Darwin

In Origin of Species, Charles Darwin presents what has become the prevailing world view on how the world became what it is today. He argues that from very simple original organisms, natural and sexual selection and adaptation have created various species that became increasingly acclimated to their environment through survival of the fittest.

First, I should say that I disagree with Darwin's findings. As a creationist and Christian, I disagree not so much because of what I believe false about his theory, but what I believe to be true from other sources. I believe that evolution is simply the most accessible answer that requires us to have no accountability beyond our own existence. Scientifically, the odds that present-day species evolved from single-celled organisms are infinitesimal.

From an admittedly biased source, though supported by the same science that endorses evolution: "One chemist has calculated the immense odds against amino acids ever combining to form the necessary proteins by undirected means. He estimated the probability to be more than 10 to the 67th to 1 (10⁶⁷:1) against even a small protein forming by time and chance, in an ideal mixture of chemicals, in an ideal atmosphere, and given up to 100 billion years (an age 10 to 20 times greater than the supposed age of the Earth). [129] Mathematicians generally agree that, statistically, any odds beyond 1 in 10 to the 50th (1:10⁵⁰) have a zero probability of ever happening (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html)."

Frankly, I don't see how such astronomical odds are so readily accepted. The main problem I see with evolution is that it has no answer for the origin of mass or energy. Without both of these, I don't believe evolution has legs to stand on. Evolutionists have yet to find a viable answer. Many may say that they believe in God, but I would question what type of god would create such a system. When they try to fill in all possible gaps with secular science, they reduce this essential God to one who created the absolute minimum necessities for the eventual development of life. It is an extreme form of deism that doesn't make much sense or seem to agree with many individual philosophies.

The only other evolutionary inconsistency that I have given serious thought to relates to topsoil. According to one of the science teachers at my high school (herself an evolutionist), it takes about 500 years for one inch of soil to become topsoil. A quick calculation using the estimated age of the earth (6000000000/500) yields that, under present conditions, there should be 189 miles of topsoil under your average footstep. Obviously, this would extend far below any existing soil, and, even if the process had just recently begun (say, a million years ago) we would still have 167 feet of topsoil at 1 inch per 500 years. Incidentally, if we make the same calculation over 6000 years (the accepted age of the earth among creationists), the figure comes out to 12 inches of topsoil. I would invite anyone that wants to to conduct an experiment with a shovel to see which figure is closer to reality, taking erosion into account, which will have washed away some evidence. I don't believe you'll break a sweat. If this approach is valid, it would contradict the perceived age of the earth, which would disallow the time needed for Darwin's theory to run its course.

Aside from the scientific side of the issue, an admitted weakness of mine, the debate of evolution in schools is huge. As you may guess, I am very much against the current teaching of evolution as fact. Not only is macro-evolution highly controversial, but the age of the earth is derived from it. Both macro-evolution and the age of the earth are merely theories, hopefully seen to be weak ones at that. Off the top of my head, the only unsolved mystery given so much time in public education is that of the JFK assassination. Of course as new evidence has emerged, teachers have ceased from teaching that Lee Harvey Oswald was the factual sole assassin of JFK. And yet with such disagreement about things of science, we are still fed supposedly factual information. Is it so hard to require that teachers explain the imperfection of the evolutionary theory? I think not.

Again, I am not a scientific person. You may be able to find problems with my points. My views are not formed by my disbelief in evolutionary theory, and they do not hinge on the validity of any objections I've mentioned. I appreciate the respect that is given for views that are not seen as mainstream.

Letting Natural Selection Take It's Course

Darwin’s Origin of Species was a controversial piece when it was published, and it continues to fuel debates today. Origin of Species presents ideas about natural selection and sexual selection in nature based off his observations largely made during his voyage on the HMS Beagle. Darwin suggests that because the Earth is overpopulated, different variations will make some individuals better adapted to survive and therefore reproduce more, which results in the emphasis of certain characteristics. He also suggests that these small variations accumulate over time to create better-adapted species.

More recently, through the advances of science, we are playing with natural selection and trying to make ourselves invincible from it. Today’s focus is more on improving the survival of individuals rather than concerning ourselves with the survival of the species. Medical breakthroughs in prolonging the lives of those with genetic diseases are allowing such characteristics to be further entered into our species. The idea of natural selection is to strengthen the species by weeding out the weaker. In other words, those susceptible to a fatal disease will die, leaving only those with resistance to breed and therefore the resistance would become a part of the fabric of our genome. I don’t disagree with the idea of correcting the genetic mutation in utero or only selecting those zygotes that do not have mutations because that is merely forwarding natural selection. However vaccines such as the polio vaccine allows the further breeding of individuals that are not naturally resistant. Then, in order to correct the weakness we have created, every child needs to be vaccinated. We have spun ourselves into a cycle. In class someone made an example of bad eyesight. Because we have made it so that those with lesser eyesight can still function, those people can then have more babies, which also have poor eyesight. Because of our advances, we have weakened the general eyesight of the species. I’m not suggesting that we just take away corrective lenses in order to try to correct the weakness. I’m just pointing out that we have caused the further need for corrective lenses due to our solution in the first place.

