All posts by robinski

I know it’s a good point, but I hate sudden change

Of all the readings we have been assigned in this class, I felt that this was the most interesting yet. For me, most of the ideas presented in this reading were familiar, but never before now had I read a piece that went so in depth to the privacy of food consumption and its effect on human’s decisions.

As someone who is an athlete, I have consumed meat to fulfill the health requirements of protein and certain vitamins. However, I do see the consumption of meat as a non-necessary dietary choice…for the most part. I felt the reading brought up very good points about morality and where the line should be drawn. I have thought of the morality issue in regards to consuming animal-based products a lot and do see validity in the claim for non-consumption, however, if I were to stop eating meat, it would not be because of morality.

I obviously think the animals that are raised for consumption should be treated well and the food industry should have a no tolerance policy on animal cruelty. However, do I think it is morally wrong to kill an animal for consumption? No. I believe raising animals to be eaten is fine, but could get behind a sort of “ration” technique where the amount of consumption is limited. This idea ties closely with my main reason for ever considering to stop eating meat: there are technically other sources of the nutrients found in meat that don’t require the killing of animals, which would, in turn, have the benefit of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere.

Is nature God?

Nature is all-encompassing. It is both our physical world and the vast emptiness of space that surrounds it as well as the reactions that result from every action. No matter whether it is a thermostat who “feels” a change in temperature or the stone falling from a cliff that “feels” the pull of gravity, nature is within everything. Sounds familiar, right?

 

While reading this entire article, I kept thinking about how similar the author’s views were with common religious ideas. According to religion, God is everywhere, whether the physical world or the imagination. God is even “with us” in every action we perform, in every stone that falls, and I guess using the same logic, in every thermostat that “feels” a temperature change. During the second half of the article when the author started discussing nature as information, I couldn’t help but feel like there were some underlying religious messages that he was trying to sneak in.

In terms of my own opinion, I don’t know if I like thinking about nature as the “force” controlling my every action. I prefer to think of nature as the physical and the experience, but not as a “force” that influences. It’s hard to put this kind of conceptual, almost philosophical, idea in words, but none-the-less the idea that nature is both everything and energy is an interesting idea.

Competition or nah?

This isn’t the first time I have heard ideas for drastic societal change, but I am willing to say this article highlighted one of the most dramatic that I have ever seen. Simply the idea of creating a society where everyone lives equally seems insanely foreign to me. I have grown up my entire life on the basis of competition and trying to attain a better life than the next guy. One of my biggest motivations is that one day when I am successful, I can look back at all my competition growing up and reflect on how my hard work paid off.

 

In a society like the one described in the article, it is assumed that people would live hand in hand and not revert back to the ways of today’s competitive society. Although this idea may be a potential reality in the future, I don’t see anything close to it happening in my lifetime. In the world we live in today, competition is what spurs development and technological growth. Without the constant threat of others getting further ahead, I feel that businesses would stop investing their time and money in engineering new technological advancements.

I feel there is a much better way to restructure society so that the environmental toll is kept under control and the number of green technology increases, but creating a completely socialistic society doesn’t seem like a reasonable or even smart idea. I feel like large-scale efforts to clean up the environment and reduce fossil fuels should be taken. I also feel that poverty and homelessness could almost be entirely eradicated with large-scale measures, of which making everyone equal not being one.

 

Maybe it’s just my competitive ways, but I don’t want to live in a society where the people who don’t work hard and don’t show drive receive the same results as those who do.

Awareness is there, action is required

For a global society that largely recognizes climate change and the destruction of nature caused by human interference as a serious problem, it is astonishing that more is not done to prevent further harm and clean up existing climate issues. In fact, according to an article by Business Insider, The 10 most critical problems in the world, according to millennials, two of the top 10 issues were about mankind’s effect on the natural world: water scarcity and climate change. However, despite human’s awareness of these serious matters, no long-term measures seem to last more than a few years before they are overturned.

 

Looking at the documents we were tasked with reading, the focus seemed to highlight on raising awareness as the best way to bring on change. In fact, in bullet 30 of the Pope’s Encyclical, the author writes: “the problem with water is partly an educational and cultural issue since there is little awareness […].” I would disagree with this statement. Take the 60s and 70s in the US for example. As is now common knowledge, this period of US history was marked by an incredible drive for climate justice and climate awareness. Demonstrations were held and people protested. From this era, many great wilderness areas became protected and new measures were instituted into law to help protect the environment. However as this era of peace and love ended, so did the attention and measures to fight climate change.

 

We now live in a society (mainly 1st world) in which a vast majority of people are aware in some way of climate change and the need for immediate action. Yet, despite all the awareness, we still are made to read documents telling us that the answer is more awareness. I completely disagree. I feel that the time for raising awareness already occurred in the last 40-50 years and that what we need as a global society is deliberate and long-term legal action. We need to stop allowing large corporations to emit the amount of fossil fuels that they do. We need to increase the number of measures that protect our wildlife and wilderness areas. We need to set up new regulations for waste disposal and water usage.

 

Climate change is an issue that makes me pretty irritated with the human race. Mankind knows of this incredibly pressing issue, yet decides to sit on it and preach about awareness. The awareness is there, now action is required.