Terminator SG1

Polska Wersja
A cyborg (part man, part machine) is sent from the 31 century to present-day Midwest America to assassinate a seemingly innocent women whose child will play an important part in the world from which the killer came ...

.... the half man half machine's name is ... Shamick Gaworski ... production of this monstrous machine started last year in some dental labs in Midwest USA, reportedly in the state of KY, probably in the city of Lexington ... the year is 2008, 1028 years before the rise of machines ...

... his first dangerous ability is a killer bite with his lower left jaw .... just look at those!!!






See Final Result - April 30, 2008

Being of many things ...

Polska Wersja (Polish version)

I have been accused by Europeans (both new and old ... think Rumsfold) of being too Americanized while Americans give me a grief from time to time (like on YouTube) of being too European. [If you do not like it here, why don't you leave]

I was taken by a NPR "This I believe" yesterday and Yo-Yo Ma literally talking about himself in a way that I could only add "amen" to his words

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87960790

I am not You You Ma (if I had his talent, I would stay in Music) but his approach to being a citizen of no country and yet all countries speaks volume to me.

Since I do not want to lose what he said, I am quoting his words here.

"All Things Considered, March 10, 2008 · I believe in the infinite variety of human expression.

I grew up in three cultures: I was born in Paris, my parents were from China and I was brought up mostly in America. When I was young, this was very confusing: everyone said that their culture was best, but I knew they couldn't all be right.

I felt that there was an expectation that I would choose to be Chinese or French or American. For many years I bounced among the three, trying on each but never being wholly comfortable. I hoped I wouldn't have to choose, but I didn't know what that meant and how exactly to "not choose."

However, the process of trying on each culture taught me something. As I struggled to belong, I came to understand what made each one unique. At that point, I realized that I didn't need to choose one culture to the exclusion of another, but instead I could choose from all three.

The values I selected would become part of who I was, but no one culture needed to win. I could honor the cultural depth and longevity of my Chinese heritage, while feeling just as passionate about the deep artistic traditions of the French and the American commitment to opportunity and the future.

So, rather than settling on any one of the cultures in which I grew up, I now choose to explore many more cultures and find elements to love in each. Every day I make an effort to go toward what I don't understand. This wandering leads to the accidental learning that continually shapes my life.

As I work in music today, I try to implement this idea — that the music I play, like me, doesn't belong to only one culture. In recent years, I have explored many musical traditions.

Along the way, I have met musicians who share a belief in the creative power that exists at the intersection of cultures. These musicians have generously become my guides to their traditions. Thanks to them and their music I have found new meaning in my own music making.

It is extraordinary the way people, music and cultures develop. The paths and experiences that guide them are unpredictable. Shaped by our families, neighborhoods, cultures and countries, each of us ultimately goes through this process of incorporating what we learn with who we are and who we seek to become. As we struggle to find our individual voices, I believe we must look beyond the voice we've been assigned, and find our place among the tones and timbre of human expression.

Independently produced for All Things Considered by Jay Allison and Dan Gediman with John Gregory and Viki Merrick.

Southwestern trip

My in-laws are gone ... for 6 weeks
Polska Wersja
They started a big trip in their makeup van across USA.

Larry took back seats out and made special folding bed (he had special mattress made for it)

It is really cool as the van resembles more now little RV (storage space is under the bad which folds easily so half of the back is still 'empty')

Read more about it on a blog I made for them - they just left today (I think. Larry postponed the departure by one day ... he wasn't ready ...)


http://southwesterntrip.blogspot.com/2008/03/southwestern-trip.html

Environmental Ethics and Capitalism

Environmental Ethics and Capitalism: An Environmental and Ecological Accounting Perspective Homework Assignment

1) Mueller (2006) makes five arguments detailing the moral benefits of the market. Take one of these arguments and elaborate on ti from an environmental ethics perspective. Do you agree with his argument when you consider environmental ethical concepts we discussed in class? (Hint: think about ethical theories, the way we value things, etc.) Why or why not? If your views differ from Muller, explain why there might be a gap in your viewpoints.

