agree with premise 1 because of the rate humans are progressing in this day and age. With life expectancy continuing to rise with each and every advance in medicine, there is a rapid increase in the population of the world. The significant increase in population leads to the increase in depletion of natural resources such as oil, but also land, with the demand for more living space due to the growing population. As seen in earlier civilizations that exceeded their carrying capacity, this rapid growth will never be sustainable.
ReplyDelete2. I most disagree with premise 14 because this makes it seem as if a newborn infant already hates being alive, before it can even remember anything. This premise solely focuses on the bad seen in humanity and fails to even consider the good, such as sacrifice and selflessness. The premise itself even points out the uncertainty that Jensen has because it says, "I'm not sure how I'd make the case" which shows how the writer of this, cannot even support his own claims.
3. I do not agree with his definitions of justice and production because they seem to over exaggerate the situation. In civilization, while production may exploit people in some cases, it is not true for all production that goes on. For justice, i completely disagree with his definition because he makes it appear as is those on top are untouchable by laws, however in society today there is news of corporations being investigated for crimes such as exploitation.
4. Most, if not all of his premises are negative of civilization as a whole. Jensen is overly pessimistic about humans and views them as hateful beings whose main goal is to destroy the world. His premises completely overlook the good that has come out of civilization such as advances in medicine, technology, and knowledge overall.
5. With the mistakes in history, people today can look back upon the shortcomings of the past in order to make sure that the civilization today will not make the same mistakes as the past. The advances in technology make it seem as if civilization is the ideal way to live, due to the fact that life is easier when living in a civilization. Indigenous knowledge systems can serve as a counterclaim because in some cases, these knowledge systems have existed for centuries without the help of civilization.
6. I believe that our culture is already undergoing a a voluntary transformation towards a more sustainable way of living. In recent years, more and more people are addressing the fact that fossil fuels are not the best for the earth and have turned to developing alternatives such as electricity and solar power.
7. I do not believe that there is a world culture because all groups of people are different. Looking at groups from Asia compared to people in the western countries, there is a stark difference in culture, ranging from the traditional customs, to the clothes people wear. There is no "world culture" because people all around the world have varying customs and beliefs that set each and every group apart from one another.
1. I most agree with Jensen's argument in Premise 11 which states that civilization has always been a culture of occupation. This makes a lot of sense to me because of what I have learned in my History class. Almost every major battle in the course of civilization has been something regarding a dispute over land. Occupation of land leads to power, and the retaining of power is the struggle that humanity has always faced. The other premise I most agree with is premise 19 which states that we believe that controlling and abusing the natural world is justifiable. With all the technology and power that we can harness, it is easy to lose sight of what we are destroying in the process. After we destroy something in the natural world, we always come up with the excuse that while it might have hurt the natural world, it greatly helped humans.
ReplyDelete2. The premise I most disagree with is premise 10. It says that humans are insane and that we are driven by an urge to destroy life. I think this is a gross exaggeration and that we as humans have a sense of good inside of us. If this premise was true, people would be killing each other much more frequently than what is actually seen. However a counter claim to this is the fact that while humans are not driven to an urge to kill people, they are driven to an urge to kill other types of life such as plants and animals in the natural world.
3. I sadly agree with his definition of production. The success of the rich is almost always at the expense of the poor. Production the creation of output, and this output can only be created by taking away the lives of those below by forcing them to work long hours with little pay. However, I do not agree with his definition of justice. I think justice in the world is not as flawed as what he states. I think there is a set of standards that we follow to ensure most people receive fair justice. While it is true that poor people are at a disadvantage to receive full justice than are rich people, I think that it is not as radical as what he states.
4. The premises themselves are very negative, but I think the implications of them can have positive results. By the author calling attention to these aspects of human nature, we as humans can work to act against these premises. When we realize the brutality that we are capable of, we can look inside of ourselves to change our ways.
5. In history, we have grown up reading about how lost and primitive humans were before civilization, and how rich and prosperous we have become once civilizations formed. History focuses on the lives of the rich, because they are the ones that shape the course of civilization. However, the poor would tell you a completely different story about the idea that civilization is "the right way to live." Indigenous knowledge systems would argue that you can have a successful social structure without the glory and fame of civilization. Lives would be much simpler, but people would be fed with less of an urge towards destruction and the killing of life.
6. I do not think our civilization will undergo any voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living. First of all, what defines "sane" and sustainable?" At what point will we feel that we have achieved these things? The fact of the matter is that is impossible for humans to change things within them that are inherent and created by nature.
7. I think there is such thing as a world culture. Simple things such as love, a need to survive, happiness, sadness, and other feelings manage to span among any place you visit in the world. Culture is simply defined as ideas that are held by a group of people. From the premises put forward by Jensen, it is also possible for these inherent drives within human nature to be present among all people. Individual cultures certainly work to distort these inherent ideas, but that does not mean that those ideas completely go away.
