Monday, February 27, 2012

Rick Santorum is a VERY dangerous man ... Or, how will we survive as a species on this planet?

Sustaining our species, as guests on planet Earth ...
Planet Earth exists as a vehicle for life.  Earth exists, and supports a variety of life; animal, vegetable and mineral.  Earth (and all of its life) exists because of a perfect alignment of circumstances, and tries to maintain a balanced harmony between all of its ecosystems and passengers.  The planet is a whole system that looks after its own, overall, interest to survive in our solar system.
Earth is finite; it is NOT an endless supply of resources to be devoured by its passengers.  Energy is matter, and matter is energy; and conversion between them is happening all the time.  An activity that the planet is very good at, on its own cycle.  Human activity (the extraction and use of Earth's resources) is incongruent with Earth's natural cycles, and throws the planet off its natural evolution, like when a spinning top loses its balance during the spin (if interfered with), and at the of end the spin when the rotation stops.  As we continue to interfere with the natural evolution of the planet (wobbling the spinning top), the Earth will fight back to regain and maintain the equilibrium of a balanced 'spin.'
If we don't take care of planet Earth, planet Earth will 'take care of us.'
Earth has a limited life span, which will end when our star, the Sun, goes Supernova and incinerates the planet (converting everything into energy).  However, Earth's ability to sustain life as we know it will end long before then.  Until we have developed space travel and colonization to leave a dying Earth, we have to assume that we'll be here until the Earth can't sustain us.  Then the only question remans is; do we want the rest of our time on this planet to be shorter, or longer?
If we continue to consume the Earth's resources in an unsustainable way, we will clearly be on the short path; 'cause we'll run out of stuff (with which to eat, heat, shelter and make our iPads).
Rick Santorum is a VERY dangerous man ...
In framing Barack Obama's environmental policies as "some phoney ideal, some phoney theology.  Oh, not a theology based on the bible, but a different theology,"  Rick Santorum has not only mis-aligned himself with his own Catholic Church (which has acknowledged that human-caused climate change is a real and growing danger to our planet ... and is a profound moral challenge that trumps partisan theology), he has also plainly stated his overtly dangerous environmental philosophy; subjugating the health of our home, planet Earth, to the whims of man.
Santorum clearly announced his faith-based world-view/philosophy about environmentalism that "this idea that, ah, that man is, is not, is here to serve the Earth, as opposed to husband its resources and be good stewards of the Earth. Ah, and I think that is a, is a phoney ideal.  I don't believe that that's what, that's what were here to do; that, that man is here to use the resources, and use them wisely, to care for the earth, to be a steward of the Earth.  But we're not here to serve the Earth.  The Earth is not the objective; man is the objective."
Well, are we doing such a good job of husbanding and stewarding the Earth's resources, that we can now focus on man as "the objective."  I think not.
By ignoring the scientific consensus on climate change, calling it "patently absurd," "junk science," and a conspiratorial "scheme" by the left to justify more government regulation; and accusing 'secular' leftists (lead by President Obama), of promoting a "world view that puts the earth above man.", Santorum makes it clear that he despises any person, movement or organization that disagrees with his world-view; subjugating the Earth to the demands of man.  Since he is so keen to represent the Republican party to become the President of the USA, he must surely believe in the anti-regulation, laissez-faire, unfettered capitalism firmly posited by that party.
This makes Rick Santorum a VERY dangerous man.  As President of the USA, he will more than likely enact economic and environmental policies that further degrade the planet's health.  He will support and encourage the fallacy of 'continuous economic growth.'  Planet Earth is finite; in resources, and capacity to sustain life as we know it.  Unsustainable utilization of Earth's resources will shorten our life on the planet; and make the rest of that time miserable; as we deal with the consequences of extraction and conversion (matter to energy) that occur, out of alignment with Earth's natural cycles.  It's almost universally agreed that planet Earth experiences a continuous cycle through cold and warm periods. However, with the natural cooling cycle that we should be in, being reversed by industrialization (in only the last 150 years, releasing about half of the carbon that took Earth tens of millions of years to absorb and convert into petroleum), we are in the process of toppling the spinning top.  That's why our effect on the planet is called 'global warning;' because we should be entering a period of global cooling.  Our effect on the natural cycles of the planet is throwing weather patterns out of alignment and creating more significant 'natural disasters;' not only threatening our comfort on the planet, but maybe even our very existence, prematurely ending, if we take the planet past it's 'tipping point.'
Thinking beyond our own lifetime; well beyond many lifetimes, and into the future of mankind and life on the planet ...
  • If we assume that human activity is NOT degrading Earth's health and ability to support life, and do NOTHING to improve our utilization of Earth's resources; then we still have a problem because we are consuming Earth's resources in an unsustainable way.
  • If we assume that human activity is NOT degrading Earth's health and ability to support life, and do SOMETHING to improve our utilization of Earth's resources; then we'll improve our chances towards a longer existence.
But ...
  • What if we assume that human activity IS degrading Earth's health and ability to support life, and do NOTHING about it; we are shortening our existence on the planet, or
  • What if we assume that human activity IS degrading Earth's health and ability to support life, and do SOMETHING about it; we are improving our chances towards a longer existence.
Logically, it makes sense to do SOMETHING to improve our utilization of Earth's resources; the outcome will be positive, whether human activity IS, or is NOT degrading Earth's health and ability to support life.
We have a responsibility to leave the campground in a better state than how we found it.  If we don't (and focus on our immediate and selfish needs only), we are laying the foundation for an unsustainable, uncomfortable and much shorter time on the planet.
But ... what if man's existence and utilization of planet Earth IS part of the natural evolution of the planet?
Maybe our existence IS a natural part of the Earth's entire ecosystem, and we're to use the resources of the planet as we see fit.  We're effecting the natural cycles of the planet, but maybe the resultant aggregate cycle is supposed to become the NEW cycle.  Then, it stands to reason that if we want to lengthen our existence on the planet, doesn't it make sense that we take better care in utilizing those resources.  Either way, improved resource utilization will prolong our stay on the planet; and make it much more comfortable (but not necessarily convenient).
And for those who blindly support unfettered capitalism ...
Even if we merely think of the planet as a ball of economic resources to be used at will, doesn't it make business sense to shepherd sustainability, and not use up all the resources in such a short period of time?  The less impact we have on the natural cycles of the planet, the more comfortable, and longer, our stay will be.
The planet needs leadership that thinks beyond the trappings of power, religion and fallacy.  Earth needs leadership that thinks about human existence beyond our own lifetime.