I picked the fourth argument about capitalism as in my opinion this is the most important problem humanity must overcome before addressing some other problems that it faces.
The fourth argument of the positive aspect of capitalism is that it brings people together giving them interest and interest in the same common denominator – commerce. Capitalism then is to decrease the isolation of nations and make them think as one. Presumably common goal would bring people together and decrease nationalism.
“Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. “ said Albert Einstein

“Capitalism creates an awareness of [peoples] needs and wants, and to the extent that we view them as customers for our products and as producers of the goods we hope to consume” holds the argument. Of course, as the author also points out, “a wider form of association is itself a source of moral complaint by those who […] rightly view trans-cultural contact as a threat to their inherited identity, at least in its traditional form. " (Muller 2006)

It is impossible to analyze this argument completely in a page or two and therefore this paper will focus only on some assumptions and implications of this argument.

Capitalism drives commerce. Commerce means employment. It is perhaps hard in USA to experience true unemployment. This is not to say that there are jobs for everyone and it is very true that minimum wage jobs cannot support families in the long run. Nevertheless, at least theoretically, assuming the workers are lucky to have great health and no unexpected expenses, one can very easily find employment in USA. To truly know what it means not to be able to find any employment most people really have to stretch their imagination. Instead of thinking of unemployment in ranges of 4-5% and really in form of finding well-paid employment, one should imagine 50 or 60% or 80% percent unemployment in form of inability to find any work whatsoever. We can think of Palestine, many African countries and also many oil-rich Middle East countries.

Not very well publicized, there are actually quite many trades and other commercial capital ventures going on between Israel and Palestine despite the ongoing conflict. There are not enough of them for sure but those that are going on are rather successful and it matters not that one side is Jewish and the other is not. Since Israel-Palestine conflict is arguably the most important conflict to be resolved in the world to rip the biggest advantages to the world as a whole, one should pause for a minute and contemplate the role capitalism could play in such resolution.

But instead of contemplating potential role, let’s look at a historical one. Berlin wall did not collapse because of the Pope or Ronald Regan although they may have played important role in this process. Berlin wall collapsed because of people's desire for better redistribution of capital rewards resulting from sound free market based commerce. Despite numerous communistic attempts to portrait capitalism as invasive and abusive, people living in communists Poland were aware through street talks and illegal radio “Free Europe” and other contacts with the west about the prosperity that results from sound Capitalistic system. They envied it. They wanted to have the same opportunity. They wanted to have the same what German people have, even though just 40 years ago the German people (Nazis) attacked Poland during WWII.


But it is also a fact that just a few years after the Berlin Wall collapsed many of the people so enchanted by capitalism in the past are very disappointed of it today. To play a game, you must know its rules early on. Often if you join the game in the middle of the road, the results may be devastating. Lack of education is just one of the problems of societies in transition from one socio-political system to another.

But nevertheless, if one looks on two antagonistic systems, one must realize that although not perfect, although with many potential problems, capitalism in a right format is the best medicine.

Right format of capitalism is however very important. The wrong format can bring just the opposite consequences. African countries for instance are neither communistic nor socialistic and yet despite officially following the doctrine of capitalism, they cannot shake many of their overwhelming problems. Capitalism only works if it is a mature capitalism – backed by enforceable laws and people’s trust in law enforcement of contracts, etc. This is why corruption is actually greater threat to humanity than communism. Communism is based on quite noble ideas, better in theory than capitalism. But those ideas humans so far proved to be quite utopian, unattainable. Collective farming is just one of the most known examples of the failure of communism. Without incentives, good amount of greed, different preferences, overtime the system fails. It fails while having great equitable ideas in its background, ideas which gave birth to it in the first place.

In addition to enforcement of contractual laws, the right capitalism has at least arguably sensible and somewhat fair redistribution of income. This is perhaps the most important aspect of 'good' capitalism. The capitalism from the beginning of this century is very different from capitalism of today with sick days, unemployment benefits, retirement, minimum wage protection, law enforcement, worker representation through variety of institutions including the government, etc. This is why capitalism deprived of equal and fair redistribution of income is at the very least not helping animosity among different entities in some regions, and arguably, and most likely, it is increasing such animosity.

