Consumption of Resources (SumBlog12)

What would you do, if we ran out of resources? Or, better question, what would you change if you found out that without a doubt, there won’t be any resources for people within the next 100 years? Would you make changes in your day-to-day life? Or would you think that’s just something future generations have to think about, and that you shouldn’t be worried about that kind of stuff. I think that limited resources should be something that everyone discusses and understands fully. I think currently it is a rather dark area that very few people are actually willing to talk about…should that really matter though? If only a few are actually discussing it does that mean it’s not happening?

                Those are just a few of the questions that I have really been thinking about in my life recently. Have doing the Know Impact assignment, I realize that I am not very resource conscious in my day-to-day life… but should I care? Or should I just think about it as if it’s something that I can only kind of do. These questions may seem easy to answer, but actually implementing them is very difficult. If you realized that in order to be a better person you had to cut the amount of everything you consumed by 3/4^th’s would it be possible? Would you give it a shot or just lie and say that you’re doing your part when in reality you only sometimes think about it.

                I don’t know what to do, however I now that want to make an effort in trying to consume less, but that doesn’t necessarily seem like it’s always possible. So when you can’t don’t hate yourself so badly, so long as you are trying you’re a step above the people who don’t care. And while you can never make the most difference, you can at least do your part in making change possible.

Population Debate (Sumblog 11)

Weight of humans on the world.
Source: http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/world-problems/
world-human-population-mass-287-million-tonnes-432432/

 

                I find it interesting that there are two very contrasting views of how population should be in our society. On one hand, there are people who strongly believe that we need to make big changes to decrease the population so that we can control how much resources are being used around the world. While on the other, there’s the belief that we need to have more young babies because there isn’t enough young people who can take care of the elderly people in our society. I find this very disconcerting because there are really two ways of looking at this, and it worries me that we aren’t looking at all the angles and how these two very polar opposite views can affect each other- and others’ views of the sides.

                Now, I’m more on the side of we should be looking at ways to decrease the population, I’m going to let everyone aware of my biases right now. I really do think that the amount of resources we are using up is not helpful to our environment and it’s not environmentally safe for everyone involved. However, I do understand the other side of the argument. We really don’t have the finances to keep the elderly benefits for the people we have now and still have the same amount of money to give the same benefits to the young people now when they are the age of our current elderly.

Margaret Thatcher Punch magazine cover from 1977
Source: http://punch.photoshelter.com/image
/I0000DiLfXmlTCbI

                The aspects that I think really need to be looked at when looking at these two debates are two really big things. Firstly, we should look at what has happened to life expectancy over the years. Obviously, life expectantly has increased a lot over the past 100 years, and that has a huge impact on how we view population and resource use. The second aspect that we really need to look into when discussing this debate is what is the birth rate and death rate in the “global north” and “global south” and how can we make them more equal overall so that the effect can be better on the resources used in both areas of the world.

Sumblog 10

The media that I chose to look at was the internet website “everyday feminism.” I visit this site fairly frequently and have always been curious about who runs it, where it originates, and what the implications or consequences are to having this site.

The first thing that I researched about the “everyday feminism” website was who was the founder and if she was the sole owner and controller of the site. I also wanted to find out what the websites origins are and if it was purely based off western cultures or if this site is a global phenomenon. This site was founded by Sandra Kim and her team of 28 the majority of them being writers for this blog website. Everyday feminism basically posts a lot of articles about feminism in the modern world, and is very focused on western countries with an emphasis on America. The reason I say this is because going through some of the articles and reading some of the backgrounds of the people who are writers they are very focused on creating equality in the US and less focused on a global level.

Looking at certain aspects of this website, I would say that they are very close to a relativistic view. I think that they truly embrace diversity and that because of this focus on tolerance and coexistence that they create a world with no absolute truths. I don’t think this is exactly a negative thing because it works towards the mission of the site and focuses on the extreme which I think they know would never be completely possible. However, I think to have the extreme makes transitioning to non-extremes a whole lot easier. I also think that this site looks at globalization from a hybridization view; they want to mix people to get while still keeping the defined differences to add to the diversity.

