Reflection #11 – China and US Cold War

Our conversation today about China and Vietnam’s emerging economies and their future with the US economy reminded me of an articleI read back in 02 I think.  Talking about the US and China turning into Cold War foes.  I had to question if in today’s economy either country could afford such an under taking.  We have seen our interdependenceon the new globalized world economy as Us stocks tanked, imports from China also fell causing their market to decline as well.  Despite our societal differentials, the all mighty dollar is the string that keeps likely foes nervously pushing together towards a rebound as freinds.

But what after this world recession rebounds?  China and Asia in general tend to be moving more towards S&T strategies for economic growth….and why not; they have thrived on their available cheap labor for years.  This is only another market they could move into that would provide (theoretically) cheaper labor than is found in the West.  Where would this leave US/China relations as it infringed on a universally American industry?  Could we see a tightening of tensions as resources vital to fast economic growth (at least the economic growth that America has been used to in the recent past) leaving our shores?  Will it be the US at China’s door asking for work someday?

Interesting questions to think about, after all Rome didn’t last forever.  Many say that we should be expecting economic policies and strategies that mirror that of the Roosevelt era….I certainlyhope not.  America can’t not becoming self serving in it’s rebuild of the economy, our efforts must best serve all economies if we hope to have a world power status when the smoke clears.  Isolationism will lead to economic failure in the long run and is likely to only increase international tensions.  “So what can we do”; that is the trillion dollar question.

It is likely that we must help other nations grow their economies in areas we have expertise in and rely on international diplomacy in order to collectively build the globalized economy.  One aspect of the Roosevelt era is vital today; to tighten our belts and get ready for one wild ride as change sweeps the world.

Reflection #10 – Lower selfishness, save money.

Curitiba is an innovative city, urban sprawl and growth are difficult to control once it begins.  Traffic congestion, waste build up, and energy consumption go hand and hand with growth.  In America, we build bigger freeways, more power plants, and buy land to dump in…it worked for a little while but fails to solve the problem.  As we are seeing today, there is a cost for delaying the inevitable, if only we can correct our mistakes in time.

Curitiba attacked the problem at the onset, dedicated public transportation that serves their peoples needs are key.  Buy creating bus routes that serve the most amount of people is only part of the equation.  Insuring the the maximum amount of people have to travel very little in order to utilize the bus routes for most of their needs is the other half.  That’s were creating jeweled islands where people work and live insures that their needs are meet by utilizing cheap and efficient forms of transportation. 

Americans leave separation of garbage up to their individual trash collection services; but this creates waste in time and money anyway and only amounts to small gains as compared to what could be halved.  Curitiba turned to the people, teaching them how to pre-separation their trash.  Pre-separation has shown to amount to greater savings in time, money, and has a secondary effect of making people more aware of their impact in their community and the enviorment (the latter is priceless).

The world is learning the hard way that it is the simple “sacrifices of self” that turn into big gains later in the game.  A little less freedom in travel insures a future for a growing city and people.  Can America and other westernised cities in the world follow Curtitba’s example?  Given time, I think it is possible, but it will take generations of socially conscience generations to make the leap.  Necessity leads to innovation, instead of throwing money at problems (as our government is currently doing); we should look at the mechanism that created the problems and fix them.  Money can not solve a selfish nation in which our needs and wants trump that of our neighbors and society by in large.

Can we still make fun of the President?????

Yesterday was a very historic day in America.  We have voted in our first African American President into office and taken a more liberal direction in our thinking, policy making, and living (or so experts say).  I think as Americans we can all be proud in our record turn outs to vote; win or lose.  Have we all turned the pages and closed the book on our racist ideals and beliefs (as a report suggested)?  Has generation Y made it’s mark, no longer seeing the race lines?  I think one simple question can answer that……Can we make fun of the President?

You know what I mean, can we joke at his follies, his mannerisms, and personality.  Normally this questions would be a resounding yes (after the honeymoon period).  Sure, of course it was easier, all past President’s were Caucasian men.  Why do I feel that serious questions will be confronted when Saturday Night Live begins doing parodies of President Obama’s stereotype?  If so is it because he’s African American?  That very question would suggest that we haven’t moved beyond the race factor.  In line yesterday I began to hear the jokes about Obama changing our national bird to KFC Fried Chicken and the such.  This seems to confirm my prediction.

