Pro deo et patria

Over Thanksgiving Break I had the chance to catch up with some friends. We shared college stories, looked at photos, reminisced, etc. As much as I enjoyed hearing whatever it was that had caught their interest, the overall experience reminded me of just how exceptional my college career has been and will continue to be. Many of my peers predictably selected in state schools (U of I, ISU among them), and their stories, while entertaining, did not interest me nearly as much as I would have previously guessed. My only explanation to this phenomenon is attributed to the opportunities presented by AU, and the numerous benefits of having DC as one’s playground.

 

While at AU, we have listened to foreign diplomats, journalists, politicians, and philanthropists. We have witnessed the remarks of two heads of state, trick or treated in the foreign embassies, and attended rallies that will be forever recorded in history. Maybe it’s personal preference, but I would choose active civil engagement over beer pong any day. I feel fortunate to be a part of this environment, one that encourages service and action to further the progress of humanity.

 

On Tuesdays and Fridays, friends from home recover from hangovers while my new peers and I try to figure out how to save the world. As much as I loved my high school, I was constantly alienated by the apathy that many people adopted towards the condition of the world. For many peers back home, the world did not extend beyond the borders of the Chicago-land area. Here I am but one mind among many; a student of international studies in a campus of academics, interns, volunteers, and humanitarians.

 

I realize that I may be young, naïve, and overly idealistic. The world is a tricky place. There exist people who simply wish to inflict harm on others without any valid reason. But impacts are already being made by a multitude of actors, ranging from HIV/AIDS prevention in Africa to microcredit initiatives in South America. These groups ultimately will be driven by people who care about the condition of humanity, people who want to improve the world-in short, people like the ones at AU.

 

So, with the end of our first semester at AU, I find it exciting to acknowledge the opportunities that we have as students at the most politically active campus in the nation. We now have the means to realizing our goals, what is now important is that we make the most of these next three and a half years in order to reach our full potential. I wish all of my peers good luck as we set out to achieve our ambitions. 

Sovereignty

In our last discussion, the issue of sovereignty that was brought up by Venezuela was certainly one of the most interesting points. It had struck me as a bit odd that McDonalds had been invited to a development conference, but I figured it makes sense, because we have SO MUCH MONEY. Even without sovereignty, we [I am from now on referring to McDonalds as “we”] have the means and global reach (money, 31,000 franchises, and 390,000 employees worldwide) to affect real change and make a difference in the economic development of countries. Without any sort of recognized or official sovereignty, the corporation is still able to conduct things to its liking all over the world. This made me realize that the world of “Snow Crash” might not be as unlikely as I had previously posited in my blog.

Though I stand by what I said earlier that the government will not quickly or willingly be demoted to the dead-end FedLand, the franchising of everything really isn’t that hard to imagine. Corporations are already granted a pseudo –sovereignty, sitting at the table of conferences with the World Bank, EU, India, Venezuela, and Japan. Governments turn to private defense contractors and mercenaries. It is easy to foresee a world in which corporations establish a type of sovereignty with nations and gain more and more power. After all, money makes the world go round, and we at McDonalds sure have a lot of it.


This is probably a good place to mention what an excellent class and semester it has been. In the lens of world politics, either a lot has been going on lately, or I've just been largely unaware of things since coming here. I suspect it's a fair bit of both. Here's hoping that our impassioned hallway/bathroom debates continue, and that the next semester turns out just as well.

Final Simulation

Today was our last class and the end of the final simulation. This portion was definitely my favorite because we were done with the videos and got to debate. I thought that the other groups had some interesting points, but it was also a little bit frustrating for me. As Venezuela, my group had to argue against everybody and since I knew we were going to get outvoted it seemed a little bit pointless to argue. Nevertheless, I really enjoyed the simulation.

Our main point about sovereignty is something that I’ve been thinking about. On the one hand, it sucks that a country would have to conform to world bank standards even if the could come up with a plausible alternative (the Venezuelan way y’all ;D) but on the other hand the world bank does need to come up with some type of criteria to look at when allocating money and giving loans.

Libertatis Æquilibritas

Some of you know it's my dream to become a billionaire and do the whole space tourism thing (this year the first privately developed spacecraft went into orbit!), so I'm sympathetic to a certain degree of sci-fi. Even so, Snow Crash = Wowwww. I agree with Tori's post, it's pretty much the culmination of one very nerdy male's fantasies.

