This project seems to be one of the most fantastic and and awe-inspiring collective lists that I have ever seen. I had a sublime experience picking through the list, noting the works I had read, hadn’t gotten to yet, or hadn’t even known existed. I will keep this list and do my best to know all of these masterpieces.
As it happens, I am a university student. When asked what I study is, I excitedly spout the words “philosophy” and “political science”. Instead of the inquiry of interest I hope for from my conversation partner, I almost without fail seem to hear the some variation of this question: “Philosophy (or political science), what can you do with that degree?” Admittedly, that response crawls through my veins and turns my extremities cold. I do not hold resentment for those that have asked me that question, for they mean no ill. However, I still feel a certain disconnect that compels me to flirt with the response “What does it matter to you?”
It doesn’t take a looking-glass to understand that the job market is desolate at the moment. Recent studies have shown mixed results, but state that the market is short about 9 million job opportunities. The unemployment rate for young high school graduates is about 30%. Unemployment plagues those with college degrees too, but only to a fraction of the extent as it does for those without a degree; the unemployment rate for young college graduates is at about 8.8% (1).
If I am feeling particularly masochistic, I will sometimes choke down my pride and read one of the opinion articles posted on various news portals (Yahoo!, MSN, etc.). Generally, the titles read something like “10 Worst College Majors for Finding a Job,” or “These Degrees Will Hold You Back in the Job Market.” We have all seen these editorials. The aim of such pieces are well-intentioned, warning about the financial dangers of education in any area of study minus a few booming fields. The editorials will start with a some introductory paragraphs to grasp the reader and then list off a vendetta-driven diatribe against humanities, fine arts, journalism, and a few other college majors that fail at a slightly higher rate to give graduates a high paying position out of right out of college. Then, to give you an optimistic shift in pacing, the piece will offer advice on which major to choose instead. Don’t study humanities, instead, try nursing –it only carries a 6.2% unemployment rate.
The mistake being made by these writers, who generally write for financial websites, is that the only use of university is to ensure a higher-paying job than that which is available for non-graduates. As I stated preciously, the intention of that point of view is pure, simply misplaced. While one goal of a college student should be the monetary return from the investment of education, the main purpose is, and should be, the tangible knowledge gained. This includes the material studied, the life experiences gained, and the research tactics developed to give the student not only an edge in critical thinking that could dwarf that of an American high school graduate, but the methods and practice needed to create a citizen that understands the importance of being informed by truly viable sources; this is opposed to those that read the headlines on cable news networks as if the titles are Shakespearean, or the gospel-truth.
I want a job that will support a family. I have a slightly naïve hope that in the future, my spouse will be free to pursue their own interests without the necessity to sacrifice individual values, hopes, and dreams for the sake of feeding our offspring; we all have this dream. I understand to achieve this vision, a number of variables have to fall in the correct way. I can make mistakes, but I have to make the right mistakes. No matter how unlikely the end, I still practice a flirtation with this dream.
For the best chance to turn the dream into reality, I could drop my humanities course work and focus of business, medicine, or law. Statistics show that those degrees are spouting out working-class Americans and climbers of the capitalist mountain by the truckload. The notion of easier-money is salivating, and yet, wholly unappetizing. To do so would be to turn my aspirations or a career that I cherish to martyrdom in search of cryptic life of finance. Though I would complete the goal of feeding my family, it would be at the expense of my happiness and, without a doubt, implode my family life after I experience years of inward-torture. I know my spouse would have the same feeling.
The truth as advertised is that I, along with my colleagues in humanities, the arts, and others don’t care about the money. We do what we do because we are compelled to. I could not change my love of wisdom and politics any more than a bullied teen could have the gay prayed out of him. To us, the weight of our wallet is of less worth the weight of our knowledge. The enjoyment does not come solely from the return, but also from the journey of learning—the process is also the payoff. It may sound cliché, and maybe a bit romantic, but the truth is that we are following an internal calling that cannot be silenced.