But the other voting results would also suggest that the “liberal vote” isn’t really as liberal as we thought.  Though all anti-abortion props were killed nationally and the Physician Assisted Suicide bill in Washington passed…not one of the Anit-LGBT props were struck down.  You would think that with the liberal votes that put Obama into office would also widely result in more liberal votes on other issues.  After the results came back I began to think that the “liberals” that came out to vote really weren’t as liberal after all.  What does this mean?

It means that party lines weren’t drawn in the vote, it wasn’t just liberals voting for Obama and conservatives for McCain; we compromised with our conflicting personal identities and voted for who we felt could create the “greatest good” for all Americans (not just our personal social group).  Has America passed it’s racial past….not yet.  But we have once again become a United Society who have been hurt and disappointed in our current government, but believe in it’s basics and systems; hoping the founding fathers had it right after all.  I think that is a major step forward, the work ahead of us is grave, conflicting ideas as to what is the most important issues to attack first, but we are united to fix our system of government and destructive foreign policies.

For once in a long while, I felt hope in America yesterday.  I felt it in the line, in the booth, and in my house.

Reflection #9 – The end of Human Interaction?

Computers, the internet, online classes, and email have increased and advanced learning for people around the world; but at what cost.  Are we losing our ability to communicate face to face with each other?  I look back at earlier generations of college students and my generation to make the comparison (granted there are age and life experience differences between us).

When I say communicate, I don’t mean that we can’t communicate wants, needs, thoughts, questions, answers.  I mean critically express ideas, defend opinions, attack popular concepts, or express un-popular ideas face-to-face peers.  I see it at school and in my career, college grades starting their career with my companies sub-contractors have very poor “people skills”.  The ideas and arguments to pose to me over the internet turn into gibberishface to face.  They don’t know how to critically negotiate or take a stand and defend it (which makes my job all that easier).

Some of this can be chalked up to inexperience.  But they should have developed some of these skills in college and through basic human interaction?  I don’t see this trend in Generation X and I feel it has a lot to do with the fact that there are so many more mediums for communication today that the intimacies of face to face communication are falling to the way-side.  What could this mean? 

I could be just overgeneralizing, but I think it is an important issue to keep in mind.

Reflection #8 – Down with Capitolism???

Dr. Smith’s presentation was an interesting presentation.  The numbers seem to add up perfectly and it seems as if a “utopia” could finally be had on a world wide scale.  It’s a great way to see a negative and turn it into a positive, but is everything negative about Capitalism or the way our system works?  Granted his presentation was only a 1/2 hour, but he not once showed any positive aspects of Capitalism.  Unfortunately his onesidedness blinds him a lot to the issues within his own “plan”.

The problems and ultimate effects of his proposal have a troubling prediction.  Though he stated that his proposal was not meant to work in a greatly industrialized country, the globalized world would lead to uncontrollableaffects in every economy.  As we are witnessing today, the effects of the US economy is felt world wide; enough countries (no mater their industrialized status) abandon capitalism –> the rest of the economies built on capitalism would feel the destabilizing effects. 

So his plan is beautiful, but would require what amounts to world wide revolution needed to carry it out.  Problem is, one country, person, or group would eventually come out on top and would result in another capitalist economy.  Maybe I’m a little onesided .

Reflection #7 – Nucluar Wepons and Iran

We touched on the issue of Iran and Nuclear Weapons today as part of our overall discussion about NucularTechnology.  Iran has existing Nuclear Power Plants which the United States helped them develop.  They have the capability to produce Nuclear Weapons in the future and have stated that they don’t see why they shouldn’t purse that technology.  This makes the West worried and I don’t think the true reasons are obvious nor will they be made public; but we can accurately speculate on the issue.

Those in class who don’t believe that the Iranian “president” has made threatening statements or stance against the United States are only partially correct.  It is apparent to the world that Iran hopes to be a Nuclear Power militarily in the future, for defensive purposes they say.  The leader of Iran is said to be against the United States which is fine.  This issue comes into play as to if and when Iran will become unstable and what will happen to those Nuclear Weapons then?

