That heading sounds extremely presumptuous, I know. Not I nor anyone will have the last word on that subject. Greater minds than mine have tried.
The previous post talked about mankind or humanity collectively. One more thought on that: When individuals constitute a mob, the collective intelligence can go totally wild and berserk. That's implicit in the idea of a mob. The mob tramples, the mob lynches. Even in demonstrations, when a political position has to be reduced to a few words to make a slogan chanted or put on a banner or a placard, it is worse than oversimplified: it's an idea reduced almost to meaninglessness, all the thought and rationality taken out of it. Maybe that's a main reason I don't participate in demonstrations.
But now I want to talk about individuals. There are good people and bad people. I didn't used to believe that there was such a thing as evil or evil people. However, when we have people who lie, rob, cheat; when we have dictators and mass murderers who arrest and "disappear" and torture and murder sometimes tens and hundreds of thousands of people—Hitler, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Gen. Pinochet in Chile, with a little thought the sad list can become far too long—we might have to wonder whether there are evil people or if evil in the abstract exists.
Certainly it looks as though some people have no conscience. I think that criminologists call these people amoral or sociopaths or criminally insane. Others, such as the "financiers," for example, who manage to cheat others out of millions of dollars, maybe their greed gets the best of them, consumes them, lets them subordinate their conscience or rationalize their actions.
It's not clear to me that religion effectively restrains people from committing evil. Big mafiosi would go to church on Sundays and go on having people killed the other six days of the week. Not to mention that religion has often induced people to do harm, but that would be going off on another, very large topic.
I tend to think that good and bad—angel and devil, if you want to use the terms, but I'd only use them metaphorically—both exist within each of us. That is, I think even the best of us can behave horribly and certainly be unkind, even horribly cruel, to others.
In between the whole of the human species and individuals there are groups. Within any group (of a certain size) you've got the whole range of humanity, from good to bad. I have often written critically about the police, but I'm sure that, within any large enough group of police, you would find the whole range, from good to bad—with probably a majority in the middle who are neither outstandingly good nor definitely bad, either. So maybe there are lots of individuals in that great middle who now and then, when there are little incidents of bending the rules, will close their eyes or turn a deaf ear. But maybe the big stinkers started out that way.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
My Verdict on Mankind--After 68 Years
Regular readers of my blog, if they happen to be very thoughtful people (or if they have the leisure and curiosity to do so), may have thought about what view of humanity is implicit in much of what I write.
If so, it's probably pretty clear to those people that I have a somewhat cynical view of human intelligence and rationality. For example, in the recent political season I was complaining about how easily people allow themselves to be manipulated by slogans--which always oversimplify issues—and other superficial, simplified, or downright wrong ideas. I feel that critical thinking is in short supply.
But we've somehow survived some major crossroads situations. When I was a young child in school, the Soviet Union had recently developed atomic bombs, and—remember, this was the Cold War, and a time of hysterical fear of Communism at home and abroad—the U.S. truly believed that the Soviets might attack the U.S. with nuclear-armed missiles. So our grade-school classes had bomb drills. In my school, we all moved into the corridors—away from windows, I guess. Evidently in some other schools it was "get under your desks and tuck your head down."
Well, at least for 60 years, mankind has managed to avoid mutual nuclear annihilation. To put it mildly, that's reassuring, and helps improve one's view of human rationality.
Now, however, we face a new set of challenges, like global warming. It remains to be seen whether nations can collectively move to preserve our planet from disaster this time. So maybe the jury is out on some questions.
Has there been progress? I think that nowadays we have higher standards, in some respects, for how we treat one another. On the other hand, remember that World War I was supposed to be "the war to end all wars." Then, after we had another world war, the United Nations was established to end armed conflict between nations. But we've failed, in almost a century since the First World War, to end war. We haven't had another conflict on a global scale in the 65 years since WW II, but the count of wars that have occurred worldwide in the last 50 years is astonishing. One problem there is that one thing has not changed: I feel that military, Pentagon types are overgrown boys who like their toys (they call them "weapons") and always want more and more destructive toys. But that is starting to go off on another subject.