The thought that institutions of higher learning have the sole purpose of simply training employees is a relatively new idea. As long as knowledge and research methods have been traded, the aim has not been financial return (unless you are from the school of Sophists). Instead, institutions like Plato’s Academy, or Pythagoras’ colony of wisdom worshipers practiced learning and though not for financial gain, but for the pure love of wisdom.
So, the crosshair of the humanities major is set on education for the sake of education,rather than education for the sake of financial benefit. The concept may seem foreign to those that were ushered into college by well-to-do parents. “Johnny, you need to go to college to get a good job.” Still, the problem of finding a job is an open case.
One article explaining the value of “practical” college degrees reads as such:
“Liberal arts and sciences. An assortment of humanities courses might round out your intellect, but it could also confuse employers who don’t understand what kind of job a liberal arts major is supposed to prepare you for” (2).
Did you know that by studying humanities, you are going to “confuse employers?” Your would-be bosses won’t know what to make of the course work or your knowledge of crazy things like the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, or Roosevelt’s New Deal. You’d be better off following your liberal college professors, listening to them rabble-rouse around town like the students of Socrates.
The truth is that employers are looking for people that are well-rounded critical thinkers. You can obtain those abilities by majoring in business, or law, but you will surely gain that and more as a humanities student. The only draw of business majors is the lack of necessity for a few weeks of on the job training. In today’s face-paced world, there is no time to hold the presses for a month to train the incoming class. There is no room for humanities majors in the working class. Or, so they say.
The truth, however, seems to be stranger than fiction.
After I get over my momentary lapse in good-will, I respond to the question posed to me. “What can you do with a philosophy degree?” I refer to a recruitment sheet done by the University of Connecticut’s Philosophy department. In the guide, references are made to the fact that philosophy majors are “rank[ed] 16th out of 50 studied—above chemistry, marketing, information technology, and business management,” in mid-career median salary. The list also states some “actual careers of UCONN Philosophy majors” like judge, teacher, dentist, attorney, corporate president, cinema writer/producer, and many more. Philosophy majors, along with other humanities majors like History and English, rank above the sciences in admission to medical school. Likewise, admission to law school is no different. And graduate school –you guessed it, philosophy majors have “the highest average among all majors on both the Verbal and analytical writing sections of the GRE” (3).
So, if you are like me and are put on trial every time a family member, friend of a friend, or interviewer asks you “What are you going to do with your that degree,” you can use the same response I do: “I can do anything I want with my degree.”
Now, for some homework: Ask yourself, “Am I truly happy with my current career, or the career path I have chosen?” Do you think that the way you have lived your life promotes your best internal interests and callings?
I chose “The School of Athens” by Raphael for this post to express the significance of study in wisdom and humanities.
Twitter: @dustin_mcmahon
Works Cited:
(1) Shierholz, Heidi, Natalie Sabadish, and Nicholas Finio. “The Economic Policy Institute.”Economic Policy Institute. N.p., 10 Apr. 2013. Web. 12 Aug. 2013
(2) Newman, Rick. “The 10 Worst Majors for Finding a Good Job.” Yahoo! Finance. N.p., 18 June 2013. Web. 12 Aug. 2013.
(3) “”What Can I Do with PHILOSOPHY?”” University of Connecticut Philosophy Department. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Aug. 2013.
“Everybody can be great, because anybody can serve. You don’t have to have a college degree to serve. You don’t have to make your subject and verb agree to serve. You don’t have to know about Plato and Aristotle. You don’t have to know Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. You don’t have to know the second theory of thermodynamics in physics to serve. You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love.”
–Martin Luther King, Jr.
Reflection on this quote from the greatest voice of peace and the foremost-leader in the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King, Jr. makes me hope for a time similar to the one that Dr. King fought for. His, a utopia where color was not seen, but people were people. Mine, a time in which a person may openly express who they are, who they love, and how they feel; a time in which people are not believed to be lesser for qualities they hold. This is my dream.
I have examined a brief history of the homosexual social taboo, stated and rebutted the arguments against same-sex marriage, and presented a case for marriage equality. It is clear to me that revocation of the rights of homosexuals, including the right to be recognized under marriage, would be a violation of the innate rights understood by our species.