I will admit his future world is kind of cool (anarchy with property rights/ anarcho-capitalism = uLt1mat3 mAniFEstAti0n 0f fr33d0m!11!!), but the fact that the protagonist(a) was such an insufferable beezy was hard to overlook, especially since Y.T. was such a central part of the book. The random, pedophilic sex scene (possibly the worst sex scene ever printed, even worse than in the Fountainhead haha) was so obviously written by a male (e.g. "she does something she's never done before: comes as soon as he goes into her...she just rips one." hilarious- and also, what's the point of a "dentata" if the guy can still get at that? not very effective). The many comments about Y.T.'s nymphomaniacal nature were unnecessary. Not to sound like Rachel on a feminist rant, but come on! ;) I understand this was a revolutionary piece for its time, but the technology is pretty believable/realistic to me. In all it was alright- much more enjoyable than a textbook, so I'm not complaining.

The Newseum was amazing!! I'd say it's my favorite of the museums I've been to, after the National Portrait Gallery. Loved the Berlin Wall segments and the Unabomber's shed (!!). Maggy and I enjoyed the epic Five Freedoms Walk. :)

We've seen some intense developments in the world this semester: the election of our first black president, the Thai political crisis, Mumbai terror attacks, scary rampant government bailouts- it's been a good year to be in DC and start learning about World Politics and Econ. I've certainly expanded my knowledge a lot this semester- translation: I tripled the amount of questions I have about the world.
See you guys around!

A Future Chaotic

I’ve never been on Second Life. Online virtual reality simulators don’t interest me much, most likely because I find my own life to be thrilling/challenging/stressful/ glamorous enough. Well, ok, maybe not glamorous. The point is that I have enough going on without taking on an avatar, even if her (a while ago, I decided if I ever had an avatar, it would be female) life was more interesting than mine.

 

I must say, the katana is a nice touch. Hiro really knows how to roll. For some strange reason, I find the idea of a sword-wielding, motorcycle riding, multi-ethnic, new wave hacker intriguing. What have I done with my life?

 

The difference between our reality and this fiction, between the present and Stephenson’s future, is that Stephenson anticipates dramatic shifts in economic policy and a high propensity for radical changes within the social framework of America. My attention is first drawn to the privatization of the entities in Stephenson’s novel. With even the US government being a private corporation, the power of non-state actors becomes dominant to the point that people fail to recognize the President of the nation.

 

Stephenson is also quick to draw on the extremes. He envisions a society in which people are either illiterate and uneducated or wired and information-rich. The correlation has little to do with fiscal standing-neither Hiro nor YT would be considered wealthy. Elitism therefore is tied to the ease of access one has to the metaverse, as well as his or her level of technological savvy.

 

The bureaucracy of Stephenson’s government was a nightmare. Speaking as one who believes in the abilities of a strong, central authority, the idea of such conformity, rigidity, and senselessness made me yearn for the unconventional, say, a skateboarding kourier wrecking havoc, equipped with an attitude to boot.

 

Hiro’s society is based on extremes. It is one colossal hyperbole of the worst aspects of American society combined to form one giant mess of conglomerates. L Bob Rife, power hungry to the core, is very much the product of William Randolph Hearst combined with the reincarnation of L Ron Hubbard. Viewing a society in which such characters are among the most powerful individuals was terrifying, but also fascinating.

 

I highly doubt that Stephenson’s portrayal of society will be realized. America has already made a substantial amount of progress in upholding the central authority, and privatization is almost a foreign concept as banking giants are nationalized to keep the market afloat. In a way, I’m almost sad. I sort of wonder what it would be like to meet the greatest sword fighter in the world.

Snow Crash

I would say that Stephenson’s vision of the future, although decidedly far-fetched, is not impossible. Since the book was written in 1992, it is of course not entirely accurate with the depiction of the internet or metaverse and other technologies, it is amazing that he was able to predict technologic developments so accurately. Even the world that Hiro Protagonist lives in is not really too far away to imagine (perhaps with the exception of Y. T.’s rather eccentric personality and actions). The extreme capitalism exhibited in Snow Crash seems to be a logical extension of the growth of the system. Everything being looked out for by the interest of private corporations is really the ultimate goal of capitalism.