However, Chad made the point that our species has moved beyond the day-to-day survival that many other species still deal with. So perhaps we can allow for the weakening of the general sturdiness of our species as long as we can continue to dominate the world and provide our remedies like vaccinations and corrective lenses.

I’m not trying to say that medical or science advances are bad. If someone gets an illness, we should not necessarily leave it to their immune system to fight it because “if they’re not strong enough then they deserve to die.” That is not what I am trying to suggest at all. If you get a kidney infection, it could kill you if you did not get medical attention. But also, if you survive from a kidney infection, that does not mean your children are more likely to also get kidney infections. That’s where its there is a difference between treating disease and treating inheritable diseases. When it comes to inheritable diseases, should we prolong the life of someone so that they can develop and reproduce when they would otherwise not have been able to? Sure that may be beneficial for that individual, but not so much for our species.

Also, I am not suggesting that we should do some of our own “natural selection” to correct the weaknesses we have created in our species, such as through eugenetics. The things we have already woven into our genome cannot be corrected. I am merely suggesting that we should let natural selection take its course a little bit more in the future.

Science and Religion

In class we have been discussing religion versus science, and today (3/16) we briefly touched on people who "mix" both science and religion. Next week, according to the syllabus, we are watching, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore's Academy Award Winning Documentary. To avoid saying too much, I want to bring up one point Gore makes in the movie. Gore argues that dealing with global warming/climate change is a "moral value," because we only have one planet and it needs to be taken care of. Some Christians don't touch issues like global warming just because it deals with science. However, some Christians have....take a look at these two competing quotes:

They are defending the society. But I tell you stay in doors ladies and gentleman. Stay cool. Get fans or whatever. And the poor, they need emergency fans and ice to cool down — the number of people dead. I have not been one who believed in the global warming. But I tell you, they are making a convert out of me as these blistering summers. They have broken heat records in a number of cities already this year and broken all-time records and it is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air. We really need to address the burning of fossil fuels. If we are contributing to the destruction of the planet we need to do manage about it.

[Global Warming Is]Satan’s attempt to redirect the church’s primary focus from evangelism to environmentalism.

The first quote comes from Pat Robertson and the second from Jerry Falwell. Any comments? Is global warming to be considered a "moral value?" Also, as a Christian, should one totally ignore science...as Falwell seems to imply.

Hotel Rwanda

After watching the movie Hotel Rwanda, I have two primary reactions. The first is the exposure of a completely new point of view for this type of conflict. This movie allowed us to see the other side of the conflict, one that we (the country) do not consider in making political views. The second of my reactions are the relation to Maus and the Holocaust; how both can be sickly regarded as extermination.
When the United Nations came to aid people in danger of the war, emotions such as relief were circulating throughout the stranded people in the hotel. However, the United Nations had given false hope to these people, having not been assigned to rescue Africans. The United Nations was simply there to rescue people of their own who were American tourists. By showing the great disappointment in all of the eyes of those left behind, a new perspective was given to global conflicts similar to this. As an American, it is easy to say that we should not involve ourselves in other countries affairs, and only rescue those who posses United States citizenship. However, after seeing this part of the movie, it seems like we (the United States) should make our best attempts not to stop conflict, but to save innocent victims who are caught in the middle of such awful surroundings. This is because in certain situations, there simply is no escape for people who are hated without reason.
My second thought after viewing Hotel Rwanda is how closely it relates to Maus and the Holocaust. One scene in particular defines this thought; the clearing of the mist in which thousands of dead bodies are seen covering the streets. In Maus, Vladek discusses how thousands of people would not only be gassed to death, considered the lucky ones, but how when the gas chambers were full how the Jews would be forced into huge trenches only to be burned alive. This sort of act does not register in my mind as mass murder. This is extermination, similar to how humans would kill a hive of wasps. This term extermination is consistent in both texts, Hotel Rwanda and Maus, where hundreds of thousands of people, in both cases, were dehumanized and killed for possessing differences. It is a fact that is so unfathomable and shameful that it is part of humanity’s history.