I think that, in more general human affairs—how nations govern themselves, what wars are waged and what wars averted, what persecutions and genocides occur—humanity will manage to muddle through as it has for thousands of years. That is, we as a species will survive, but in the course of things there will be a lot of misery and killing caused to humans by humans.
So that is where my thinking has arrived, after a few decades of my life--not that I'm really quite old enough to be talking like a bona fide elder. I'm confident my perspective on things does not seem way out of step, or irrational. For another man's very thoughtful and thought-provoking view, read An Essay on Man (1773 - 1774) by Alexander Pope.
Update, September 9, 2011
I have to admit I get saddened and maybe discouraged by the innumerable and unceasing examples of human greed, selfishness, stupidity--and Man's capacity to lie. Think what a different world it would be if human beings could not lie, and you knew you could believe everything anyone said! Of course that's not going to happen.
But just now, if you look at the political situation in the US, it looks as though we've got plenty of obstacles in the way even of our being able to govern ourselves intelligently and effectively. And, as to global warming, I expect the planet to become a less and less habitable place as the consequences of global warming march on unchecked.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
If so, it's probably pretty clear to those people that I have a somewhat cynical view of human intelligence and rationality. For example, in the recent political season I was complaining about how easily people allow themselves to be manipulated by slogans--which always oversimplify issues—and other superficial, simplified, or downright wrong ideas. I feel that critical thinking is in short supply.
But we've somehow survived some major crossroads situations. When I was a young child in school, the Soviet Union had recently developed atomic bombs, and—remember, this was the Cold War, and a time of hysterical fear of Communism at home and abroad—the U.S. truly believed that the Soviets might attack the U.S. with nuclear-armed missiles. So our grade-school classes had bomb drills. In my school, we all moved into the corridors—away from windows, I guess. Evidently in some other schools it was "get under your desks and tuck your head down."
Well, at least for 60 years, mankind has managed to avoid mutual nuclear annihilation. To put it mildly, that's reassuring, and helps improve one's view of human rationality.
Now, however, we face a new set of challenges, like global warming. It remains to be seen whether nations can collectively move to preserve our planet from disaster this time. So maybe the jury is out on some questions.
Has there been progress? I think that nowadays we have higher standards, in some respects, for how we treat one another. On the other hand, remember that World War I was supposed to be "the war to end all wars." Then, after we had another world war, the United Nations was established to end armed conflict between nations. But we've failed, in almost a century since the First World War, to end war. We haven't had another conflict on a global scale in the 65 years since WW II, but the count of wars that have occurred worldwide in the last 50 years is astonishing. One problem there is that one thing has not changed: I feel that military, Pentagon types are overgrown boys who like their toys (they call them "weapons") and always want more and more destructive toys. But that is starting to go off on another subject.
I think that, in more general human affairs—how nations govern themselves, what wars are waged and what wars averted, what persecutions and genocides occur—humanity will manage to muddle through as it has for thousands of years. That is, we as a species will survive, but in the course of things there will be a lot of misery and killing caused to humans by humans.
So that is where my thinking has arrived, after a few decades of my life--not that I'm really quite old enough to be talking like a bona fide elder. I'm confident my perspective on things does not seem way out of step, or irrational. For another man's very thoughtful and thought-provoking view, read An Essay on Man (1773 - 1774) by Alexander Pope.
Update, September 9, 2011
I have to admit I get saddened and maybe discouraged by the innumerable and unceasing examples of human greed, selfishness, stupidity--and Man's capacity to lie. Think what a different world it would be if human beings could not lie, and you knew you could believe everything anyone said! Of course that's not going to happen.
But just now, if you look at the political situation in the US, it looks as though we've got plenty of obstacles in the way even of our being able to govern ourselves intelligently and effectively. And, as to global warming, I expect the planet to become a less and less habitable place as the consequences of global warming march on unchecked.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Soup for People into Healthy Eating
I eat a lot of soup; can't keep myself supplied with it. But since I became concerned about the BPA that is in cans, including soup cans, I've been buying only soup in boxes (and occasionally those little one-serving cups where you add water and microwave them). Also, I won't buy any soup that's high in sodium--which excludes probably about 90% of soup, both in cans and boxes.
One brand that seems to have appeared recently is called FIG Food Company. I just had their lentil soup, which I thought was pretty good. I also had their Tuscan White Bean soup, but that one I found rather pretty bland.