That being said, I do not see the United States ever undergoing such an extreme transition, at least not in the immediate future shown in Snow Crash. Such a drastic switch to extreme capitalism and the dissolution of the nation’s government would take decades, it it were ever going to happen. I cannot see the United States, even in the midst of an economic recession, ever willingly dissolving and dividing up its power among franchiselets.

The best franchiselet, I think, would have to be Mr. Lee’s Greater Hong Kong. Not only do you get ridiculous Rat Things protecting you all the time, but you have unbridled technological development and opportunities not available in other nation-states. Also, the not racist part is fairly appealing.

Future predictions

I find Stephenson’s view of the future somewhat plausible. As far as technology goes, I would almost wonder if he was psychic. Not only did he foresee the internet and some of the subculture that goes along with it, but he also predicted to some extent underarmour (a strong and elastic yet very breathable material) which kind of impressed me. It is hard for me to imagine life without any of the technology we have today though, and I’m pretty sure I missed some of his other technological foresight because I just assumed that it was already in existence.

I don’t believe that Stephenson’s imaginary communities will ever become reality. He seems to predict that as globalization progresses and different cultures are forced to interact, they will feel threatened by one another and retreat into ethnically similar communities. I think this is true to some extent. Some books I am reading now on globalization and religion cite the insecurity that is caused by globalization for the recent growth of Islam. People in the Middle East are confronted with western ideas and technology that threaten their ways of lives, and they turn to religion for assurance. However, there is no reason that people cannot have a strong ethnic or religious identity and still be tolerant of one another. My prediction for the future would be almost the complete opposite of Stephenson’s in this aspect. I would predict that as cultures interact more and more with one another they would begin to mix and become more tolerant with one another. Instead isolating themselves within their own ethnic groups, I predict that people will mix so much that there will only be one ‘race’ of people. When cultures intermix so much and people intermarry there is also the question of how the child will be raised. I would predict that this could lead to one more common religion as parents of two different religions raise children.

I also had a problem with the general chaos that was caused by everything being a franchise. I wouldn’t enjoy living in that type of a world, and I imagine that many people feel the same way. If things were to ever move to this extreme I think that people would express their discontent and we would move towards the other extreme, keeping us at equilibrium between government and consumerism in the long term. The same goes for the ability to sue for just about everything. At a certain point people will get fed up with things and put a stop to them.

Stephenson did do a great job with the technology for the future, but I see his other predictions of more of a social commentary. He parodies the way things are today to make people think about things that that they might not otherwise think about.

Wider Horizons

I believe that Todorov made a good point in his quote. Knowing what one sees first hand is only the first level of knowledge. People who only have this perspective on the world cannot make informed decisions because they may know very little about the world outside of their little ‘bubble’ that they live in and can see the workings of first hand. They make decisions based on how it would affect their own world, but these decisions are not informed because they cannot foresee results that are not obvious.

The second type of person (the man for which each country is as his own) has achieved the second level of knowledge, He is able to view issues in the context of how it will affect his world, how it will affect someone else’s world, and how it may affect his own world indirectly. He has a wider base of knowledge than the first man and is able to understand international issues with a broader perspective. However, he still only views problems in the context of the effects it will have on him.

The third type of person has the highest level of thinking. I would define the third type of person in the same way that Runners World defines an advanced runner. Unlike the intermediate runner who is obsessed with running and plans his whole day around his run, the advanced runner is able to go for a run once a day, enjoy it, and leave it at that. The person for whom the whole world is as a foreign country is like an elite runner because he is able to step back from things and pass judgment without involving his emotions.

I think that Todorov had the right idea with this because people who are not emotionally involved in issues often have the clearest perspectives. However, I do wonder where one could find the third type of person. My perception is that the majority of people who are knowledgeable about international relations have emotions about most of the issues because international relations issues have such broad consequences. It would be hard to find a person that wouldn’t be affected by an issue. So although I think that Todorov was right, I don’t necessarily think that he was practical in this context.

World Views

From an early age, American students at the primary level of education are taught to recite the pledge of allegiance. Granted, this generally only applies to public schools, and as the students mature they exercise greater freedom in their decision to recite or abstain from reciting the pledge, but regardless of their later actions they are trained to think of America as a country worthy of their service. The phrase “One nation, under God,” is one that I personally find somewhat appalling, but that is a digression from my intended point.

