debitage
Occupation Flintknapper Landscape Kiosk Hit "refresh" to make sure you're seeing the newest post.
This site uses stylesheets. Which means you shouldn't use Netscape. © Eemeet Meeker Online Enterprises, to the extent that slapping up a copyright notice constitutes actual copyright protection. |
 29.3.02
His view of evolution was mentioned only in passing, as Nasr wrote at length about this topic in another book. While his tone (calling evolution "absurd" and insinuating that some kind of scientific establishment conspiracy refuses to discuss the obvious flaws in evolution) suggests the book may be a lot of ill-informed rambling about the Second Law of Thermodynamics and microevolution versus macroevolution, the argument of interest to Religion and the Order of Nature was somewhat different. The problem with evolution, Nasr says, is that it isn't finished. Everything is still evolving. So there is nothing special about the arrangement of nature at present. It's simply a random spot in a never-ending process that has no particular goal. Therefore, there is no moral imperative to respect or protect nature -- it's all going to change anyway, and the present state of affairs is no more special than any other. In contrast, the religious view says that nature as it exists now is a perfectly constituted reflection of the eternal qualities of the divine. As such, the current arrangement of the natural world is something that has sacred significance and therefore must be protected. It's interesting that his argument is not based on a contention about the truth of evolution (though he certainly believes it is wrong). His argument is, rather, that believing in creationism is useful -- it fosters an ethic of environmental stewardship that would help to avoid the environmental crisis caused by a belief in evolution's apparent callousness toward the makeup of the natural world. This raises the problematic issue of the equilibrium view of nature. This view, which retains incredible popularity in environmentalist circles despite being challenged by new ecological and anthropological research, holds that non-human nature exists in a state of perfect harmonious balance on its own. The presence of humans can only mess things up and put nature out of balance. This view is necessitated by the proposition that nature is the culmination of creation. I also don't think a view of the natural world as sacred (or inherently valuable in some other sense) is necessary to avoiding an environmental catastrophe. A view of nature as sacred is simply one mechanism of preserving the human species. A more explicit calculation of the sustainability of various practices could work as well. It's interesting how religion, which bases its claims on access to eternal truths, can become, in the hands of a careless defender, simply a mechanism for achieving another goal. I don't have a problem with that type of argument, but I doubt it's direction Nasr meant to go.
Well, I'm glad they're going to be spending our tax dollars on this charade of taking them before the tribunal. No wonder Bush was so eager to visit Peru last week. The U.S. has very little experience with running kangaroo courts, so he wanted to ask former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori for some advice.
"She didn't just break out her little Native American stick and start waving it around."
28.3.02
I have decided that I am going to decline the Watson. It's a tough decision, and not one I ever anticipated having to make, but I think all along a part of me has known that was the right decision to make. I don't have the excitement or the energy about the project anymore that I would need to make the most of the year and really live up to the goals of the Watson. And I think this is especially true vis a vis the alternate candidate who will now be receiving this kind of an opportunity. I may very well go to New Zealand to do a similar project at a later stage (which I don't think can be said of a lot of non-recipients, given the unusually academic nature of my project). But if and when I go, I think it will be with a clearer sense of what I'm doing and more enthusiasm for something with a clear place in my life (as dissertation fieldwork, for example). I want to assure you that I don't think the assessments of either the Colgate or national committees were in error -- they were simply based on a representation of myself as I felt in October. The proposal writing and application process were valuable experiences, and I regret not being in a position where I can feel comfortable accepting this opportunity.
27.3.02
"... no ya de quioscos ochavados y de sendos que vuelven ..." Quiosco is a form of kiosco, meaning newsstand or kiosk.
"President Bush last year issued a presidential order on energy policy that closely followed a proposed draft given to the administration two months earlier by oil lobbyists, according to documents released by the Energy Department under a court order." Just so you don't think I'm suddenly going all pro-Bush.
Most of what he said was stuff I'd already heard before about the relationship between development and environmental sustainability and the need to find a different goal than raising the GDP. But something about the way he was talking got me thinking about it in these terms: Take as our starting point that our goal is to make people happy. Happiness is caused when what you have matches up with what you want. If what you have and what you want don't match, you can do one of two things (or a combination). You can get more, or you can want less. In general terms, the idea of development, and of the modern economy in general, is to take wants -- even infinite wants -- as given, and then try to work with the supply side of the equation (which is not at all to imply that pre-modern wanys of doing things were therefore the opposite -- both strategies have been used in varying combinations throughout history, and we just happen to live in a time and place where "have more" usually trumps "want less"). And at this point I'm sure you've guessed where I'm going with this. The key is getting people to honestly want less, rather than thinking of it as just having less while wanting the same (which would decrease happiness, thus moving us farther from the goal). Now, it's easy enough to say that people need to think differently. The problem is creating social structures that encourage people to act accordingly. And I think that's where most development critics fail. The best they can do is proposals like trade restrictions that would make us have less.
Bush Statement On Campaign Finance Bill
A group has been putting up signs calling attention to injustices in Colgate's administration. There was one with statistics showing how athletics resources were skewed toward men's teams, and another about gender and race imbalances in the faculty. This poster said at the top "COLGATE SHOULD PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH..." I couldn't resist, so I got out my pen and made it "COLGATE SHOULD PRACTICE WHAT IT PREACHES..." Darn collective nouns, screwing everyone up.
But we're not playing any good songs. Last semester we at least had "Moanin'," which is one of the coolest songs ever (although that was the one song where I played first part, even though second was for once the cool part). This semester the best we have is "Takin' It To Church," which Emily astutely pointed out sounds like a sitcom theme song. And we're not soloing nearly as much. I'm not going to have a solo this semester, for the first time ever. Soloing is a big part of the reason I joined jazz band -- I suck at it, but it's fun to be able to mess around and try to create something of my own instead of just playing back the marks on the page (which Prof. Cashman has been very strict about). Ah well.
26.3.02 I found this logo on the CAP alert page. It reminds me of when little kids punch each other by proxy. Computer 1: *zap* pass it on.
Finally.
25.3.02
Palestinian militants are attacking Israel because, among other things, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip make them feel powerless. So the solution is a stronger occupation?
And I also realised why I don't like TV news. In theory, it would seem like having that added medium of video would make the news better. It's one less layer of interpretation that the reporter has to put on it, when they can show you what happened instead of having to try to describe it. But really the video is a handicap, because they have to always be showing something. Most of what you see is file footage. And that adds bias so easily. A picture is worth 1000 words, as the cliche says, but you can never find a picture that's got the exact 1000 right words. Every clip they show will have some connotation that will tilt the story that's being read over it in one direction or another. But even given that, CNN can be shameless in its bias. They did a piece on the energy plan that Congress is considering, which has as one of its provisions allowing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. During the story they showed file footage of herds of majestic caribou running across the coastal plain, juxtaposed with filthy oil drilling facilities belching out smoke. Granted, I'm not sure what footage you'd show that would communicate the opposite position -- increased oil supply and reduced dependence on OPEC aren't exactly photogenic concepts. But unavoidable bias is still bias. But their segment on the campaign finance reform bill was even more blatant. The title graphic that ran alongside the footage of Congress said "putting the muzzle on campaign money." I think someone noticed, because the follow-up story the next day just said "campaign finance reform." |
In reading Seyyed Hossein Nasr's Religion and the Order of Nature for my thesis, I came across what is one of the more interesting arguments against evolution that I've seen. The book is about religious versus secular/scientific views of nature. His argument is that religion views nature as sacred because it is a reflection of God, and that the denial of the sacredness of nature by modern science is at the root of the current environmental crisis.