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Egypt

Yeaaaah, Egypt is free...kinda?

Thursday, December 10, 2009

"I'll Google it on my iPhone," OR The Cautions of Using Technology in Education

This was my reply to an article in Wired magazine by Brian X. Chen, commenting on an ambitious iPhone deployment effort at Texas-based Abilene Christian University.

************************************

Hi Brian,

I enjoyed your article on "How the iPhone Could Reboot Education" published on Wired online and featured on Apple Hot News.

However, I take partial exception to this passage:

"Most importantly, by allowing the students to participate in polls anonymously with the iPhone, it relieves them of any social pressure to appear intelligent in front of their peers. If they answer wrong, nobody will know who it was, ridding students of humiliation. And if students don’t understand a lesson, they can ask the teacher to repeat it by simply tapping a button on the iPhone."

My comments

We're starting to see the negative effect that Internet addiction, gaming and social media has had on the social development of an entire generation. Now, ACU is promoting further withdraw from the benefits of classroom competition by filling their seats with students who almost exclusively (or try to) interact primarily through technology.

We are a social species; a species in which the human condition is experienced and grows through social interaction. Social, educational and media technology are simply the toasters for social interaction. If the advantages of social interactions are removed as part of the learning process, it's like removing the nuts, bolts, soldering and wires that keep the toaster assembled and functioning. Social interaction is how the human race (and all other animals) function, learn, develop, co-operate and accomplish. Technology offers wonderful tools to facilitate our social interactions, but SHOULD NEVER REPLACE the benefit to be gained from "eye-to-eye" interaction between human beings. Case in point, note how often misunderstandings arise through ill-formed text messages and emails, because it's so difficult to add the "eye-to-eye" contact part of a social interaction. We need real-time and live components to our social interactions; including the learning process. Technology should be developed and used to facilitate social interaction, not to replace the benefits derived from our very nature.

Social competition

If students are allowed "to participate in polls anonymously with the iPhone...[relieving] them of any social pressure to appear intelligent in front of their peers," we lose the benefit of social competition. We are naturally a competitive species, in private and in public. And even though competition and achievement can be obtained privately through tests, if students learn that they don't have to compete socially, they will be missing an essential component of their learning and personal development....

Because in real life, we have to compete socially to learn, achieve and accomplish:
  • Standing in line to get concert tickets
  • Finding a girlfriend/boyfriend in social environments (still the most significant way we meet our mates - despite the growth of Internet dating)
  • Job interviews
  • Winning contracts
  • Securing customers and market share
  • Presenting ideas at work/public speaking
  • Sports
  • Convincing your partner, family and friends of your ideas
  • The Stock Market...and much more
Some notes about learning and personal development:

We learn through our mistakes more than through our successes
  • Healthy competition drives people to improve
  • A philosophy of "a trophy for just showing up" weakens the competitive nature of human beings
  • Knowing that you could be called upon to answer a question in public, will keep a student alert to do her/his reading and assignments and be prepared
  • The potential for public embarrassment (public or private) is a great motivator; it's what drives people to be prepared for life
Overall, your article highlights some fantastic features of ACU's iPhone program, and the benefits. But as in any implementation of a new technology, we have to also investigate and understand the social and psychological impact.

The technology that the human race develops always seems to outpace our ability and willingness to adjust our social and psychological paradigms to keep up. As a result, social constructs are often changed outside of our planning, control or desired outcome.

Most industrial initiatives are required to conduct environmental and community impact studies, and use the results in the planning and execution of their projects. I wonder how many organizations contemplate social/social psychological/psychological studies to determine the potential effects of the implementation of new technologies beyond the obvious tangible and practical ones.

Do you know if, and what kind of social/social psychological/psychological study was conducted as part of the planning and execution of ACU's iPhone project?

Advice for students

If you're called upon to answer a question in public, and don't know the answer, simply state: "I don't know the answer to your question. However, I know how to find the answer, and if you'll give me a few minutes, I'll Google it on my iPhone."

Or, remember the peripheral lesson; do your homework.

Best regards, and keep up the great work.

Zoltán Barabás


Thursday, September 18, 2008

Welcome to my blog...


This is my blog. Please check back from time to time to see what's going on in Zoltan's World.