1. I agree with premise twelve the most. This premise accurately points out the arbitrary manner in which we define wealth. Money or riches are merely a construct of our society, and have no real power other than that which we lend them. Jensen describes how the rich and the poor are both quick to buy into these “delusions”, which seems appropriate given the cultural fixation on monetary gain.
ReplyDelete2. I most disagree with premise ten. This assertion seems far too morbidly pessimistic. Rather than being driven to destroy life, the culture as a whole promotes life. I understand that Jensen is trying to encapsulate the Darwinian nature of the American class struggle, but the premise itself seems a bit too extreme.
3. Jensen’s definitions of justice and production help to highlight the unfair influence of the upper class, and in this sense they are valid. Production, or the subjugation and exploitation of those lower on the social ladder in order to earn a profit, is a clearly hyperbolized but nonetheless accurate indictment of class inequality. Justice, another facet of this inequality, is also aptly described in this satirical manner, and uses irony to convey the actual lack of “justice” as we think of it.
4. Most all of the implications of Jensen’s borderline nihilistic premises are negative. This is not to say that they are not true---rather, that they highlight predominantly the darker side of human nature, and seek primarily to explore the violent aspects of civilization. Jensen focuses on violence and impermanence of civilized life instead of the positive outcomes.
5. History is “written by the victors”, which shows that those with the most influence dictate which side of the story is told. The view on civilization is predominantly told with a bias towards civilizations, because the non-civilized peoples had no way of influencing the record. History provides support for civilization solely based on its exclusivity. However, indigenous knowledge systems do provide great counterclaims to the idea that civilization is right. The members of a native tribe, unburdened by the leisure time we have, are more content.
6. I think that our culture will have to transform, and that the decision to do so will be less voluntary and more forced. The force behind the change, however, will still come from within our culture, but it won’t be widely accepted for some time.
7. There is no “world culture”, but all cultures around the world share patterns and similarities. To equate these cultures would be a fallacy, since their influences and customs are so unique and regional. However, the cultures of the world are similar in that they influence the development, perception, and actions of their members. To say that there is a world culture of some sort, though, is not giving proper respect to diversity.
1. I agree with premise four the most. In the real world, if a poor person were to perform a violent action against a wealthy person, it would immediately become national news and the offender would likely get a hefty sentence and be disgraced. However, if rich people do this all the time to poor people. For example, in places like Rio where the World Cup was just held, the stadium and its surroundings was built on land that the poor people once lived on, but they were evicted, sometimes through force in order to meet the demands of the wealthy.
ReplyDelete2. I disagree most with premise fourteen. Although there might be some individuals who just hate life and everything in the world, I don't believe that it's the norm. Rather than because we hate it, I think that we destroy nature because we simply don't care about it enough, and even for those that care about it they cannot see the immediate consequences so it is simply rationalized as "it's okay it won't make a difference anyway." For example, people drive places even though it is slowly polluting and destroying the earth not because they hate the world, but rather because it is more beneficial and efficient and the consequences are not immediately noticeable.
3. Jensen's definitions of justice and production are valid in the application to the real world. Often times, production is the result of the exploitation of the poor, like what I said in the World Cup example in question one. Also the definition of justice is given by my example in question one as poor people have few rights, and because the there is bias for those with money, and the fact that they can manipulate the legal system serves "justice" to those who can't afford it.
4. Jensen's premises seem extremely cynical, and he may be possibly basing it too much on his own personal world views. Although he does make solid points, the motivations that he claims are questionable and some are easy to flat out disagree with completely. However, he could be highlighting the fact that if we do not change our mindset and thus our actions, the world will be broken beyond repair.
5. I believe that a lot of the events that happen in history depend on our instinct for survival. What makes us more civilized than the past civilizations is the fact that we have discovered ways for people to survive without having to fight with one another for resources. We are much less violent today, although it might not seem so but that is because of how efficiently media spreads bad news. Indigenous knowledge systems would argue that civilization isn't necessarily right. A simpler life without all the material privileges can prove happier than a complicated life of wealth.
6. No I don't think that our culture will voluntarily transform into a sane and sustainable way of living, although there may be attempts to give the image of slowing down the process. Any change would likely be forced, and would be the result of a major consequence. We look too much into just the immediate consequences rather than the potential future consequences, and have kind of an arrogance that even if we were faced with problems in the future, that science and technology would be able to discover a quick fix for it.
7. Culture is defined as "the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively." Based on this definition, I believe that there is a world culture, although there may be different branches of it in different regions. Although some parts of the world may develop faster than others, there is still a forward progress in each region, and it is being accelerated by the interconnectedness of today's world. The overall world culture exists, but the diversity exists due to different interpretations of the same thing.