Hotel Rwanda

In a movie like Hotel Rwanda, I think realism is paramount to the effect of the movie. I would say that this movie did rather well in that regard, though the situation it followed lended itself to be a little more tame. In making a movie like this, the purpose is to affect people and change their outlook on a situation and/or ideology. Watering down the true events will impede the storytellers' ability to affect the audience. The movie consisted of a lot of political struggle and less exposure to the horrors of the genocide. That's fine if the goal is to tell an engaging story, but it seemed that some of the reality of the situation was lost. In most situations like that in Rwanda, the vast majority of the population doesn't stay in a five-star hotel. I thought more attention should have been paid to the mass killings instead just showing a lot of soldiers that rarely did more than threaten.

While I think Hotel Rwanda did a fine job of telling the story of the Hutus and Tutsies, we must realize that the situation happened over ten years ago. This is an unfortunate resounding theme in these movies; they affect people greatly, but only after the situation is resolved. No movie has been made about Darfur or North Korea, and to my knowledge, none were made about Nazi Germany, Iraq during Saddam's regime, or Afghanistan during the Taliban's reign while they were still current. Mass media has extraordinary power over popular opinion, but it rarely utilizes it while it can still do some good. One could say that Fahrenheit 9/11 accomplished this, but I would contend that this may be a favorite movie of the Muslim extremists, which is counter-productive to our goal.

Foundations of a world view

I found it interesting to hear about Catholics who were shocked and distressed upon hearing that the Genesis story is myth in high school. I attended Catholic school from preschool on to my senior year of high school. My eighth grade science class contained a large “life science” component which was largely based on evolution. We learned about different organisms in the order they are believed to have evolved, from “lowest” to “highest.”

According the Catechism of the Catholic Church “110 In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. ‘For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.’” In other words, in order to properly examine religious texts we must take into account the historical framework under which they were written. Throughout my Catholic education I was always taught that an important part of looking at the conditions of the culture is examining the scientific beliefs that were then held. I was taught that the Creation story used the scientific framework of the day to teach the important religious lesson that God created the Earth.

I do not belief that science and religion must be or should be in direct competition. In my view, scientists hold the very important position of explaining, through observation and experimentation, the way that God designed the world to work. Many of them, of course, view their position differently, and that is perfectly alright. I believe that the relationship between religion and science becomes problematic when either tries to exploit the other for its own ends, for example, when religious groups try to force scientists to avoid studying things that they disagree with. Scientists also often overstep their bounds, trying to disprove God through empirical study. I believe that science needs to be primarily concerned with what can be observed and studied, while religion should concern itself with the question “but is that all?”

In my view, neither religion nor science is totally correct in all things nor can ever stop adapting to the changing world. Science is always evolving, replacing old theories with new. The theory of the flat earth has been replaced with a round (or rather oblong) one. The science of eugenics has been reconsidered and replaced. Religions too are constantly evolving. The Bible, for example, is no longer used as justification for slavery. The Catholic Church has backed down on its view that it is the ultimate bearer of scientific truth. I do not think that this means religions (or sciences) are becoming watered down or necessarily corrupted from their original purpose, but instead they are open to truths revealed by the changing world.

I believe that for a complete world view, neither religion nor science should be discounted. There seems to be a commonly held view that religion has become outdated and invalid as scientific reasoning and understanding grows. I think this is untrue because the things which concern religion are different than those which concern science and are equally valid in today’s world as they were thousands of years ago. The search for a greater purpose and an exploration of the spiritual side of human beings is not, and should not be, addressed by science. Instead of being in competition, I think that the diverse religious and scientific beliefs should be allowed to coexist so that each individual can search for truth and form their own world view using the evidence available to them.

Bacon

I thought Francis Bacon’s way of presenting the idols to show how to find truth was in interesting way of going about it. After talking about Bacon’s view points in class I thought that he made very good points about truth. I think that if we interpret what he’s saying as looking at things as a whole and finding the truth, then I agree. I think that it is important to be aware of biases in our thinking. Bacon’s way of presenting the idols helps to find the truth. Although it is not about what is true and what is false, we still need to look at what we’re doing and how we’re doing these things to know our biases and find truth.
It would be ideal to eliminate biases, but at the same time I think it makes our world different in a good way. Without biases, differences and different opinions, the other idols would not have a place and there would be no controversy. Most of us know by now that uncomfortable situations and tension help us to learn and understand new concepts. As far as science goes, I think Bacon’s ideas are okay to make sure we are discovering science in an unbiased and well thought-out way. It helps us to see our biases and false truths in our reasoning, but at the same time, everything cannot be based solely on science. There are moral, ethical and religious view points as well as science that need to come into play when trying to find the truth.