We are all members of the same species, made of the same matter, with the same physical properties. It seems to be that petty differences in lifestyle, hope, fear, education, etc. are minuscule. And yet, amplified they remain, as a vessel by which the greedy will take control over the passive, the violent will harm the peaceful, and the wicked will rule the good.
“Cannot swords be turned to plowshares? Can we and all nations not live in peace? In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to make us recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world. And yet, I ask you, is not an alien force already among us? What could be more alien to the universal aspirations of our peoples than war and the threat of war?”
– Ronald Reagan
The time is now. The United States Supreme Court will rule on the cases presented to them in March of 2013, and they will decide that a person’s sexual orientation is not a means by which it is acceptable to deny marriage rights to. The Defense of Marriage Act will be lifted and, like No Child Left Behind, there will be no place for misleading and heinous legislation in our country.
We cannot allow petty differences in lifestyle to give rise to the destruction remaining in foundation of liberty that we enjoy, and yet, allow to fade away in times of need. We cannot allow bronze-age literature to control legislation. We cannot advocate the demise of progress. The time for meaningful rhetoric is now. The time for change is now. The inevitability of reason arising is at hand. The world is evolving, and our social values are no different. It is only with the acceptance of alternative lifestyles as normal that we can lift the veil of deceit from over our eyes. We are not different. It is only through peace
Twitter: @dustin_mcmahon
If cliché phrases can be tools for the writers, let this be another instance of the rhetoric device:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” -Thomas Jefferson
If you’re an American, you have been indoctrinated with these words and always keep them in the back of your mind. These words, above all others in any of the founder’s literature, express America and American spirit, her hopes, her dreams, and her beliefs. The meaning of these words seems to me to be as self-evident as the truths of which Thomas Jefferson is referring to. All people, no matter the creed, belief, non-violent action, or speech act have the right to live a life in pursuit of happiness and life’s ventures. However, there are some that would twist these words and their meaning to lessen the rights that they enjoy, simply because others are different.
These are some of the arguments for marriage equality:
In response to an argument against gay marriage, I mentioned an argument for the ‘naturalness’ of what we would call ‘gay sex acts.’ I seem to have upset some people, as they felt it was a weak argument. However, it is a sound argument and I will present it again, in a way to define it more for those that may not have understood.
Homo sapiens have the luxury of the evolution adaptation of a rational mind. A rational mind is a mind in which processes of the brain can help humans utilize logical speech acts to express a point or make a decision (whether it be to brush your teeth or stop at a stop-sign).
As far as human beings can understand, we are the only species on Earth that has the mental capacity to make these decisions. No other animal has ever given scientists any indication of holding the capability to reason as humans do.
There can be no disputing the fact that occasionally, human beings act without utilizing the rational-part of the brain. Whether that is positive or negative can be understood by the consequences of the action (if you are an ethical consequentialist).
An action can be considered ‘natural’ if a non-rationally capable animal commits the action because it does not take a rationally-evolved mind to complete the process and decide (for lack of a better word) to perform said action.
Therefore, because gay-sex acts are observed in non-human great apes and sea-dwelling mammals, and are somewhat commonplace in the animal kingdom, the act of gay-sex cannot be considered the ‘choice’ of a deviant lifestyle, as some religious folk may argue, but instead, a natural action performed by an animal (yes, human beings are animals).
I understand that it may sicken some of you to know that human beings are not anointed to be of a higher dominion than other animals. However, we are simply more-well adapted to our environment than many other animals, and coupled with the diet that our ancestors had that increased brain capacity over hundreds of thousands of generations, we are at a point in history in which our minds are the way we observe them to be, not out of a magic-man’s hands, but a natural process. Homosexual acts are a natural action. This argument alone is not enough to put to bed the argument that gays are somehow lesser beings than non-gays, but it is enough to put to be the pseudo-logical idea that homosexuality is ‘unnatural’.