Middle East for example can be very easily seen as colonialism of some small and weak Arabian countries by exploitation of their natural resources. Such way of 'doing business' rewards only privilege class of the Middle East while the vast majority of the population is left in poverty and despair. With no prospects of improving this situation, vast majority of population sees injustice and turns its anger towards those who benefit from this injustice. Capitalism could help more than any number of bombs or imprisonments but it would require more equitable redistribution of the income from natural resources among the populations of the countries with those natural resources. Can't we see Norway and learn from it? I have never heard of anger or religious fanatics in Norway, a very oil-rich country which takes very good care of all of its citizens.

Only with just and fair capitalism we can even start to talk about environmental ethics. Capitalism is not perfect but it is the best we have so far and if implemented correctly, it can quickly heal some of the major problems. One should remember the scale of the problem with thousands or rather millions of people lacking basic food and water and living on few dollars a day. Unless there is more equitable redistribution of wealth, any talk about environmental ethics, intrinsic or inherited values, is quite meaningless as it is more or less like to worry about the color of a ribbon in some girl's hair while the girl is hungry, abused, angry and living in despair, easily affected by all the evils of the world.

In my opinion, we must accept the value of capitalism which has been established over 50 or so years and try to make it better through careful regulations and better redistribution, better education about the environment, focus on long term sustainability, better accounting that takes long term and sustainability into account.

Drastic changes as abolishment of the system may, and they will in my opinion, cause even greater damage to both humanity and environment.

In conclusion, “fair capitalism” (certainly not the one from XVIII century deprived of any regulations) can diffuses the religious antagonisms between the Jew, the Muslim, and the Christian but the “raw” one can do at best nothing to improve the antagonisms and most likely increase the antagonisms. Once antagonism is gone and nationalism is erased from the minds of most people in the world, we can start truly take a better care of environment in measurable and substantial way. Otherwise, it is just a nice talk and nicely written papers without much tangible positive outcome.

Do animals think?

ES 600
Homework #1 Question: Environmental Ethics

DRAFT

Do animals think?

In contrast to teachings of most deontological systems, science teaches us that humans evolved from animals through millions of years of evolution. In comparison to other animals, humans stand up by showing signs of not only superior intelligence and abilities but distinguishably by developing consciousness and system of values and morals. Such view is at the center of science and therefore adopted by anthropocentric ethics where the world is to “provide” to humans who are to “have dominion over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth”, Genesis 1:27-8

But human thoughts about the surrounding world have evolved through thousand of years. Anthropocentricism could not be possible thousands of years ago where nature was seemingly untenable and full of mysteries to the rather primitive by our standards homo sapiens. So this simple fact begs the question, is the value we assign to human in contrast to other species intrinsic or instrumental?

Indeed just a couple of hundred years ago, probably in the place where I am writing this paper, the humans who inhabited this place thought of man as merely one of many animals who was to seek survival by partnership with the animals. Hunting was an activity of necessity and animal killed was given a respect and the hunter prayed to its spirit for forgiveness. Man and animals were one.

What is often summarized by simple worlds – technological innovation – has given a birth to much more materialized approach to our environment. No longer do we see “spirits and mysteries” surrounding a forest as new animism movement points. Similarly more and more animals are seen only as meat, food that can sustain human population.

The mom-and-pop restaurant are disappearing and instead chain enterprises are building what really amounts to feeding places for population which is hardly hungry but instead gorges itself in cheaper and cheaper, larger and larger portions of slaughter animals. Those animals are raised in conditions that prevent them often from moving, seeing sunshine, keeping alive till slaughter day by piles of antibiotics, fatten up by steroids.

Anthropocentric instrumental-value view of our environment would simply stay that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the view of animals raised in commercial way. Animals are to be used for food. It is the economy that dictates modern, large scale farming activity. There is no scientific evidence that today this harms humans in any way and any other evidence is simply irrelevant.