Art Spiegelman’s story of a family during the Holocaust is, in essence, very historically complete. Just about every aspect of this horrible event was addressed in a very understandable fashion. There are many aspects to these two graphic novels which can be addressed: Spiegelman’s story of prejudice can be tied into the ongoing prejudices in our present-day society, the use of graphics instead of just words, the personal aspect of the story, the psychological aspect which cannot be ignored, etc. The most influential portion for me, however, was Spiegelman’s use of animals as the different ethnicities within the graphic novels. For many reasons, which I will further explain, this unique form of storytelling and event portrayal deeply affected me.
The use of animals in these pieces has been argued to depict nationalities as stereotypical as well as oversimplifying political issues of the time. I disagree with this view, but what do you think? I can understand this side, being that it slightly portrays his work in a “fable-like” fashion, but I believe that we need to look deeper into why different animals were used. First of all, this portrayed the Jewish-Nazi relationship very well. The fact that mice are stereotypically weak and always running from the “larger” and “stronger” cats, gives a defined look at this particular relationship. Also, mice are considered vermin which need to be exterminated in our society, just as the Jews were sought after to be annihilated by the Nazis. I also believe that this animal, almost cartoon, portrayal of the Holocaust gave Spiegelman the sufficient emotional distance to write such a psychologically based piece. No matter what the reason for his use of animals, it cannot be denied that it aids in the comprehension of a complicated and horrible time in history. His story made me realize how Nazis separated themselves mentally from the Jews by thinking they were a different species, disgusting and non-human. How else could he have portrayed such huge ideas? Words would never be sufficient in showing how completely separated (i.e. different species of animals) the Nazis were in order to commit the crimes against the Jews, gypsies, etc.

Hotel Rwanda

Hotel Rwanda made a significant impact on me. I had not seen this movie before we saw it for class, but I am so happy that I did. The real life character of Paul made me think about true ethics and morality in life. Every aspect of this man’s life (or at least as it was portrayed in the film) was unselfish and giving. He was willing to risk his life for not only his family, but his people as well. He was unaffected by the prejudices in a society torn apart by war and stereotypes. This film portrayed a beautiful preservation of human life as well as a tragic demise of innocent people.
What intrigues me is that I was unaware of how tragic this situation in Rwanda was before I saw this movie. Being an American citizen, I like to feel that my country portrays the economic and political affairs of other countries accurately. However, I now see that there are many horrible things that we, in a wealthy society, close our eyes to and chose not to hear about. We surround our lives with media and information about “famous Hollywood celebrities” when we should be concentrating on the real heroes/celebrities (i.e. Paul). Do you think that it is better to remain ignorant if it shields us from such pain? Or, do we need to show a more empathetic side and start to feel the pain of our fellow humans? It is nice to just think about glamour and beauty, but world affairs should not be ignored just because they are ugly. In order to change anything, we need to face it first.

Hotel Rwanda

I know this is a little late but here are my thoughts after seeing Hotel Rwanda. I was surprised by the amount of people that were killed during the genocide. In the United States, most people knew that something bad was happening but they probably did not know to what degree. The movie shows a person how bad the situation really was. The scene where there were hundreds of bodies laying in the road put the size of the genocide into a real perspective. Another thing that shocked me was that the industrialized countries did not interfere more. The UN was trying to help but they proved to be worthless. If genocide where to happen in an industrialized country today, many other countries would commit some type of help but since it was happening in an African country, the countries barely even cared. The movie made me think of the current genocide in Sudan. The UN and other countries need to commit to stopping the genocide, but again since the countries are third world it is not a top priority. The industrialized nations saw what Hitler did with his genocide and they only got involved after most of the damage had been done. Hopefully, the west will send help before it is too late.

Rwanda vs. Iraq

I noticed that every time I watch Hotel Rwanda that I have a different reaction to its content. Since last semester I have become more politically aware of the occurrences in the Middle East. My critical thinking class was basically a crash course on the War on Terror. We learned about the reasons for the United States “interference” of this civil war in Iraq, and 9/11 gave us a “good excuse” to go in there. Since I have learned more information about this ongoing war, and as I continue to learn my ideas become more liberal (or against president Bush's decisions), but I saw an odd parallel between Hotel Rwanda and Iraq. Though the amount of deaths in Iraq isn’t near as many as in Rwanda, the fighting within Iraq is as brutally extreme as it was in Rwanda. The United States presence may be the only hope for those who want peace. In Rwanda countries came in, then left because of how horrible the situation was, much like Iraq. If the United States leaves, what will happen to these people? Will they continue to fight like they have been for years to come and many more deaths will occur? Is the presence of the United States pointless, while we lose our own men? Or is our presence a light of hope to the people of Iraq while they struggle for freedom from this civil war?