Alive as well is the argument that homosexuals lead harmful lifestyles. While ‘harmful’ can be subjective, the thought is that the transmission of AIDS is good enough to outlaw homosexual acts. However, we now know that AIDS is not a disease that effects only gays, but everyone. The transmission of AIDS is possible with any sexual contact. The harmful lifestyle that is being referred to is now, no longer had exclusive to oppressed gays that are disallowed civil rights that all others have, but now with those non-gays that would choose to lead a promiscuous sexual lifestyles.
This argument is yet another piece of political propaganda used to put gays into a status of sub-human existence. There is no evidence existing of a larger population per capita of gays leading a promiscuous lifestyle than there are of non-gays. However, the number may also significantly drop if marriage equality is obtained.
Floating around in the comments from my last piece, as well as in the lungs in middle-America is the idea that marriage is purely a Judeo-Christian institution. This is simply and easily laid to rest as there are many parts of the world in which love flourishes and Christianity has not tainted the air with its oppressive tyranny. Civil union cannot be hijacked by American Christians and become something that is exclusive to a system of belief that holds no leverage in Politics.
If you are religious and wish to make exclusive the rights of your church, mosque, or synagogue to those that profess to feel exactly the same way that you do, you may do that. However, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and many of the other founders warned future Americans that there would come a time in which religious oppression would attempt to take the rights away from citizens, and safeguarded the Constitution from special-interest groups with that aim.
Denying the rights of civil unions to people is a form of minority discrimination. Those of us that are fortunate to have been born as white, male, or middle/upper class in a time of American history that is much kinder to minorities do not understand the pain, mental and physical that women, blacks, Hispanics, middle-easterners, and any person that we see as different than ‘us’ have endured. This is the land of the free and is open to any that wish to hold the same rights that we find to be ‘self-evident’ among all people.
We are not different. Whether you ‘believe’ that gays are leading a deviant lifestyle, or you think that those around you are going to a terrible place for not believing in the same God as you (and being rude to you in the line at Subway), or you just think that brown people are dumb, your opinion has no bearing in government and you cannot shatter the hopes and dreams of a nation and its people of holding rights that should be held.
We are not different. I may not like the fact that I live in a country in which a belief structure that I find to be highly-harmful to liberty has flourished, but I support your right to follow it. I hope only in time that rhetoric and logic may help those in shackles that would like to be released. My distaste for such religious institutions is not grounds for legislation to prohibit those from peacefully worshiping the sky.
We are not different. I live with the presupposition that people in love with members of the same sex as them are not actors simply pretending to piss you and your God off. My position is based on our Constitution and scientific evidence as precedent for the way I live my life, which is one to support all people and their private actions.
The final part of the Same-Sex marriage piece will be posted later this week. As always, leave comments and discuss among yourselves the arguments and formulate your opinions justly.
Twitter: @dustin_mcmahon
In Part II of this series, I outline the religious and non-religious arguments against marriage equality and expose problems in the argumentation.
Though it may be rightfully considered a religious issue, there are arguments used from both religious and non-religious sides. Although, the reasoning of the non-religious arguments generally holds root in American Religious tradition. It is known, albeit sometimes ignored, that our Constitutional provisions disallow any law being created for or because of religious doctrine or belief. Even so, there are those among us that would seek to find some logical argument, even while exercising fallacies, to create a country in which their rights are sound and the rights of others are expendable. This is the platform of those against marriage equality.
We will save the fun, religious arguments for later. First, let us address the “non-religious” platforms for the inequality our country pronounces. Of the three most used statements of non-religious origins, two of heavily involve the future of our children. First, ‘Allowing gays to marry would weaken traditional family values that are essential to our society.’ Second, ‘Gays marrying will confuse children about gender roles.’ Finally, ‘If I can marry a man, why can’t I marry a horse?’ The last one is my favorite.