        I think that there are many positives and negatives of this website and its views. I think its message is very good overall and really has the potential to send powerful and meaningful sentiments. On the other hand, because they look at it from a strictly American view, it does hinder the effect it could have on a global level. And that is where I think the website falls short on its global change opportunities. I also think that because of their extreme view, it might help to create small change because people will think that “oh hey, I’m not that drastic, but I have made small changes.” And it would bring small rewards. 

Follow the link below to go to the Everyday Feminism website.

http://everydayfeminism.com/

Religious Extremists (SumBlog 9)

           One thing that I’ve always been curious about is how each religious extremist group is viewed by other countries. I think the biggest reason is because of how Americans viewed all people from the Middle East and just assumed that because they were a different race that they were religious extremist. I specifically remember being in class and hearing people talk about those “Damn Muslim ass-holes.” And all I could think was… we have extremists as well? I mean, we do, unless every Christian is a Latter Day Saints Christian or a Westboro Baptist church Christian? I really didn’t think so. I think it is interesting how when one group  of people do something completely repulsive or terrible, so long as they really aren’t white, we categorize

a culture or race to be just as bad as those maybe three people. We often over generalize and stereotype groups of people based off one or two incidents we hear one day, and then we go and Google to just find more proof that whoever did what they did are the norms in those cultures. I don’t think I would ever consider what the Westboro Baptist Church people do as the norm for all Christian based organizations, and I think it would be a shame if other countries saw that and thought that’s all there was to Americans.

                So if you had to choose between believing that a whole race was just like a group of religious extremists or investigating to see what those extremists have done to their own people what would you choose? I think that I will always choose to investigate more into what is really going on behind what we see come to America. Sometimes I just get so frustrated when I hear on the news people talk about other groups of people as if one person can answer for a whole race, and then use that answer and place those expectations on everyone you see of similar background/group.  I chose the picture below because I want you to see what other countries or groups of people see when they see our religious extremists, and think about whether this is a stereotype that we want to continue to be held.

www.npr.org

More Knowledge, More Power (SumBlog8)

Internet hackers, they bring up a new idea of having a world that opens up access and transparency in all organizations. It’s an interesting idea, but would it make our world more distrusting of the leaders that make big decisions? Or would it allow people to actually know what’s going on, and choose leaders only on what they have seen them actually do and vote on. Not what they hear on a propaganda ridden campaign. When trying to answer those two questions I really think about how knowledge is power, and how power is really important when it comes to who leads each country. You don’t typically see people with very little power running for president. Mainly because the people who run are backed by bigger organizations- and those are the organizations that hold the power for that particular political party. So really, if people had the knowledge, do you think that they could have more of a choice in who the people of power are?

So let’s look at those questions, and the last one , I will leave for you to answer. So if you could have all the information that leaders in office have, would that be a good thing, or bad thing? Would it make you feel more a part of your government(s)? Or would it only make things harder for the general public to trust the leaders once we fully know how much has been kept from us in the past? I think that it might cause both to happen. I think initially it would be really hard for people to be able to trust their government, because often we look to the past, and if we were to learn how much has been hidden from us in the past, we might be slow to trust those who are giving us new information. However, if we fully invest in ways to publicly show that we are putting in efforts to make our government more transparent, slowly, very slowly, we will begin to understand a new structure, and grow to trust our government again. But I have to say, trust is something that is seriously lacking for a lot of governments right now, and there definitely should be steps in trying to rectify that trust. With that I will leave the last question to you, if people had the knowledge of everything that our political leaders do, do you think that they could and would have more of a choice in who the people of power are? 

The ending of the Nation-State and the growth of the Civil Society (Sumblog 7)

As seen during the last week, we looked at the decline of the current nation-state, and the growth of an overarching civil society. I both like and dislike the idea of a civil society. Specifically for me there are two pros and two cons that are equally strong for why a civil society is good, and why it is bad. Below, I will go over each of my pros and cons for a civil society.