These come in little boxes (two servings) for about $3. A similar one is Dr. McDougal's. Some of their soups are pretty good, and some are bland. You've got to sample them and see which ones you like.
Since low-sodium soups can be a bit bland or even cardboard-y, I often add some of my own herbs or spices, and that makes a very worthwhile improvement. For example, cumin for the lentil soup, basil for anything tomato-y, curry powder sometimes, pepper in almost anything. Maybe a little Tobasco.
One brand that seems to have appeared recently is called FIG Food Company. I just had their lentil soup, which I thought was pretty good. I also had their Tuscan White Bean soup, but that one I found rather pretty bland.
These come in little boxes (two servings) for about $3. A similar one is Dr. McDougal's. Some of their soups are pretty good, and some are bland. You've got to sample them and see which ones you like.
Since low-sodium soups can be a bit bland or even cardboard-y, I often add some of my own herbs or spices, and that makes a very worthwhile improvement. For example, cumin for the lentil soup, basil for anything tomato-y, curry powder sometimes, pepper in almost anything. Maybe a little Tobasco.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Is It True, or Just a Joke?
Unless you've been living in a cave or on top of the Himalayas, you know that "erectile dysfunction" has become a household word. This is because of the development--and incessant promotion--of drugs to treat this condition.
No word on what effect that has had on the birth rate.
Anyway, I ordered one of those drugs, Cialis, over the Internet. What I got was a huge poster of a naked woman. It said "This is Alice." The idea was, you see Alice, you get an erection.
That was just a joke, folks.
On another subject: I'm turning into some kind of monster, hybrid bird. I've got crow's feet and turkey neck.
That one may be funny, but it's not a joke.
My car isn't a V-8 or V-6. It's a VD. That's "very decrepit."
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
No word on what effect that has had on the birth rate.
Anyway, I ordered one of those drugs, Cialis, over the Internet. What I got was a huge poster of a naked woman. It said "This is Alice." The idea was, you see Alice, you get an erection.
That was just a joke, folks.
On another subject: I'm turning into some kind of monster, hybrid bird. I've got crow's feet and turkey neck.
That one may be funny, but it's not a joke.
My car isn't a V-8 or V-6. It's a VD. That's "very decrepit."
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
What Happened to Ancient Civilizations?
I'm quite interested in ancient history and archeology; and I continually come across names of peoples, kingdoms, empires, civilizations that are "lost"—that is, they disappeared, and many of the names of these cultures are not even widely known today.
What happened to these peoples? Well, in one case it's pretty well known what happened. Take the Celtic people known as Britons, who inhabited England before England was invaded by the Angles and Saxons (German peoples) around 450 A.D.
These Britons were driven west, into what is now Wales and Cornwall; and also many of them fled across the English Channel to Brittany (now you know how Brittany got its name).
Also, undoubtedly, many stayed where they were and lost their cultural (and linguistic) identity by being absorbed through intermarriage or acculturation. This might be somewhat similar to what happened to native peoples in the U.S. and some other countries, except that the process had a longer time to operate so it could have been accomplished more thoroughly.
Sadly, a very common scenario is conquest where many people are killed. In the case of many kingdoms and empires of the past, it's clear that the capital city fell in war. Surviving remains show evidence of siege and burning. For example, Alexander the Great (4th century BC) wanted to avenge the Persians' conquest of Greece. So when he, in his eastward march of conquest, came to the Persian capital of Persepolis, he was quite merciless in his destruction. Pretty much any conquest involved destruction: sacking, looting, burning. Many great cities were pretty much reduced to piles of rubble.
So what became of the people? Again, many doubtless were killed: by the sword, or they perished in the widespread conflagration of their city. As one example: Genghis Khan was renowned for his ruthlessness, and when he conquered a kingdom in what is now Afghanistan, he slaughtered nearly every last inhabitant.
Consider those who might have survived: What would you do if your house was burnt along with all your possessions? You'd pick up your family and try to escape and flee to some place that you considered safe, or that you knew about (and had an idea in what direction it lay) or where you might have had friends or relatives.
Of course the people who fled war and found refuge somewhere else would have been immigrants in their new home and would have eventually been absorbed, learning the new language and customs and so losing their original cultural identity.