Other schools of ethics such as biosphere-centered would argue that other species and the environment as a whole have a right to continued existence, protection of fundamental interests, and protection from harm and damage. Peter Signer argues “speciesism” in homo-sapiens arbitrarily presuming control over the animals is immoral and wrong.

Deep ecology movement would not only provide the animals with dignity and intrinsic value but would extend those values to environmental elements that most people never think of such as mountains, rivers. Christopher Stone thought that giving those environmental elements legal rights similar to legal rights of corporations or individuals would stop the abuse those elements encounter from the hands of humans. For all practical reasons in Western world this idea would most likely produce tangible environment protection but it is doubtful it could ever materialize.

I proposed more balanced view, sort of a mixture of both major branches: Atomistic (anthropocentric; biocentric), Holistic (earth-centered).

Our world is full of mysteries. Until we have answers to at least some deep questions below, we should be careful by not engaging in some “deep” environmental protection which in essence is hypocritical portrait of our richness while it is nothing more than “hidden anthropocentrism.

What is conscious, are different levels of consciousness and are humans at the end of the scale? Is human a miracle of universe? (More or less the dogmatic view of God creating human) Is life a miracle? What is life? How come bacteria “know” what to do? Could it be that planet is “alive”, meaning it “thinks” on some larger unimaginable scale? Are other forms of ‘life’ possible beyond organic? Do galaxies have some ‘logic’ and ‘meaning’ beyond the physical laws that govern them? Furthermore, is there some meaning to not just lives of human beings but to the universe as a whole? After all, universe seems cold, brutal place where through explosions old matter dies and gives birth to new matter which exists for millions of years to die. There is a cycle but is there some meaning to all of this, some higher purpose? Is human logic and capacity failing humanity when faced with those big questions?

Since we can’t really answer those questions, I believe we should strive to look at earth from the point of Sustainability. I capitalized the “S” like the proponent of Deep Ecology movement of ‘Self-realization’ because this is not the sustainability we are accustomed of hearing in our economy driven, capitalistic society concerned with the next quarter financial result.

Based on today’s knowledge, earth is a fragile miracle. It is very true then that “People ought not to degrade this wonderful system in such a way that it can not function to keep its systems within the various delicate margins necessary for life.”

In a way this is anthropocentric view of the world for humanity but in this view I believe the view of animals or mountains having feeling can be replaced by view of earth with humanity playing leadership role to preserve it. By preserving it – the earth – the leadership will also be preserved. Treating animals “inhumanly” feels wrong because they are part of eco-system, the only eco-system we know. The animal may or may not be aware by itself that wrong actions are being done to it, but at least in part, through humanity being able to perceived the consciousness of this act being morally wrong, the very animal has some conscious. In other words, unnecessary killing of animals, the epidemic of obesity being at least in part related to society loosing sight of what is good food, what good food is or should be worth to people, we are harming not just planet as a whole, but the very humanity itself. Animals can and have to be killed for food. Such process however should be done in respectful manner. People should respect and appreciate food, its quality, origins, values, where it came from and how the source lived and died.

In my view, humanity’s problem is not that the anthropocentric view has contributed to the dismay of environment; it is that this anthropocentric view has been applied in very narrow and short sighted way with emphasizes on next month, next year, at most next decade and also to small population – country, region at most. In addition, this view is applied hypocritically through the lenses of privilege class – mainly rich Europe, USA and some other Asian countries. Just like feminists environmentalists speak of male dominance of women, we must recognize that developed countries are oppressing developing countries. They have been doing this in the past by polluting earth and becoming rich or through military invasions or both. Today, the same countries faced with consequences of their short sighted actions appeal for environmental protection without willingness to pay not just larger cost of doing so but often any cost at all (USA refuse of Kyoto)

So the question if animals have feeling and are able to feel some consciousness about their own existence must be put aside. First the humanity must answer a question of its own long term consciousness about the environment. Today, humanity looks more like an animal in line to slaughter house amazingly unaware of what is at the end of the line – environmental catastrophe and disappearance of the little blue planet in otherwise vast, cold and violent lifelessness (as far as we know) universe.

Legal, Social & Econ Sci In Environ SYS (Polski)

I am tired ....