 

A man concerned only with the affairs of his own country is a man limited and ignorant of other cultures and societies. In a sense, that man is the same as the student who faithfully pledges his allegiance to the stars and strips, never pausing to consider what it is he is actually promising. He holds only a shallow understanding of the world around him, because his world is in reality but one nation.

 

The second man, one who is familiar with all nations, is a model that all who are concerned with world politics should strive to emulate. It is through this understanding that one gains appreciation and ultimately respect for the diverse ways of other human beings. My belief is that this is the type of man that best understands the world, and therefore is the man who is consciously in the best position to engage in diplomacy and interactions on an international level.

 

Of course, it is not that simple. Todorov gives us the curveball when he considers the “man to whom the whole world is as a foreign country.” I don’t get it. A man who lacks understanding of the entire world is an indication of ignorance, not of knowledge. If Todorov’s point was that one demonstrates wisdom by exhibiting humility, I regard that perspective as out of context with one’s worldview. Todorov was on to something in his first two assertions, but his third point failed to exhibit any rationale. 

Why do we hold elections in November? Because it's the best time to pick out a Turkey.

Ahhhhh Turkey day! Best holiday after 4th of July and Christmas. And Cinco de Mayo. And New Years. Anyways, let me crank this out so I can hit the road- 6 hour flights baby, Rachel and Catherine know what’s up.
Well I managed to successfully get caught in my own argument today. I concede: it only makes sense to judge history in order to learn anything from it and move forward. I guess where I found the issue is how to go about doing that. Like many of us said, judgment is subjective (but not arbitrary). Yet if we don’t judge people with our own sense of morality, everything becomes moral. This reminds me of people who love to champion all cultures, even those cultural behaviors that are abusive and backward- people aren’t willing to say “yes, my morality is superior to yours,” which is necessary- not exactly what I was arguing in class, but what I’ve concluded from our talk.
Onwards.

“The man who finds his country sweet is only a raw beginner; the man for whom each country is as his own is already strong; but only the man for whom the whole world is foreign country is perfect.”

Let me get this straight:
The man who’s satisfied with his own country is lame.
The man who thinks he can do whatever he wants with all nations like they are his own is pretty alright.
The man who sees all other territories as foreign and conquerable rocks.
Hmm.

Maybe from a strictly Machiavellian/realist perspective that’s “correct,” it certainly maximizes one’s ability to conquer without remorse. However it wouldn’t rest very easily on most people’s consciences.
PTJ asked if we (as a collective modern humanity? What does that even mean when half the world isn’t socially “modern” by our standards?) are better suited not to engage in genocidal behavior nowadays. This goes back to the “is our knowledge better?” question. Yes, our morality is better than Cortez's, but it’s not the best. We still have genocides going on and military conflicts such as Rachel was making a connection to (I’m assuming Iraq). While I personally do think we have a superior moral code, I don’t believe it is our place to intervene in affairs not directly relevant to us (insert Family Guy Ground Zero clip haha). The majority of Spaniards in Cortez's time were probably unconcerned with his actions abroad. The fact that a vast percentage of the population today is not a fan of such interventionist activities shows the continual evolution of morality.

And now I’m off to pack! Have a great Thanksgiving everyone!

Cortes the Killer

The trial to determine the guilt of Cortes, though not the most organized of trials, really got me thinking. Not about whether or not it was morally correct to utilize the means he did to reach his end, but whether or not he thought he made the right decisions, or even if he believed he was doing good deeds. I think it’s rather obvious that massacring thousands of natives and providing false information to get them going about killing themselves off as well is, by any, or at least most modern standards, immoral. But since his goal was conquest and ownership of the continent, Cortes must have thought that what he was doing was at least in his best interest, and in that of Spain’s. What I would be interested to know is if he thought he was improving anything by being there. As far as I know, there isn’t much left to determine one way or the other.