Hotel Rwanda

After watching the movie Hotel Rwanda, I was very surprised by how much damage was done in such a short period of time. The massacre only took place over the course of three and a half months. That’s a million deaths in a quarter of a year. I was so shocked that I had never heard of this happening before I saw the movie. If you think about it, the holocaust of WWII was six million people, but that was over many years. What happened in Rwanda also seemed much more conspicuous than what happened in the holocaust. They did not even try to disguise what they were doing. Something that both disasters had in common was they both had some kind of ring leader that made the people want to wipe out an entire race—Hitler for the nazis and the man on the radio for the Hutus. Another connection between the graphic novel Maus and the movie Hotel Rwanda was demonstrated in Maus II. There is a scene where Art is being questioned by some reporters about the publication of Maus I. One reporter asks why Art would even tell the story and asks why he is still trying to make the Germans feel bad about what happened so many years before. If I were Art, I would have responded to that question by saying that the book was not meant to make Germans feel bad for what their relatives did, but rather to inform all people of the events that took place. Like the quote that Matt put up (“Those that do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.”) I think that everyone should know what happened in the Holocaust and how horrible it was so that future generations may be spared from making the same mistake. The same idea goes for the movie Hotel Rwanda.

Rwanda After thoughts

Each day events like what happened in South Africa occur. It is frustrating to know that humans could even think to be so cruel to other humans just because someone tells them that there is a separation, in reality, does not truly exist. What took place in Hotel Rwanda is just a grain of sand compared to all of the horrible things that have taken place and are still taking place today around the world. So why are we not doing anything to prevent further destruction. Maybe we are all shrouded in a veil of ignorance or maybe we have unconsciously chosen to ignore what we are told. In the movie "Hotel Rwanda" the protagonist is speaking to one of the reporters after the reporter has filmed a brutal massacre outside of the village. The protagonist says that he knows help will come after the people of the world see what is actually happening there. The reporter replies that he does not agree, people will simply see what is happening and say "oh how terrible" before going back to eating their dinner or playing their games. Those who are surrounded by their everyday security and do not know the pain of having to fear for their lives everyday could not even begin to imagine the horrors that those living in this situation must go through. So in a way, they can not fathom this life and therefore dismiss it as less than what it is. I wish I could better express how I feel about this subject. The scene that impacted me the most was when they were riding down the foggy road on their way back to the hotel and the protagonist thought they had driven off of the road. After they pulled over, and he got out of the car, he realized that they were actually driving over the hundreds of bodies that had been placed there on the road. This scene was both horrifying and comprehensive for me. This scene gave me a visual of only a fraction of those who had been killed.

Reaction to Rwanda

As you all know, Hotel Rwanda is a very intense movie. After watching it, I was engulfed in thought. Mainly, I thought about how much I am unable to really relate to the people of Rwanda and of other places that have gone through such mass genocide. I feel like most people here in America lead pretty “cushy” lives and find it very hard to picture anything such as Rwanda happening to them. This is how I feel. I cannot even try to imagine how it would be to be afraid in my own house, to see my neighbors being kidnapped or killed, or dealing with death and destruction all around me all the time. The movie just left me in awe of how horrible things in the world can be. I usually go through my daily life without thinking about the rest of the world and taking most things for granted. This is probably how most people are as well. I guess it just boggles my mind to think that something like Rwanda can happen.

Frightful Forties (forgot 2 put it up last friday)

Maus II is a continuation of the frightful life Art’s dad Vladek experienced as a young adult. Throughout this novel, Art shows the cruel and unjust things the Nazi’s did to the Jews and their ways of trickery and deceit. One of the main points I can gather from this novel is to never trust anyone fully. By this I mean, the Jew’s along with others heard rumors about the Germans sending people to gas chambers but they thought if they cooperated, nothing bad would happen to them. However, as we know they got sent to the very same place eventually. Another main point I believe Art tries to get across is how one group of people can completely take over the lives of another group just because they have different beliefs. Even though the Jews were people just like everyone else, they were murdered and basically made slaves just because they didn’t have the same beliefs. Throughout the novel we see how one race can use their power in an unfair way.

I found Maus II a very well written novel. I think the fact he wrote it in a comic series really helped readers understand the concept of what happened better. I believed the Holocaust happened before I ever read this but when I did read Maus, I did not want to put the book down. With all the pictures and so forth, people are able to see the cruel treatment done by the German soldiers and how you had to be someone or be lucky to survive. Throughout the novel Vladek survived because he knew or could somewhat perform a bunch of different job traits. His idea to show a survivors tale in this form was a great one. Although some may have been offended, I don’t think anyone ever took lightly the story Art tells throughout his novel.

I also think the idea one race decides to completely wipe out another is horrible. No matter what people are people. Everyone is the same except they may have different beliefs and opinions, besides that though they all perform pretty much the same daily functions. To be able to kill so many and not feel bad but actually enjoy what they were doing is beyond me. The German soldiers had no problem inflicting harm onto others. They found their job humorous at times, and others just watched as they did it. Why would others just let them get away with such a cruel act? That question was asked a lot and everyone had different reasons. One mainly being fear of it happening to them. However, if you let one race wipe out another I don’t see why people wouldn’t think they could be next.