‘Allowing gays to marry would weaken traditional family values that are essential to our society.’ This may be the most common argument used against same-sex marriage. This is argument is one that is a surrogate for the religious arguments because it is not sound in constitutional law, instead, a much more defensive ideal that instills fear into the masses. It solidly professes the idea that “they” will take away what “I” hold dearly to my heart. The argument is not strong, however, because of the defensive, fear inducing motivation, and the illusion of “traditional family values.” Traditional family values date back to the late 1940s/early 1950s. We have all heard the term ‘Nuclear Family.’ A man and women, father works a middle-class day job and the mother is the homemaker. They also have a couple kids that go to suburban public schools. With the rise of fear of godless communism in the 1950s, the suburban family needed something to cling to. Thus, the traditional family values that have since become obsolete. Now, this tradition, being less than five generations old and already outdated with the rise of one-parent households, ambiguous gender roles, and the semi-acceptance of unmarried gay couples adopting children is irrelevant in the discussion.
Much more simply denied is the belief that gay parents would confuse children about gender roles. In the early 1990s, unmarried gay couples adopting children started to become much more common. Though the fear that it would destroy the future of the children was not realized, there are still groups that would perpetuate the opposite. Since World War II, gender roles in the household have become more and more ambiguous and now, an equal number of men and women hold professional positions and do equal work in the house. Like the previous argument, this one is irrelevant.
The final non-religious argument is my favorite. While stating it facetiously, I enjoy using a southern accent. “If I can marry a man, why can’t I marry a horse?” Really, any barnyard animal can be substituted. This is a perfect argument for the uneducated because it is a perfect example of the slippery slope logical fallacy. Telling the layperson that the argument is a slippery slope fallacy will not convince them, so we will delve more deeply. This is a comparison between a gay man or woman and a horse. This argument exposes the true feelings of those against equality of any kind. They believe that the others are lower beings, like animals. There should be no fear that same sex marriage would give way to man-marrying-animal because an animal cannot consent and are not cognitively aware as Homo sapiens are. If you worry about polygamy, then you’re not reading your bible very well- multiple instances in which the bible endorses it. Additionally, Mohammed is famous for taking on many wives, and endorsing such acts if the household-head can support them all.
Though also irrelevant in law, the religious arguments are important to address because American religious institutions seem to not understand that they do not have political power outside of their own sect. The first thing that American Christians tell you when you say ‘same-sex marriage’ is “I believe it is a sin in the bible.” We all know what the passage reads basically that a man laying with other men as they do with women is an ‘abomination.’ The term ‘abomination’ is one of the most popular words for a Christian. However, they seem to forget that in the same breath, the primitive middle-eastern writer also states that eating ham and wearing clothing of multiple fabrics is an ‘abomination.’ There is no way to reconcile this without admitting that the reader can interpret the severity of the sin and make their own assumptions as to what it is supposed to mean. By trying, you take credibility away from your own argument because an average Christian parishioner is not equipped at all to interpret their own holy book.
Finally, it is common to hear that marriage sanctity is important. Christians in America truly believe that marriage is the creation of Christians before them, and must be protected. I will admit that if a church chooses to not marry two people, for whatever reason, the law cannot and should not force them to. However, religious marriage and legal marriage as observed by the government are not interchangeable. Obviously, the phrase “sanctity of marriage” is laughable, unless you include polygamy and womanservents. I say: let the religions hate. They will lose their members and die out (like the ultra-conservative Republican Party) unless they move with civilization into the 21st century and beyond.
The next part in this series will discuss the arguments for marriage equality. If you wish to refute my arguments or discuss further, please comment and share this article.