It is foolish to think that Iran will not have the opportunity to “distribute” Nuclear weapons to Terrorists who would wish to use them against the United States.  Iran would never declare a “conventional” war on the United States as pointed out by a student in class…this is true.  But I think current events shows that a “conventional” declaration of war is no more damaging than the current situation in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN.  For this reason I feel that the risk to the “Greater Good” is sufficient to deny Iran Nuclear Weapons without too much worry about their supposed inequality.

Reflection #6 – Renewable Energy and Dropping our Consumption

I wish I had more time in class this last thrusday to discuss further the future of America’s energy crisis and the solution to it.  Photovoltaics is an clean, renewable energy socure that has seen an average growth rate of 112% every year in the United States.  Each year panel watts go up (in 2006 the highest wattage you could get was 210 watts – 2009 will see us break the 300 watt mark) and sustanable efficency (40 years without a drop in 5%) close to hitting 97%.  Let me quickly state how Arizona is doing it’s part to better it’s renewable energy and drop consumption rates.

In 2005, the Energy Commision mandated that 15% of Arizona’s energy must come from clean and renewable sources by 2015.  SRP and APS couldn’t pay for this increase through solar/wind alone…so they decided they would help consumers pay for systems they installed (after all it saved them money in the long run and takes demand of the grid for them).  Combined with State and Fenderal tax credits, this amounted to an average savings of 55-60% of the top of any system.  This September, when the ITC bill which grants federal rebates was renewed, they took the cap of of it, which now means that you can get 80% of your system paid for.  This is pushing PV in to the fastest growing construction field in US history.

What is notable is with the Arizona Energy Commision mandated the 15%, they also put into effect that all new buildings (residential and commercial) had to meet EPA standards for “Energy Star” requirements in an attempt to start lowering the demand for energy.  As we discussed in class; this is fundelmental to leveling off our supply/demand for energy.

Equally important is the fact the now consumers have the ability to OWN their sources for energy, this is a great change in power (literally) that will reshape the relationship energy plays in our economy as more people are brought to the table as equal players to the “big boys”.

I could go on about the “Solar Farms” APS and SRP and in the planning stages of, the 8 PV systems ASU intends to install, the $8 million grant ASU received to partner with APS to redesign the National Power Grid to better utlize/store renewable energy (targeted directly at PV), and the joint venture ASU and the leading Solar Firm TUV Rheinland to build the most state-of-the-art Solar testing and certification facility; making Arizona the center of PV research and development!!!  But I am out of time and words.

Reflection #5 – Distributive Justic & Technology

Though out our class, we have seen the oppressive power technology can assert on some people (while lifting others up).  With my previous classes on Justice Theory & Philosophy; I thought a perfect remedy was distributive justice; bring everyone to the party of a level playing ground.  Today in class and through Susan Cozzens reading I realized that it really isn’t as easy as that.

Each of the four schools of thought presented all have areas in which they would have great benefits if followed….but also area’s where they would create an entirely new problem or fail to fix one altogether.  As a whole they could work, taking the best from each one….but this too couldn’t be done because they are often to much at opposite sides of the spectrum to work together effectively.  Yet, as Susan points out, “like seemingly incompatible government programs, the co-exist.”

Can we truly combine them?  The devote of each school of thought would no doubt go on a hunger strike in protest; but like partisan-politics….at certain times in history, they over looked their differences to bring about the best of what together they have always had the potential to be.  The same could be done with distributive justice no doubt…..right?

The question of compromise between schools is of great importance to this issue.  Possibly they need a step back and a look at the social change that could be created by compromising here and there on small and large issues.  I believe that when the need of the world is dire enough, we can see the “partisan-politics” of distributive justice (and other needed arenas of influence) swept away to be the best of what they have always had the potential to be.

Outline – Darwinism and the Holocaust

Nazism, the Holocaust, and Darwinism: the means to an end of the “Jewish question”.

The idea that our own reasoning’s, intentions, and “morality” as Bruno Latour describes it can be translated into the technology we us or create.  Latour proposes that when we use technology, we can impose our own morality on it by our intent and use for that particular technology; the means by which we meet our ends.  But not only can our intended “morality” be imposed on the technologies but also “moralities” that we did not intend.  I propose that the same can be said of science and scientific theories.  Much like technology they are discovered utilized, and their use is what distinguishes Mankind in the world.  Thus Science can have unanticipated consequences and create social inequality and suffering.