This weekend I also went to the Air and Space museum for the first time in a few years. The museum of my childhood was gone. As soon as I entered, I started to analyze the layout of the exhibits and tried to “read” the museum. Gone was my child-like simple wonder. When you walk in, the put all the cool replicas right there so you can immediately think “wow, look at all that cool shiny stuff we can put way up there”. A new addition was a model of the SpaceShipOne, the first privately owned and operated vehicle to enter space. The museum showcased the technological superiority of the United States and how it helped us in air battles since World War I. On the whole, I think the museum exists to elicit a sense of patriotism, “NASA is really cool”, and “we beat them commies good”.

cortez on trial

This week it was my group’s turn to teach the class, and I think it went fairly well. People were frustrated because they weren’t sure whether they should use present day laws or the laws of the time to argue their cases. Even though it was frustrating, I think it was a good representation of justice on the world stage. Sometimes in less clear-cut cases it is not clear to anyone whose laws will be followed and which party is in the wrong. The theme of justice coupled with our visit to the American Indian Museum made me think about the how American Indians could have been given justice and the constraints that culture barriers generate. I think that a lot of times, ‘justice’ isn’t really justice. It is the best we can do under the circumstances, but in the end one or more of the groups involved gets the raw end of the deal. It seems like there must be some way to make things fair, but even if there was, fairness is not always justice.

I surprised myself when I began to think that Cortez was not at fault during the trial. The defense made some good points that I had not thought of before, and if I had been the jury I might have acquitted him. But the problem is, whether or not Cortez could justify what he did or blame it on someone else, thousands of American Indians were slaughtered as a result of his actions. Is justice an eye for an eye, the attempt to make things as right as possible after the fact, holding someone responsible for something that they were not at fault for or something else? After the Europeans had already conquered the Americas, there wasn’t much that one could do to fix things. It wasn’t fair that any land was taken from its rightful owners, but it wouldn’t be fair to take the land away from people who had started a new life there and had no part in the killing either.

Objection, Your Honor

I hate to sound like a sore loser.

 

Nevertheless, I will say that although I did enjoy the simulated trial of Cortes, I maintain my assertion of the invalidity of the trial, as I feel the jury was biased and therefore inherently subjective against my perspective: that of supporting Cortes. I of course do not believe that Cortes was a good man, and being forced to debate on his behalf was an enlightening exercise that gave me another viewpoint on a man who I considered and still consider to have been a ruthless conquistador. What may have changed, however, is the morality (or lack thereof) of his actions, and whether or not Cortes was simply the extension of his superiors.

 

Expeditions to the New World were unprecedented, and so there was nothing on which to base interactions between the Spanish and the indigenous peoples. Consequently, Columbus’s treatment of the natives eventually became harsh and unequal; he ceased to view them as human beings and instead viewed them as a utility. Cortes was no different, though his actions were drastically more violent.

 

Because Cortes operated without precedence and without the modern rules of engagement, there were no moral standards for him to consider. His dealings with the Aztecs were that of military strategy and diplomatic savvy. Though today it is considered genocide and a crime against humanity, such notions would have been foreign to Cortes, who was simply acting to secure specific interests under dire circumstances.

 

I must admit, I feel that my group argued more capably and more consistently with the point of debate. Ben did, however, own in his closing statement, which was far more eloquent, logical, and coherent than mine. As we determined in class, it was an effective exercise, though not without flaws. In the future, may I suggest a clear set of rules, a set point of debate, and an emphasis on the text. As it was, I felt the trial was rather broad.  

Wingapo

Catherine inspired me to put a soundtrack to my reflection this week as well. The band’s called Justice, beyond that it has nothing to do with class but is a fun song.


I really enjoyed the Native American museum, especially all the southwestern tribal cultures (I pretty much automatically associate Native Americans with cedar bark houses, totem poles and salmon). I especially loved the section of paintings by Fritz Scholder. This one is my favorite:


I love Native American culture. I don’t know about elsewhere, but back home there is a fairly big emphasis on it in education. The first 8 years of my schooling involved learning about local native tribes, hatching/releasing salmon eggs, having powwows every month, etc. From the Macaw tribe’s whaling pursuits to Native festivals and awareness, not to mention that most of our cities (Seattle, Chehalis, Puyallup, Yakima, etc) are named after Native tribes/people, Native culture is somewhat alive in Washington. That being said, they’re still most famous for bringing 80s one hit wonders to their casinos (Loverboy, anyone?) and being the best place to get 4th of July fireworks for cheap (the Muckleshoot reservation is my favorite).

As far as Columbus/Cortez goes, they screwed up. But they were products of their times, which doesn’t justify their actions, but at least allows you to understand their mindset a bit. Conquering was the norm, there wasn’t really an idea of a collective humanity. As we witness concepts of knowledge and justice molded over time, perhaps (and probably) hundreds of years from now people will be snickering at our models of the universe and how primitive we are.