Twitter: @dustin_mcmahon
Virginia, 1835 – Can it not be said that because Negros are lower forms of being in God’s great plan, that it would be blasphemy to the Lord’s word to allow them liberty the same as Whites? It is not by man’s fear of the unbiased allocation of power that drives the status of blacks in the South, but that nature of which God has given Blacks and Whites that hold on this Earth. White men and women were endowed by their creator with large brains, reasoning capabilities, and with the determination it takes to learn, and comprehend. Negro men and women were created for a more simple life; for a more simple work. Those Blacks owe their lives to White men and women because without them, Negros would be lost. Do not let the Negro’s destroy our livelihood. Together we are strong and will not fail. –An interpretation of arguments presented by many Southern Slave owners and advocates, included Elisa McCord
Germany, 1939 – Our once great nation of Germany, still in shambles from the Great War two decades ago, is having its rebuilding efforts thwarted by a growing enemy within. The Jews are destroying any chance we have to make our country great again. Our economy is struggling, our government is failing, and our livelihood is lost, unless we take action. The Jews must be erased from Europe. They are pests that mock our savior and jest at our hopes for a future of prosperity. Join together, people of Germany, and unite against this enemy. Together we are strong and will not fail. – An Interpretation of arguments made by German leaders that lead up to the start of World War II
United States, 2010 – A devil has been allowed to rise to prominence in our society. A deviant and bottom-dwelling lifestyle choice with aims at undermining all of the moral teachings that had been propagated in the last fifty years is spreading. This disease will take children and destroy the foundation which they need to become great workers and leaders in our country. It will annihilate the traditional family as we know it. This unhealthy and unnatural existence is plaguing the overtones of our growing problem of immorality. The gays must be eradicated. Remove them and their kind from our churches, communities, and public offices. Until they decide to live the lifestyle that we live, disallow fundamental rights that we, the majority hold. Together we are strong and will not fail. –An interpretation of arguments that have been made to me while discussing the topic of same-sex marriage with people in my personal life
It would seem that these narratives are obviously facetious and worthy of the ridicule to their represented points of view. As a society, we observe that blacks are not only three-fifths of a person and that people of all religious upbringings can and should be allowed to be productive members of our society. However, there is still one battle being fought in our society and legal system. That which would allow gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender couples to wed and enjoy the same rights that any other couple would.
In the 1950s, American suburban dwellers started to become more aware of homosexuality. The decade was ripe with propaganda. There was even (mis)information floating around that homosexuality was linked with child-molestation.
The video above speaks of homosexuality as “a sickness of the mind.” A homosexual is described as “Someone who demands intimate relations with someone of the same sex.” The view of homosexuality being linked to child-molestation has since been accepted as false by society, but there is still a fear of homosexuality as if it was an intentional obscenity uttered by those that would seek to do harm to the establishment.
Society was not ready to accept gays at that time, and wouldn’t be for decades to come. Ten years later, however, saw the civil rights movement for African-Americans. It was a time in which societal standards of acceptance and disallowance of discrimination first came to fruition in America. This was the ignition of social acceptance movements that many are still fighting for today.
The 1970s and 1980s saw a partial change in social norms. As the household structure and gender roles of the home had begun shifting because of the rise of women in the workplace, it was also starting to become acceptable to be an openly-gay man or woman to lead more public lives. While still dangerous and unaccepted by some, prominent figureheads in the LGBT movement showed the masses that homosexuality was not heinous like the previous generation had been led to believe.
Then, in 1981, five gay men were hospitalized with a new disease. These men had severely-compromised immune systems and all perished. By the end of 1981, five to six new cases were being reported every week. In June of 1982, there had been 355 cases isolated. The next month, the condition was given a name: Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, AIDS. AIDS ravished the homosexual community and led to a worldwide change in how sexual relations were practiced.
Many people thought that this disease could only affect homosexual people, but in 1991, NBA player Magic Johnson announced that he had HIV and went on to crusade for the spread of knowledge about the disease. There is still no definite cure.
Now, we face a new challenge. The millennium has come and gone and there is still a disconnection between fundamental rights of ‘straight’ couples and that of homosexual couples. Over the next three parts of this series, I will discuss the arguments on both sides.
I aim to explore the religious and non-religious reasons why same-sex marriage should/should not be allowed; to try and understand the worthiness of any claim that people of any kind are, and can be treated as unequal in liberty or rights.
I will also discuss the common arguments for the acceptance and allowance of same-sex marriage, as well as presenting some of my own, in order to shed light on the growing movement of advocation that is sweeping modern civilization.
This is an issue of equality. Our aim is to decide how much is too much when it comes to equal rights – or to decide that people are to be allowed the same opportunities across the board.
The next part to my series will discuss the arguments against same-sex marriage. Please continue to follow this page, share with your friends and colleagues, and discuss with each other (in a civil, understanding, and open way) in the comments. Respect others as you discuss the topic because they likely have just as much reason to feel strongly about their side as you do to yours.