The last scenario for the fall of an empire or kingdom might be called internal collapse. Two examples are the Hittites and the Maya. In these instances, the people did not necessarily or literally simply disappear off the face of the Earth.
The Hittites had a great kingdom in Anatolia (roughly modern Turkey) up to around 1100 B.C. Why their empire fell has only recently come to be understood, and it looks like it's pretty much a matter of internal strife, more or less civil war. In this case we know that the Hittite Empire was succeeded by smaller "Neo-Hittite" kingdoms. In other words, the people were still there, and they tried to pull things together after the great tragedy of the fall of their empire and get an organized society going again.
The Maya, who had a complex civilization in Mexico and Central America, are another case to look at. They (like a great many peoples) built "city-states." Some of these were rivals so again there was war and conquest. But even before the Spanish arrived to do their conquest thing, some of the great Maya city states apparently simply collapsed, their great ceremonial cities abandoned. Exactly what happened is not completely clear (one idea is that the people just sort of kicked out their kings). But the people, the race and language, are very much still alive.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
What happened to these peoples? Well, in one case it's pretty well known what happened. Take the Celtic people known as Britons, who inhabited England before England was invaded by the Angles and Saxons (German peoples) around 450 A.D.
These Britons were driven west, into what is now Wales and Cornwall; and also many of them fled across the English Channel to Brittany (now you know how Brittany got its name).
Also, undoubtedly, many stayed where they were and lost their cultural (and linguistic) identity by being absorbed through intermarriage or acculturation. This might be somewhat similar to what happened to native peoples in the U.S. and some other countries, except that the process had a longer time to operate so it could have been accomplished more thoroughly.
Sadly, a very common scenario is conquest where many people are killed. In the case of many kingdoms and empires of the past, it's clear that the capital city fell in war. Surviving remains show evidence of siege and burning. For example, Alexander the Great (4th century BC) wanted to avenge the Persians' conquest of Greece. So when he, in his eastward march of conquest, came to the Persian capital of Persepolis, he was quite merciless in his destruction. Pretty much any conquest involved destruction: sacking, looting, burning. Many great cities were pretty much reduced to piles of rubble.
So what became of the people? Again, many doubtless were killed: by the sword, or they perished in the widespread conflagration of their city. As one example: Genghis Khan was renowned for his ruthlessness, and when he conquered a kingdom in what is now Afghanistan, he slaughtered nearly every last inhabitant.
Consider those who might have survived: What would you do if your house was burnt along with all your possessions? You'd pick up your family and try to escape and flee to some place that you considered safe, or that you knew about (and had an idea in what direction it lay) or where you might have had friends or relatives.
Of course the people who fled war and found refuge somewhere else would have been immigrants in their new home and would have eventually been absorbed, learning the new language and customs and so losing their original cultural identity.
The last scenario for the fall of an empire or kingdom might be called internal collapse. Two examples are the Hittites and the Maya. In these instances, the people did not necessarily or literally simply disappear off the face of the Earth.
The Hittites had a great kingdom in Anatolia (roughly modern Turkey) up to around 1100 B.C. Why their empire fell has only recently come to be understood, and it looks like it's pretty much a matter of internal strife, more or less civil war. In this case we know that the Hittite Empire was succeeded by smaller "Neo-Hittite" kingdoms. In other words, the people were still there, and they tried to pull things together after the great tragedy of the fall of their empire and get an organized society going again.
The Maya, who had a complex civilization in Mexico and Central America, are another case to look at. They (like a great many peoples) built "city-states." Some of these were rivals so again there was war and conquest. But even before the Spanish arrived to do their conquest thing, some of the great Maya city states apparently simply collapsed, their great ceremonial cities abandoned. Exactly what happened is not completely clear (one idea is that the people just sort of kicked out their kings). But the people, the race and language, are very much still alive.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Monday, November 8, 2010
Food Insecurity in America
We learn from recent news that "food insecurity" is a growing problem in America—defined as not always having enough money for food. This means more children are not receiving adequate nutrition, and this might affect their performance in school. Another factor that may be associated with food insecurity is that fact that the height of Americans has ceased to increase and in fact has decreased. Americans used to be the tallest nation but now the Dutch are on average taller—by two inches (5 cm).