I wish my signature was as cool as Columbus's

Ok, so for the most part, Columbus’s way of knowing was through what he was told, what he read in the bible, and assumptions that he made about things that he saw for himself. For the most part what we know comes from what we are told, the bible, and assumptions that we make about things we see ourselves. Most people, both in the presence and the past, don’t base their knowledge on scientific knowledge that they have gathered on their own, but rather on things that people have told them. Therefore, I don’t think that our way of knowing is any better. The difference is our technology available. We have new technology available so we base our knowledge on the things that science tells us. In the past, they also based things on what science told them, but they didn’t have the same scientific knowledge that we have today. To answer the question, I ultimately think that our way is not better than Columbus’s way of knowing because we use the same methodology. We base what we believe in on science and things that can be reasoned through logically, and so did Columbus. His chain of thought that lead him to believe that Central America had gold correlated with the common beliefs of the time. Now, due to technology, we don’t believe that to be true. However, some beliefs that we have now are just as likely to be disproven in the future. Also, in class we talked a lot about how Columbus saw things as he thought they should be rather than how they actually were. While this may not be the ‘right’ way of thinking, we still do that today. Stereotypes are one example of this. We assume things about people to make sense of things that we are not personally familiar with. It makes the foreign thing seem more manageable. This is the same thing Columbus did with the mermaid. He used the only knowledge that he had of something to make sense of what was completely foreign. Although he was not actually seeing a mermaid, it was the only thing he could conceive. While technology can change, our basic thought process and way of knowing stays the same, and therefore our way of knowing cannot be any better or worse than it was during the time of Columbus.

500 Years Less Superstitious

The most difficult part of this question, for me at least, has got to be how we go about defining “knowing” or our means of knowing things. I would argue that our “way of knowing” is derived from the world around us. Generally held societal norms, values, and viewpoints are impressed upon all of us. Our perceptions are deeply tied with what is held to be common knowledge, such as the fact that no, mermaids are not chilling around in the western Atlantic. To address the question regarding whether or not our way of knowing is better than that of Columbus, I would posit that we are 500 years less superstitious.

In the past 500 years, we’ve made it a fairly long way in terms of advancement, both technological and intellectual. We have discovered that areas on maps previously marked with “here be monsters” do not actually contain monsters. We have knowledge of, or at least knowledge of the existence of an “other”. The general amount of knowledge has increased, and individuals are more able to pool more from this to make better or more accurate assumptions with their worldview. Our “way of knowing”, which I will interpret to mean “how things are determined to be true”, has improved as well. Instead of relying on religious texts and institutions, and the information (or, perhaps more commonly, misinformation) inductively reasoned from them, we now look to conglomerates of credible and experienced scientists to discern hard facts about the universe. We don’t, however, look to them for the complete answers for everything, and I think we have become more likely to acknowledge the fact that we may not necessarily understand the cause of a particular event, and less likely to point to superstition or religion to explain it.

This is not the fault of Columbus, or anyone really, there is no blame to be cast, it is simply a circumstance of the times. People in his time simply did not have the access to, or the sheer amount of knowledge. And with relatively limited knowledge, they assessed things as best they could. Certainly in 500 years, people will look back at us and marvel at our simplicity and naïve worldview.

Columbus's Folly

Christopher Columbus was a product of the society in which he lived. In 1492, at the height of Spanish imperialism, his world views would have been influenced by a deeply pious character, a belief in European superiority in culture and religious views, and the desire for fame and fortune. In these respects, his knowledge was obscured by the selfish motives of himself and his society in that he was incapable of objectively viewing his world-changing discoveries.

 

The religious orientation of European culture also placed greater emphasis on doctrinal and spiritual considerations of the world. Consequently, science and rationality did not carry the same weight, and were not as significant a factor in forming knowledge. As knowledge was obscured partially by preconceived notions founded on traditional religious beliefs and practices, knowledge during Columbus’s time did not have the same validity as it does in the modern context.

 

Our system of knowledge today depends on standardized methods designed to fulfill a scientific approach to human understanding. Assertions are analyzed, tested, and reformulated according to a uniform system of gathering empirical evidence. A claim must be proven, often with statistical data demonstrating the credibility and accuracy of the claim. Although Columbus may have believed that he knew much about the world, his knowledge was nothing more than doctrine-based, preconceived notions that he sought to affirm. 