My top two pros for why the decline of a nation-state and the growth of a civil society is good are; when a civil society is fully installed, being able to know what a global good and bad will be easier. At least in theory, because of the homogenization of the world-culturally speaking- we would see a whole lot less diversity. With less diversity, it would mean that people would, in general, believe in the same things and knowing the difference between "right and wrong" would be more simplistic in our global civil society. Then the second pro is if we homogenize the globe we would see that there is really only one way of going about doing things. This, at least in theory, would make there be more equality for the countries that are currently stuck in poverty. If we have global policies that help them, then other countries would be required to help those countries that need it.

http://developmentdiaries.com/the-role-of-the-civil-society/

Now, I also have two cons for why the decline of the current nation-state and the rise of a civil society are bad. They basically are looking at the above pros, and seeing some major flaws in them. The first is having a homogenous globe cute out all the differences that some cultures hold so dear. I think it would be hard for all other countries to conform to the "western way" (and let us be honest, that is exactly what a civil society would emphasize.) I also think that the view is very ethnocentric, and unfair to those not in our region or that doesn’t have the same views as the "global north." The second con is, while in theory having a civil society should help other countries become richer. I think that in actual practice, it will only help richer countries become richer, and poorer countries become poorer. Because if we go off the current view that western societies believe in, all countries would conform to capitalism. As seen over the last couple weeks in class, there is a clear decline of economic equality going on because of capitalism. That is why I think that it would only really get worse if there were to be a civil society.

I chose the above picture, beacuse I think it illustrates what we currently believe a civil society will be. I also think it might be a very Utopian way of looking at a civil society, but still. One can always dream right?

Let's Celebrate Columbus Day? (SumBlog 5)

Modernization versus dependency, those are just two of the terms that we discussed in class last week. Now, I don’t know about you, but I had heard of modernization before. Maybe not the exact definition we went over in class, but overall, you hear about it in the news all the time. “This country does this, one step closer to becoming modern.” Or “This nation is becoming more democratic, it’s finally breaking free, and becoming more ‘American’.” Now, I had always had a little problem with how the news worded this, but I just let it go because, well it’s part of our world. After discussion in class however, and learning that there IS another view, I now understand that looking at the world from one perspective can be very ethnocentric.

                This second term, Dependency, now it was very interesting to learn about, and to commemorate today- it being Columbus Day and all- let’s look at how different our world would be if Columbus hadn’t only viewed the world through the Modernization framework. What if Columbus viewed America though the scope of the Dependency theory? How different would our world be right now? Well, let’s be honest, it would be completely different. In fact, some of us might not even be here. He probably would have respected the Native American’s land, and realized he hadn’t discovered America, well, because other people lived here. He also wouldn’t think that any country not European was backwards. But as we know, he changed many things, and most of those changes are why America is the way it is now, and also probably the reason that some of us are even here now. So, while he didn’t do the most amazing stuff, and in fact, now we would consider what he did genocide, racist, and just plain horrific. So, I’m going to pose the question to you, seeing as I honestly don’t know what I would want. If you could, would you want Columbus to have a different view when “discovering” America? Or, maybe the ends justify the means? Now I will end with this picture I’ve been seeing on Facebook all day. Enjoy, and thanks for reading.

Global Economy (SumBlog 4)

What on earth is a global economy? It’s a question that we are asked to answer, but if we have no idea of what our own individual global identity is, how are we supposed to say that we have an exact definition of a global economy? Well, one could look at it and say that it is the idea and action of all the countries in the world participating in the economy to share and receive goods and services to benefit their country’s well being. However, let’s really take a look at how this global economy turns out.

                What type of economy do we consider a world economy? Well, it shouldn’t be too big of a shock, it’s a capitalistic society. Now, is that really what’s best for the entire world? Honestly, I don’t think so . I think that each country should have the right to choose their own economic system, and then try and work it into a global economy where every country participates if it so desires in a way it so desires. I mean, would that really be so bad? I don’t think so. However it would be VERY hard, and very complicated… but even now, as we look at a global economic crisis, and the US governmental shutdown over a budget, are we really in the best place possible right now? I don’t think so, and I think it’s time that we stopped looking at what has worked, and start looking at would, and could make things better. If we always stayed the same, and never really created new and advanced ways to do things, would we really be better off? I mean think about it, if we never advanced past the 1950’s, there would be many things that would be completely horrible, in terms of workforce, and in terms of equality. Attached to this blog I have put a picture of the world on the different types of money currently used. Now, when I see this, I just have to think, would a world that only values the money shared between it, be able to still value it’s people the same way? With that thought, I leave you to make your own decisions on whether or not a global economy is really the best.