People may really believe that people aren’t that unjust and cruel. One point was never to trust another fully. I find this true in many cases. When hearing about the gas chambers noone thought the German’s would really go that far. It happens in everyday life. We hear one thing and don’t think it could really be that bad. A story I heard that isn’t exactly about the Holocaust but is about war really shocked me. We were talking about the war in Iraq and one thing I found out was that the government doesn’t pay for the soldiers to have bullet proof vests. If they want one they have to pay for their own. Why is our government able to spend money to try and rebuild Iraq, a nation that is our enemy but they can’t make sure their own soldiers are fully equipped and safe. That is pathetic in my opinion. Another story that disturbs me is about a friend of my aunt’s son. Her son signed up for two years and during that time an explosion that went off messed up his teeth. When his time came to go home, they would not let him. They made him stay another two months if he wanted them to pay for the cost of fixing up his teeth. How unfair is that? Were suppose to trust our government system but we really have no idea what is going on behind the scenes.

I Was Just Thinking

I have had a lot of free time to think over the course of this very short spring break. The have been a lot of issues concerning the rights of humans. Well one of those issues is genetic engineering. Well genetic engineering is a very expansive category. A couple of the subjects are genetically engineered food and, maybe the most controversial, cloning. Now I have done very little research on both of these issues and can kind of see the views and concerns of the main two sides of these issues.

Genetically engineered food can be useful to increase the amounts of vitamins and minerals in different types of food. In addition if one also combines cloning with genetic engineering it could be very easy to end world hunger by increasing the food supply. But....... would this be playing God? Maybe there is a reason that there is an abundant need for food and a short supply. I am not saying that this is deserving of anyone, but rather let us examine one of the reasons there are forest fires and what the effects are for them. Well in a forest there becomes a build up of organic waste like leaves, dead organisms, and so on the forest bottom. Well the process of decomposition can take quite a long time. Also in the process there becomes a build up of gasses. Well when a forest fire starts "naturally" the gross build up is eliminated along with, sadly, some of the organisms that are perhaps to slow to get out of the way (fact of life: the weaker of a species generally does not survive). These natural forest fires are nature's way of replenishing itself and starting over. It is kind of like pressing the reset button on your computer when it starts to bog down or is frozen. Once the extra organic waste is no more, this allows for the forest floor to sprout seedlings and new micro ecosystems have room to develop. And remember how some of the different species were also eliminated? Well now there is a lower demand of food (also a lower supply of food in a way), and new food for the new population density. Getting back to genetically engineered food and the world's food supply, well..... everyday people die of natural and not so natural deaths. There are many factors that go into balancing out the human population. One such factor is food supply verses demand. In nature there are examples of where there is a plentiful amount of food and therefore the population in that area tends to boom (one must also take into account the predator to prey factor). There will continue to be a large increase of the population until there is a higher demand for food and a lower supply. Then a fraction of the population will disappear and perhaps the process will start over again. The same goes for the human population, mess with the amount of food available and risk throwing of the carefully balanced population.

Now I know there are many dieing each day in some countries due to food shortage while in other countries there are those who each day waste a large percentage of food. We need to create a different method of distribution to fix this problem. Just a thought…..

Now cloning and genetically engineered humans; things that fill the pages of science fiction novels. This is a subject of both how far can humans go before going too far and morals. I will leave this issue open for discussion. I want to know how the general public of the class would approach this issue. Keep in mind that cloning and genetic engineering of humans can be very closely related to the cloning and genetic engineering of food.