The seaweed is always greener in somebody else's lake...

Is our way of knowing better than Columbus’? Clearly. But is it the best? That’s questionable. Humans are constantly improving our knowledge as civilization advances, but by no means have we reached the eighth dynamic. :)
Comparing our two ways of “knowing” is apples and oranges. The way our society and world views “fact” now is completely different than the way they saw it in the 16th century. Ben beat me to it in class, but as the world population becomes denser and denser, it is important for humanity to have some sort of uniform way of perceiving reality, truth and knowledge so that we can operate more smoothly as a global community. We can’t have half of us believing in divine predetermination and the sirens of Odysseus and the other half in atoms and evolution. It’s a sort of globalization of knowledge, we learn more and record more and share it with more people.
Reason, what we currently gauge knowledge with, is better than faith. The whole point of science is to be skeptical. Like Catherine mentions, “physicists mostly come up with theories, which can be proved wrong.” If someone published a revolutionary new theory tomorrow, the first thing a scientist would do is try to prove it wrong. Only if that can’t be done might it begin to be considered further and perhaps gain credibility.
Our knowledge may not be absolute or correct, but if it is better than Columbus’s- that is, more thoroughly studied and held to a higher standard based on reason and logic, more acceptable in explaining the current state of the world, and general an improvement to his, then absolutely- our knowledge is much better.
Speaking of globalization, this is an interesting series in which “BBC News is following a container around the world for a year to tell stories of globalisation and the world economy.”

The Theocracy of Eloby

I’ll start this blog post out with saying that I was thoroughly underwhelmed with the UC common event with Krista Tippet. Though undoubtedly well spoken and well meaning, I got the impression that she did not really answer our questions beyond what was required to somewhat transition back to a different point that she wanted to address. Despite her sort of swinging questions to her liking or convenience, I still felt like she was very repetitive and could have made all her points in the space of twenty minutes instead of the hour and a half allotted. Though in her defense, a decent amount of our questions were rather difficult to answer or had a very contrived and obvious answer that she may not necessarily agree with (“is it arrogant to claim truth or can truth simply be claimed in an arrogant fashion?”).

Friday’s class was an interesting one. Representing an island nation with six million people per square kilometer and a per capita GDP of $16 made me realize the importance of prioritization of resources in a poor country. I think our particular situation was a bit unique, as I wouldn’t imagine that many world leaders adjust spending in hopes of a vast majority of the population disappearing, either through emigration or… other things… We could not really afford to look out for corruption within the government when all of our money needed to be allocated to sanitization and disease control to keep the population from being decimated. Even though we figured that would probably be a good thing, the world community probably would not share our sentiments and would be less likely to help us out financially.

Floods, Diseases, Coke Bottles, etc

As much as I would rather write about the Prop 8 protest, the genius of Dick Cavett, or how beautiful life would be if Amanda’s comic strip came true, I’d like to bring things back to Friday’s exercise. What we set up was designed as an experiment in prioritization. We intended to give each group a limited supply of resources, forcing them to decide which services or areas were more important to uphold. By doing so, they would essentially be placing a comparative value on each of the given areas.

 

Prioritization is not popular, and I suppose it’s also not politically correct. But nevertheless, prioritization is an integral aspect of governmental policy, whether we choose to admit it or not. With the advent of the Obama presidency only two months away, I’m guessing we will be seeing major shifts in our priorities. How this will play out remains to be seen.

 

Back to the exercise. The second component of our exercise involved us assigning some sort of game changer to each group, causing them to re-evaluate their priorities. In some cases it only had a minor effect (we sent a famine to Rwenzururu, which had already prioritized malnutrition as their concern numero uno.

 

In other cases, however, these events (floods, diseases, and yes, coke bottles) disrupted the policy of the group, and they had to re-order their priorities to accommodate the change.

 

Many third world nations reflect this lack of resources. Combined with political or humanitarian crisis, it is no surprise that governments of such nations as Somalia have lost any power to maintain stability.  Being in an already constrained position to deal with existing problems such as corruption, mismanagement, crime, or war, the additional issue of poverty is enough to overwhelm the struggling governments.