The U.S. is ranked third in the world in incidence of obesity (meaning we are the third fattest country, and numbers 1 and 2 are very small island nations). Perhaps paradoxically, obesity in many Americans results from a poor diet which in turn is a result of lack of financial means. Lower-income families have more frequent recourse to fast food, which provides cheap nutrition and lots of calories, but carries with it lots of fat and sodium.
Also, lower income people can't afford healthier foods like fresh fruit and vegetables and whole grains. Also, I increasingly read that people in poorer areas often do not have access to stores that provide wide food choices. Stores with wide nutritional offerings are simply absent from many areas such as minority neighborhoods.
So, while we are among the fattest on the planet, we are far from the best-nourished. A national shame.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
The U.S. is ranked third in the world in incidence of obesity (meaning we are the third fattest country, and numbers 1 and 2 are very small island nations). Perhaps paradoxically, obesity in many Americans results from a poor diet which in turn is a result of lack of financial means. Lower-income families have more frequent recourse to fast food, which provides cheap nutrition and lots of calories, but carries with it lots of fat and sodium.
Also, lower income people can't afford healthier foods like fresh fruit and vegetables and whole grains. Also, I increasingly read that people in poorer areas often do not have access to stores that provide wide food choices. Stores with wide nutritional offerings are simply absent from many areas such as minority neighborhoods.
So, while we are among the fattest on the planet, we are far from the best-nourished. A national shame.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Friday, November 5, 2010
Can Money Buy Happiness?
Ethel Merman (famous vaudeville star early in the 20th century) famously said, "I've been rich, and I've been poor; and believe me, rich is better."
My way of putting it would be, Rich gets more points in the game of life than Poor. Many privileges are bestowed on those with money. Big contributors to theatre troupes get assigned better seats at performances, and it's the big benefactors who get invited to serve on the boards of non-profit organizations. I support a local academic/scholarly/cultural institution; but the people who pay more, for a different class of membership, are invited to special events that I do not get invited to. People who contribute more to their local PBS station get all kinds of free gifts. Etc., ad nauseam.
My mother used to put it thusly: Him what has, gets. And it's so true.
Something in me always feels that that is not fair. But then, the more mature attitude is that life is not fair.
I do, as my readers may know, tend to have sympathy for the less-advantaged, rather than the privileged. Those who are old enough may remember Pete Seeger, a folk singer. Pete was a great champion of the common man and sang union songs, anti-war songs, and so forth. He was one of my heroes (he suffered for his views because he was blacklisted during the McCarthy Era).
Present-day America is characterized by pursuit of money and possessions (of course one of the main uses of money is to acquire stuff). There are sayings like The best things in life are free. Money can't buy happiness.
A recent study that I read about tried to test whether those with more money are indeed happier. Very interesting. They said that having more money, up to a certain level ($75,000), does make one happier. I guess that "freedom from want" makes for greater happiness, and I'd certainly say that makes sense. But, according to the study, increase in wealth beyond that level does not make for greater happiness.
Then why do people do illegal and semi-legal things to gain money? Is it for the sake of privileges like the ones I mentioned above?
Update, February 25, 2012
Some further thoughts, maybe not quite on the subject of money and happiness, but still on the topic of the privileges that money gets one.
I remembered another old saying, "Money talks." It's very true. Those with wealth usually also have various kinds of power or influence, too.
It may be a matter of how you are treated in various spheres of life. I am not usually on the wealthy/influential end of things, but here's one example where I am (or was):
A lot of organizations like colleges, universities, and other non-profits that depend on contributions employ someone with the title of "Development" chair or officer or vice-president (etc.). "Development," in a world where things were more honestly labeled, would be called "kissing the asses of rich people." It's the job of these people to bring in contributions, so they interact with potential donors. On any (very rare) occasion when I might be in the position of a donor, potential or actual, I find that I can talk to these "development" people and they will jump to try to make or keep me happy--apologizing for anything I might have to gripe about, trying to fix this or that, doing what they can to appease or please or satisfy me.