Twitter: @dustin_mcmahon
Good day to all of you,
I had taken a bit of a hiatus for spring break, in which I spent a lot of money and got rested and ready for the last month of the semester. I want to announce that my next topic has been inspired by the cases being heard in the Supreme Court, as well as the social media movement of equality, which I admit to getting behind.
The issue of marriage equality is has many faces, and most are ugly. It is an issue of civil rights, the religious rite, family values, economics, love, and hate. Like many of the topics I cover on this site, marriage equality is an issue that is too large for a 1200 word article. For that reason, I have decided to produce a multi-part series on marriage equality. The first part will debut tomorrow, with the other parts coming periodically throughout the week.
I will be discussing the religious and non-religious aspects of the issue, as well as the avocation and dissent of the movement. I aim to come to a consensus on the issue and help shed light to both sides (although I will be arguing for a certain end).
If you feel anything about the issue, one way or another, I invite you to follow this page for as the week progresses.
Thank you,
Dustin McMahon
This is a post written by Paul Brodie in response to one of the arguments I used (and that is commonly used in the debate concerning the damage that we are/are not doing to planet) for the post: Cloudy With a Chance of Acid-Rain.
.
Paul and I usually have spirited discussions about political topics (although I don’t think global warming/greenhouse effect should be considered a political topic) and he brings a strong conservative view into the debate. Though I do not agree with many of the views he holds (and he would say the same about me), his strong convictions are compelling and it is important to understand all sides that are willing to work together.
Read this, stop by his blog, and give him some comments if you wish. He would love to have a discussion with you too.
Many people will read the title of this post and immediately shout YES! Others will read it and immediately shout NO! It is an interesting question that inspires powerful and quick responses, usually. I haven’t conducted any survey’s with experimental design, but I’ve had a lot of discussions with people and have seen decent amount of coverage of the topic on television programs to assume my statement is accurate. I’m speaking in generalities anyway (speaking being used generally in this very sentence). After reading an article from a blogger whose writing I enjoy, I decided to write about this spin-off topic for myself. For my own increased understanding of the topic (I’ll admit to being one of the folks who immediately shout NO! in response to the title question) I will present arguments for and against this debate, and then sum up with my personal point of view. Or try…
View original post 886 more words
It is hard for many to take environmentalism seriously. Even the term ‘environmentalist’ lends itself to harsh and humiliating social terms that make the practice seem unfashionable. The public’s perception of environmentalists always ties into ‘liberal’ agendas. This misconception is a dangerous idea that has been allowed to fester and will be the death of the planet and all living organisms on it, unless it is changed.
The issue of protecting the ecosystems, the inhabitants of, and the planet itself is not a political issue. It is an issue of humanity, and an obligation of the rational-beings we have evolved to be. Homo sapiens are the most successful macroscopic being on Earth, and have developed the ability to reason (though some choose not to), and therefore, have the duty as apex-species to protect the ecosystems that we are destroying with our gross overpopulation and the consequences of our advanced societies.
I submit to you, a plea to actively pursue a change in mindset of how the average person affects the habitat in which they reside. Americans in particular are extremely passive in attempts to minimize the harm that they do. To change for the better, we must have a reform of the way we live our lives, as well as supporting funding for clean resources and energy requirements for the technology we use.
Human beings are the most harmful thing to ever happen to planet Earth. We are one of the most adaptable organisms on the planet, we are an apex-species, and our brains are developed to the point in which we can affect the entire planet as a collective, be it for good or harm.
Cane toads were introduced to Australia in 1935 with the aim of eliminating an insect that had been effecting sugarcane growth in parts of the country. The effects of the toads on the ecosystem were unprecedented. Now, almost three quarters of a century later, the toads are overpopulating and killing many large predators that have not had time to adapt to the toxins in the toad’s skin.
These toads do not have the mental ability to understand the harm that their presence is doing to the ecosystem. Human beings do, and yet, choose to abstain from real solutions. With our ability to rationalize actions, we have an obligation to protect and preserve the land and species we affect.