Mighty Maus

In Maus II, Art continues interviewing his father, Vladek, about his experiences during the Holocaust. As in the first Maus, they constantly bicker, but Vladek finishes his story just before he passes away. Most of the story takes place in the concentration camp Auschwitz. A common battle in the story is Vladek's determination to be with his wife Anja again. In our discussion yesterday, Chad mentioned some characteristics of a “great idea.” As much as I hate to admit it, by this definition (the idea impacts a large group of people), the holocaust was, indeed, a great idea. I do think that a lot of the reason this was able to take place was because of how gradual the changes were. I know that this is not the entire reason, but I don’t think you can deny that gradual changes rather than extreme changes are more likely to be overlooked by the people being impacted. I also think it is understandable how it was easy for the Germans to jump on the bandwagon the want to kill the Jews because there was a lot of bitterness towards them from World War I. WWI devastated the country of Germany and many people were looking for a scapegoat. It was not just something random like America all of a sudden wanting to kill everyone from Paraguay. I’m sure Hitler wasn’t just sitting around his room thinking, “Hmmm, I really feel like committing mass genocide today… but which race should I pick…. How bout the Jews…” I don’t really see that happening. The events that took place were no doubt wicked, but I think it is important to try to get inside the Nazis heads to try to understand what was going on.
I have to say that this reading has been by far my favorite assignment this semester. I love the way it was written as much as I love the information it contains. My favorite and simultaneously least favorite part of Maus II was the scene on with Art and François on the porch with the bug spray (page 74). The parallelism was intense. I liked how Art used this to give the reader a glimpse of what was happening in the minds of the Nazis and the mentality they had toward the Jews. They simply saw them as vermin to be eliminated. The part I don’t like is that that mentality disgusts me. I almost don’t want to believe that any person could possibly think that about another person. I have to wonder what Art did when he was writing Maus and looked back on that conversation. Did he realize the parallelism right away? Or was it afterwards while recalling what to include in the book?
It is a bit unnerving to know that things not unlike the Holocaust of WWII are still occurring today. I think the class got a taste of this from watching Hotel Rwanda. Genocide is still happening in Africa, especially in Darfur. I think there are some videos on youtube about it if you are interested in learning more.
And speaking of youtube, here are the links to the song and

The Illusion of Race and the Person Behind the Mask

Throughout human history people have been divided across arbitrary lines and persecuted on the basis of these divisions. Race is one of these arbitrary divides. According to the PBS website, race itself is a man-made concept; it is not real or scientific “Unlike many animals, modern humans have not been around long enough, nor have populations been isolated enough, to evolve into separate subspecies or races. Despite surface differences, we are among the most similar of all species.” (http://www.pbs.org/race/001_WhatIsRace/001_00-home.htm) Another interesting quote from the site is “Of the small amount of human genetic variation, 85% exists within any local population, be they Italians, Kurds, Koreans, or Cherokees. Two Koreans are likely to be as genetically different as a Kurd and an Italian.” In both Hotel Rwanda and Maus it is the artificial boundary of race that gave people a sense of entitlement and drove them to dehumanize and destroy each other.

In Hotel Rwanda the Belgians arbitrarily divided the people of Rwanda into Tutsis and Hutus. The Belgians favored the Tutsis because they “looked more like Europeans.” Genetically these boundaries do not exist. Even in the movie, as a Hutu and a Tutsi are compared side by side, it was impossible to tell them apart. It was simply the race listed on their identification card that made them be treated like a different species, like “cockroaches.” These two arbitrary groups went back and forth in their power struggle, dehumanizing the other group despite their lack of differences.

During the Holocaust it is these artificial boundaries of race that divide the Jews from the Germans and the Poles. Vladek himself could pass himself off as many different races because of his appearance and his knowledge of different languages. Those killed in concentration camps did not even need to identify with the group they were being killed for being a member of. All that mattered was the label on their identification papers and the symbol on their chest. In Maus a man claims that he should not be in the concentration camps because he is German, not Jewish. It is not actually important what his race truly his, the papers say that he is a Jew and that, according to the Germans, makes him inferior. In reality, as the PBS articles point out, humans are not genetically differentiated to be different races, let alone different species which are superior or inferior to one another. In Maus the different races are illustrated as being different types of animals. It is important to note that during many scenes that take place in the present, the animals are represented only as people wearing masks. Underneath they are all the same, they are all people. During World War Two Germany (and Rwanda when the action of the movie took place) the superficial differences in appearance between people was made into such an integral part of people that they were killed because of it. In periods like these people are not at all able to see the people behind the masks.

Hotel Rwanda and link to conflict in Somalia, 1993

I believe everyone that has posted on Hotel Rwanda has given ample background information and summary. Therefore, I will not rehash what has already been posted. What I wanted to bring to everyone’s attention is a possible reason for the lack of intervention on behalf of the US. Now, of course stopping a genocide such as the one in Rwanda is a huge undertaking and cannot be resolved in a few steps, and I do believe that our country could have done something to at least help. Yet after doing some outside research I believe I have found one good explanation for our country’s hesitancy to get involved, and it may not be something most have though about.