Money talks.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
My way of putting it would be, Rich gets more points in the game of life than Poor. Many privileges are bestowed on those with money. Big contributors to theatre troupes get assigned better seats at performances, and it's the big benefactors who get invited to serve on the boards of non-profit organizations. I support a local academic/scholarly/cultural institution; but the people who pay more, for a different class of membership, are invited to special events that I do not get invited to. People who contribute more to their local PBS station get all kinds of free gifts. Etc., ad nauseam.
My mother used to put it thusly: Him what has, gets. And it's so true.
Something in me always feels that that is not fair. But then, the more mature attitude is that life is not fair.
I do, as my readers may know, tend to have sympathy for the less-advantaged, rather than the privileged. Those who are old enough may remember Pete Seeger, a folk singer. Pete was a great champion of the common man and sang union songs, anti-war songs, and so forth. He was one of my heroes (he suffered for his views because he was blacklisted during the McCarthy Era).
Present-day America is characterized by pursuit of money and possessions (of course one of the main uses of money is to acquire stuff). There are sayings like The best things in life are free. Money can't buy happiness.
A recent study that I read about tried to test whether those with more money are indeed happier. Very interesting. They said that having more money, up to a certain level ($75,000), does make one happier. I guess that "freedom from want" makes for greater happiness, and I'd certainly say that makes sense. But, according to the study, increase in wealth beyond that level does not make for greater happiness.
Then why do people do illegal and semi-legal things to gain money? Is it for the sake of privileges like the ones I mentioned above?
Update, February 25, 2012
Some further thoughts, maybe not quite on the subject of money and happiness, but still on the topic of the privileges that money gets one.
I remembered another old saying, "Money talks." It's very true. Those with wealth usually also have various kinds of power or influence, too.
It may be a matter of how you are treated in various spheres of life. I am not usually on the wealthy/influential end of things, but here's one example where I am (or was):
A lot of organizations like colleges, universities, and other non-profits that depend on contributions employ someone with the title of "Development" chair or officer or vice-president (etc.). "Development," in a world where things were more honestly labeled, would be called "kissing the asses of rich people." It's the job of these people to bring in contributions, so they interact with potential donors. On any (very rare) occasion when I might be in the position of a donor, potential or actual, I find that I can talk to these "development" people and they will jump to try to make or keep me happy--apologizing for anything I might have to gripe about, trying to fix this or that, doing what they can to appease or please or satisfy me.
Money talks.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
What Defines a Human Being?
For a long time, people have tried to define mankind, the human species, to distinguish it (him? us?) from "the animals."
We were told that Man was the tool-using animal, and then Jane Goodall, the woman who did the famous work with chimpanzees in Africa, discovered that chimps use tools—for example, they will take a twig, strip off the leaves, and poke it into a hole in a log and then withdraw it, covered with termites—and eat the termites.
We were told that Man has language. Well, chimps may not create language, but there have been a number of interesting experiments where chimps were taught to use human sign language.
Bees have a form of communication: When a bee has been out scouting for nectar and returns to the hive, it does a dance which indicates the direction and the distance to the source of nectar.
It's clear that crows are very intelligent and are able to communicate with one another. Dolphins have a system of clicks that may be a language. And we all have heard, or heard about, the songs of the humpback whale. Whales and dolphins are both aquatic mammals and have large brains as we do. Well, recent analysis of humpback whales' songs shows that they seem to have some of the properties of language.
It's also thought that humans have a mind/consciousness/self-awareness. Well, the chimp in the example above, with the twig, solved a problem--presumably because it has a mind. Also crows and squirrels can solve problems. Chimps seem to have self-awareness and even some dogs recognize themselves in a mirror--thus showing some concept of "self."
I want to ask: Why the need to find some defining characteristic of Homo sapiens so that we can state something that sets us apart from the animals (or, more properly, other animals)? We don't have any trouble recognizing our species and we don't ordinarily mistake a human for any other creature (nor do they mistake one of themselves for one of us, I'm pretty sure).
I think it's a religious motivation. Supposedly Man has a soul and animals do not. But think of the problem that presents: if you accept evolution, does an earlier species of Homo (e.g., Homo erectus) have a soul? What about still earlier hominid species like Australopithecus? Is it going to be possible to draw the line and decree that this species has (had) a soul and that one did not?