The problems of our overpopulation of the planet are much more wide-ranging, but just as harmful as the Cane toads in Australia. Human beings are polluting the oceans, destroying the atmosphere, and pushing species that are unnecessary to our survival into extinction. It is no coincidence that populations of cows, chickens, and pigs are booming, while the populations of snow leopards, giant pandas, and white rhinos are dying out. These are not a result of natural selection, but of our infringement into the territory of those species, as well as the selfish slaughtering of those animals for parts. It can be debated if the end to Darwin’s natural selection inevitably comes with the destruction of all species on the planet, except one op species, and a few others that are allowed to continue as sustenance, but does not have to be that way.
Outside of the challenges our species causes to other living inhabitants of the planet, we are pushing gases into the atmosphere that destroys our only protect from the sun, while defiling our planet’s natural sources of drinkable water, and condemning the rainforests, which are the planet’s source of 80 percent of its oxygen. As a result, we are committing a mass murder/suicide. Humans are destroying their own sources of water, oxygen, and cosmic protection while simultaneously condemning any creature that still lives, or would continue to survive after we perish. It is impossible to morally justify these actions.
Whether one chooses to ‘believe’ it or not, scientists in all fields agree that global warming and the greenhouse effect are occurring. Cosmic rays from the sun are becoming trapped inside our atmosphere, causing rapid changes in the temperatures and weather conditions of our planet. Whether global warming is happening rapidly or not, immediate actions are necessary to prevent any more damage, or one day soon, our beautiful blue planet will be as desolate and as uninhabitable as Venus. We caused this process to accelerate, with the air pollution we allow (and I’m not talking about Justin Bieber).
It was not until the 2000s that recycling became ‘fashionable’ in American society. Though European countries have been recycling since the 1970s and in some cases longer, it is not enough to stop the destruction that the materials we use and pollutants we throw away cause.
Big business markets ‘green’ materials to consumers because those items sell, not because those items are better for our planet. Companies are still largely unregulated in the products that are manufactured, the pollutants from machinery that are spewed from factories, and the materials used in many household products like Styrofoam. Citizens must actively support legislation and legislators that will endorse regulations on companies large enough to affect the planet on a massively-negative scale.
We, as consumers have been fed the idea that ‘buying green’ or reusing grocery bags is enough to protect our planet and its resources, but that is false. These are passive activities that, while mildly-effective, do not give substantial support to the wildlife and natural resources on Earth.
The mindset of “I will help the environment when it is convenient for me,” must change. Support regulation on the largest producers of pollution. As electors, we do have the power. If it is the focus of the vast majority of constituents, the elected officials will follow or they will be unemployed. Help control human overpopulation, in any way you can and curve the destruction of our ecosystem for artificial growth. The power is in our hands.
Every person must take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. The human mind is not often used to look at the world in a broad spectrum, and I fear action will not be taken until much more luminous problems arise from our actions. By then, it will be too late. Look beyond yourself and strive for humanity, not the individual. Advocate clean energy, low-emission transportation, and reusable materials. Support those who would do well for the environment.
The planet will be here tomorrow, whether or not you are. It is imperative that you live proactively to ensure the continuation of our personal cosmic wonder.
Twitter: @dustin_mcmahon
Friends,
It has been a six days since my last post. I do not have a set schedule of when to write posts, I had just been writing when I had free time. Unfortunately, I have not had that luxury in the past week. I will come back as soon as tomorrow evening with another topic of discussion that I hope will be as lively as my posts about health care, gun control, religion, and conservatism.
I started this ‘blog’ three weeks ago with no aspirations. Yesterday, I surpassed the mark of 1000 views. I want to express my gratitude to all of you for coming to read and discuss the topics that I find interesting.
I have also been receiving a large number of comments. I have been trying to answer all of them and will continue to do so, but please forgive me if I do not reply immediately to them. I value all of your opinions, as I hope you value mine and encourage you to continue discussing these issues with me and among each other.
I hope that our great dialogue can continue to 1000 more site views and beyond.
Thank you,
Dustin McMahon
Dustin McMahon 