Such is the case with Technology and Science that was used by the Nazis to justify the Holocaust; the final answer to “the Jewish question”.  Darwinism and Darwin’s theory of “Natural Selection” is the basis for much of the enlightenment of the modern world, genetics, biology, and has the Theory of Natural Selection has been extended into other fields of study.  It is not contested that Darwinism helped usher in the scientific revolution of the 20^th century. 

In the correct hands, his theory of Natural Selection is used by scientist to study the world around us.  But in the hands for the Nazi Socialist movement, it became the scientific grounds to try and prove the “Arian” superiority over the Jews and justify their extermination.  There want to exterminate a “weaker, inferior, and more ape like” race like the Jews was a goal of the Nazi final solution.  Though Darwin never intended his works to be used to justify such a cause, they were never-the-less used to try and distinguish the Arian Race of “true Germans” from that of the Jews.  It was used to justify the murder of an estimated 6 million Jews, in a way, for the benefit of Natural Selection.

Though the Holocaust is over much of the “scientific” work conducted by the Nazis through the torture and murder of Jews was used later by scientists to come up with the High-Altitude fighter suites, Survival suites worn by fisher men, medicines, and many other technologies that the world has benefited by.  Does the fact that these are possible because of the Holocaust morally wrong?  Can we escape the morality that this research imposes on its subsequent technologies?

OUTLINE

1.       Bruno Latour

a.       Technology and Morality

                                                                 i.      Tie in Science with Technology

2.       Darwinism & Natural Selection

a.       It’s intention (morality) and triumphs in modern science

b.       It’s unintended possibilities

                                                                 i.      Darwin’s part about “Medicine and Modern Science allowing the weak of the Human Race survive”

3.       Nazism and their hatred of the Jews

a.       The use of Allport’s 5 levels of Prejudice

                                                                 i.      How the use of Darwinism was used in all aspects leading up to the Holocaust

b.       The justification of the Holocaust using Natural Selection and Darwinism.

c.       Account of Liberating Dachau by Jim Creasman

d.       The Social Inequality it caused and continues to cause today (Rowanda, Cambodia, Bosnia).

4.       Modern Science, Technology, and the Holocaust

a.       The use of Nazi Scientists research results from experimentation on Holocaust Victims

                                                                 i.      Does the morality those experiments represent justification for not benefiting from the results?

1.       What are the moral issues of using the results or technologies that they helped develop?

Bibliography

Bergman, Jerry; Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust; Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 13(2): 101-111, 1999.

Weikart, Richard; Darwinism and Death: Devaluing Human Life in Germany 1859-1920; Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 63, No. 2 (April 2002) pp. 323-344.

Hecht, Jennifer Michael; Vacher de Lapouge and the Rise of Nazi Science; Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 61 No. 2 (April 2002) pp 285-304

Cohen, Baruch; The Ethics of Using Medical Data from Nazi Experiments; Jewish Law; http://jlaw.com/Articles/NaziMedEx.html; accessed 09/26/08.

Memoirs of Jim Creasman of the 42^nd Rainbow division, being the division’s journalist he documented everything when they liberated the Nazi Concentration Camp of Dachau.

Reflection #4 – Morality & Technology

Bruno Latour’s paper “Morality and Technology: The Ends of the Means” was at first a difficult read.  But after our class discussion on it, things began to click.  The idea that our own reasoning’s for and intentions when using technology can in turn put the “Actant” intent on that technology.  But not only can our intended “morality” be imposed but also “moralities” that we did not intend.

A good example of this is Nuclear Technology.  It was intended to end all wars and, through creating a weapon that could destroy an entire city and millions of people, to discourage all future wars from ever happening.  They did not intend to create the “Cold War” or “Arms Race”, defiantly not the present threat of “dirty bombs” or attacks using their technology by terrorists.  shortly after their use on Japan, many scientists felt that they had opened Pandora’s box and created the “doomsday clock” counting down till midnight (or the end of the world).

But at the same time this technology powers homes and countries around the world.  The technology hasn’t changed, only it’s end use does.  Thus also does the “morality” of technology change with it.  The intended along with the un-intended consequences of our technology are what we must live with.