First off, I have seen Hotel Rwanda many times, and every time I watch it I take something different away from it. Of course one of the biggest issues I began to think about was the civil warfare between people in their own neighborhoods. When walking back to class, some of the images of the urban warfare in the movie sparked thoughts about the conflict in Somalia in 1993 and some of the many parallels between the two situations. Now granted, there was not a mass genocide in Somalia, but there are many similarities in the type of warfare and strife that went on among the citizens. I’m sure many people have heard of the movie Black Hawk Down, but here is some general information about that incident anyway:

When many people think of the Somalia conflict in 1993, they think of the Battle of Mogadishu, where a group of Task Force Rangers were sent into the city to capture certain leaders of the Aidid militia. Mohammed Aidid was a powerful warlord that ran the city at that time and did so through terror. Previous to the time when Aidid became a powerful warlord, there were four main groups fighting for control: the United Somali Congress, the Somali Salvation Democratic Front, the Somali Patriotic Movement, and the Somali Democratic Movement. These groups went back and forth for control of the country, resulting in hard times for the people living there. Notice the similarities to Rwanda, where the Hutus and the Tutsies consistently battled back and forth for power. When the warlord Aidid came about, he had such power and such a loyal following by the Somali militia fighters that the US felt it was the time to interject. During the Battle of Mogadishu, two Black Hawk Helicopters were shot down and the crews were stranded where they fell. Urban fighting continued all night and the stranded crews were left to fend for themselves against the riotous Somalis. When all was said and done and the US troops had made it out, 18 Americans had died and an estimated 1000 were wounded.

My point (Well, Wikipedia’s): “The Battle of Mogadishu led to a profound shift in American foreign policy, as the Clinton administration became increasingly reluctant to use military intervention in Third World Conflicts” (Wikipedia)

My point: This battle happened one year before the conflict in Rwanda that we saw in the video. I think the battle had a direct influence on the response (or lack of) on the US’s part. I think events like this are absolutely devastating, and I do believe that there is some way that we can help (or could have). Yet after doing this outside research, it gave me a better understanding of some of the reasons why we didn’t get involved in Rwanda and don’t always jump right in as the world police. These issues are so complicated and deal with more than right vs. wrong (for example, economy, political repercussions around the world, foreign relations, etc), and I think that people need to think about these different aspects.

Here is that link to the Wikipedia article I got a lot of my Somalia information from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu

Maus and South Africa

The graphic novel Maus is an artist’s interpretation of his father remembering his experience with the Nazis and Auschwitz in World War II. In addition to the war stories Spiegelman, focuses some of the story on how his father met his mother and their relationship before, during, and after the war. To represent the different characters in the story he chose animals. The Jewish people were represented by mice and the Nazis as cats. He did this to show the relationship between the two groups. The Nazis hunted the Jewish people, like cats hunt mice. He used his ability to draw comics as a new means for telling the story of the Holocaust and other Nazi related activities.

After reading about how the Nazis treated the Jewish people as less than human, the South African Apartheid government came to my mind. South Africa was a colony of the Netherlands. The country attracted the Europeans because of its locations. It is located on the southern tip of Africa, so when sailing past the Cape of Good Hope, having control of the land allowed boats to stop. Control of the colony eventually came under control of the British Empire. The British gave the colony internal self-government. The apartheid government was created by the Nationalist Party in 1948. Once in power the party passed laws that promote very strict segregation. Homelands were created, and every black was assigned a homeland. The homelands were separate countries from South Africa and the blacks were given citizenship to their homeland, creating an all white South Africa. Blacks could live in zones of South Africa as guest workers. Unemployment among blacks was high because they could not own property to have a business or farm and they had no educational opportunities. In addition, restrictions were placed on blacks on where they could and could not travel. They had to carry identification cards that said what homeland they belonged to. The police were used to keep resistance down. The Nationalist Party outlawed their political opposition, the African National Congress (ANC). Its leader was Nelson Mandela. The ANC would use violence to oppose the apartheid government. Eventually, the Nationalist Party realized that if they did not change their ways, there would be a massacre. To avoid their deaths, they released Mandela from prison after 20 years. Mandela began negotiations for a transition. The transition was complete in 1994, when he was elected as the first president of South Africa.

This reminded me of how the Nazis treated the Jewish people. The Nazis forced them to move from their home, like how the blacks were forced to move to the homelands. The Jewish people also had to carry papers to show that they were working, like the blacks having to show their identification cards. Both the Nazis and the apartheid government decided that other races were inferior to their own race and they must be taken care of. The apartheid government did not commit mass genocide like the Nazis, but they did create an all white country. They took away the country from the majority population, who had been living there long before the imperialists came. One positive difference between the Nazis and the apartheid government was that the Nationalists did not want a bloody massacre, so they negotiated a peaceful transition. One thing that surprised me about South Africa was that there was still segregation in the early 90’s. Many people forget that not all countries have the political equality that we have here.

I think that Maus was a unique way to tell a story and I think that it is more effective than some people give it credit for. I have read other book on the Holocaust, like Night by Elie Wiesel, and he went into some graphic detail. What I liked about Maus was that there were pictures that went with the story. These pictures gave the reader more of an impression of a situation, without them the reader having to imagine the situation in their head. I also liked how Art wrote about how the Nazi experience affected his father in the rest of his life. I think that the affects, after the Nazis, on others lives are also important and can sometimes be over looked.