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
We were told that Man was the tool-using animal, and then Jane Goodall, the woman who did the famous work with chimpanzees in Africa, discovered that chimps use tools—for example, they will take a twig, strip off the leaves, and poke it into a hole in a log and then withdraw it, covered with termites—and eat the termites.
We were told that Man has language. Well, chimps may not create language, but there have been a number of interesting experiments where chimps were taught to use human sign language.
Bees have a form of communication: When a bee has been out scouting for nectar and returns to the hive, it does a dance which indicates the direction and the distance to the source of nectar.
It's clear that crows are very intelligent and are able to communicate with one another. Dolphins have a system of clicks that may be a language. And we all have heard, or heard about, the songs of the humpback whale. Whales and dolphins are both aquatic mammals and have large brains as we do. Well, recent analysis of humpback whales' songs shows that they seem to have some of the properties of language.
It's also thought that humans have a mind/consciousness/self-awareness. Well, the chimp in the example above, with the twig, solved a problem--presumably because it has a mind. Also crows and squirrels can solve problems. Chimps seem to have self-awareness and even some dogs recognize themselves in a mirror--thus showing some concept of "self."
I want to ask: Why the need to find some defining characteristic of Homo sapiens so that we can state something that sets us apart from the animals (or, more properly, other animals)? We don't have any trouble recognizing our species and we don't ordinarily mistake a human for any other creature (nor do they mistake one of themselves for one of us, I'm pretty sure).
I think it's a religious motivation. Supposedly Man has a soul and animals do not. But think of the problem that presents: if you accept evolution, does an earlier species of Homo (e.g., Homo erectus) have a soul? What about still earlier hominid species like Australopithecus? Is it going to be possible to draw the line and decree that this species has (had) a soul and that one did not?
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Monday, November 1, 2010
It's the Economy, Stupid
I hope this reaches the eyes of some of my readers in the next few hours, before they vote tomorrow (November 2) in the big U.S. midterm elections—because the economy is always a big issue in elections, and the incumbent party, the Democrats, have been getting the blame for the recession—which, by the way, the country's economy is pulling out of (and, according to economists' official measure for determining when the country is or is not in a recession, has already ended).
In the last few days or week I have been hearing a lot of economists' opinions and economic statistics that show that the U.S. economy is growing. It's growing, even if slowly.
The latest, just today, was that an index of manufacturing activity shows an increase.
Also, those who opposed the bailout of banking institutions and auto manufacturers last fall should note that AIG, the big insurer which received a bailout, is repaying $37 billion to the government. And the automakers have been repaying their bailout loans, too. The U.S. government is the largest shareholder in General Motors and stands to make a profit on the GM stock it holds.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
In the last few days or week I have been hearing a lot of economists' opinions and economic statistics that show that the U.S. economy is growing. It's growing, even if slowly.
The latest, just today, was that an index of manufacturing activity shows an increase.
Also, those who opposed the bailout of banking institutions and auto manufacturers last fall should note that AIG, the big insurer which received a bailout, is repaying $37 billion to the government. And the automakers have been repaying their bailout loans, too. The U.S. government is the largest shareholder in General Motors and stands to make a profit on the GM stock it holds.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
When Everybody Has a Gun
A driver in Atlanta shot a 17-year-old boy because the boy egged his Mercedes.
http://www.aolnews.com/crime/article/police-prankster-tivarus-king-shot-dead-after-egging-mercedes/19698342
And the boy later died. It will be interesting to see if the Mercedes owner is prosecuted for homicide.
If it were Texas, I think he'd get off on the grounds that he was "defending his property." I don't know if Georgia is much better; we'll have to wait and see.
To my mind, it's yet another example of how, when guns are widely owned, they can and will be used in anger--with tragic consequences.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
http://www.aolnews.com/crime/article/police-prankster-tivarus-king-shot-dead-after-egging-mercedes/19698342
And the boy later died. It will be interesting to see if the Mercedes owner is prosecuted for homicide.
If it were Texas, I think he'd get off on the grounds that he was "defending his property." I don't know if Georgia is much better; we'll have to wait and see.
To my mind, it's yet another example of how, when guns are widely owned, they can and will be used in anger--with tragic consequences.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
