January 9, 2009

• The Modern Destruction of Man

  Man is, as I have pondered many hours, concerned throughout history on two fronts that have many sub catetories to them, but are: Survival and Social. In our Modern incarnation of Man I posit here that he has failed himself on both fronts and has descended into an abyss that I am afraid that he will not raise from. It is the death throes of Man in any of the defintions of the term. I am not positing some cataclysmic destruction of their rude life on earth but the death of the promise that is possible within Man. The abyss that I am discussing is in regards to this, that Man with his consciousness has a chance but without fostering it, without consistent work they are no more than a tragic beast; tragic because they have the fascilities to transcend and yet do not. However, that is the ending before the beginning of the argument. I posit here also that it is the slow erosion of confusion, fragmentation of rationality, that has lead Man to a point where he is not capable of fulfiling his basic animal drives that I have said are survival and social.

  Survival

  We are told by the biologists that the sole purpose of a living creature is to ensure, to its ability, that its genetic code survives. That it shapes all aspects of this creature in one form or other and goes through the sieve of 'usefulness' in regards to its survival. We are also told that if it does not affect this purpose and the appendage of this 'use' falls into disuse, it is not discarded in some 'conscious' exercise of evolution but, like the appendix, remains unless it is a detriment to their survival. If this is the case and it causes them to be 'less fit' then their genome is erased from the contest. There is no, as the Biologist is always yammering at us, conscious motion of evolution, it is natural selection, genetics, and sexual selection driven by, and causing (strangely) this consistent desire to immortalize our genome. This is why we survive or we do not.When we glance at Modern Man in our western culture we see that there is explicitly a desire to what is almost diametrically opposite to this drive and reasoning of survivorship.

  Environment

  It cannot be argued on any reasonable basis that Man has not caused catastrophic harm on the Natural world. The rates of extinction of our fellow species has become astronomical. The Unversity of Connecticut found that the rates of extinction were, since 1600, at rates that are 100-1000 (possibly 10,000) times higher than at any time in the last 65 million years (end of dinosaurs). If we are more specific according to the Global Amphibian Asesssment Report amphibians are dying out 211 times greater than background rates, and when endangered species are added the rates are 25,000-45,000 higher than background extinction rates.

  Despite what many believe in our fragmented and islolated psyches of which I will speak about more in the latter section, we are a part of the environment. We have tricked ourselves in our homes, in our computers, in the television that we believe we are rootless, bodliess. When we think of the saying of the economists that say that the economic pie can always grow larger, this is inherently a fragmented argument: all economic engines are in some way rooted in finite resources: cars need resources to be build, plastic has to be thrown away, solar panels need silicon, even financials hold/make money from businesses that are rooted in the consumption/extraction of natural resources let alone that money is paper. Our greed is bottomless but the earth is not. And this unseverable connection to the enviornment means that our very survival is linked to the health of our environment.

  I do not think that anyone would argue that our lives are dependent on the enviornment. The argument could, and does, come in the version of what point on the trajectory we are on. Whereas some say we still have not achieved the tipping point or critical mass, I would argue, using the Scientists that are so happy to be used, that we are in an epic enviornmental collapse. I will not even use the Global Warming argument that has become so commercial, but the extinction rates that are measurable, that have been measured, and show a decimated natural world coming apart. If we use this as an indicator, a canary if you will, we cannot argue on what side of the bell curve we are on. We are on the downslope and the only argument is whether we are doomed to continue our descent despite anything we do or if we are still able to lift the nosedive.

  Wherever we are on this descent it is inarguable that we are in dire straits. And even if we are a bit aways from total collapse we must be concerned, or any rational being would be concerned and lead to action. However, our minds are not shaped to hold our attention for that long, even as we take lungfuls of exhaust, we cannot, I am afraid, even comprehend anymore the interconnected nature of our world let alone the direct link we have with the world: that our health in inxtricably a mirror image of the health of our world.

  We are killing ourselves and this is in direct opposition even to the our animal evolutionary drive that tells us to be fruitful and mulitply. It is not a war, that despite the widespread nature of anyone of them, is realtively localized e.g. when we drop (non nuclear) bombs we are not destroying the atmosphere, oceans, and subterrenean ecologies. However, the lifestyles that we have lived, primarily that of American consumerist lifestyle, is one that has had an effect across all ecological zones from forest, rain forest, to the deepest oceans, to desert, to mountain tops, to caves, to the skies, to the dirt-and we see it even in our children despite our refusal to see: the amounts of mercury in their fat is rising, the amounts of PCBs, and other poisons dumped into the environment by Ecnomic 'Engines' make their way into us and our children. Coral Reefs are bleaching, pelicans are falling out of the sky.

  IF we are primarily concerned with survival then it is paramount that we take into account those causes that will have the most effect on our survival and our progeny-and one of these is the Environment. I am not here to proport any idea on how to do it as I am not up to the task other than to say that we must consume less. Other than that I am not prepared to say, however, I am interested in the fact that despite our almost universal acceptance that we are a part of the environment and it is directly engaged in whether we survive or not, there is not any actual universal drive to change our behavior in which it would cause a significant increase in the environments health. This tells me that Man has removed himself, in his mind that has become incapable of being able to access the arguments, from the environment, from his very basic natural drive; and this is evidence of insanity.

  Children

  If our survival has the purpose of ensuring our children the best possible chances of passing their own genome (which is partially ours) down then it would be assumed we would be doing the best for our childre. This is a separate agument than the above one but it is interesting to note that the world we are leaving them is increasingly more polluted, more decimated, that we are creating an environment where it is increasingly more difficult for them to be able to pass on our genetic message. But, that is not the gist here, here I would like to point out on health, which can be linked to the environment, but here it is both the actual health and the policy behind health. I would also like to explore the economics of our times as a testament to the adherence to our Natural drive of survival of our genes, and finally education.

  10.7% of all children in the United states have no insurance. 90% of these children have one or more of their parents working. This alone does not mean that children, or babies, are unhealthy but we find that more than 50% of these children are not getting their healthy check ups, 20% have undiagnosed vision problems, they miss 25% more school, preventable diseases turn into diseases that are not.

  But these are just the poor, I can hear the voices in the heads of many of the middle and upper class say. They don't matter. But I answer that the health of the poor are inextricably linked to theirs as well. The places where Turburculosis is becoming antibiotic proof is in the poor as they cannot afford the medicine, where whooping cough and other preventable, vaccinated diseases are making a come back because uninsured children cannot afford the vaccines. Even turburculosis in its antibiotic vulnerable version is also most prevalent in the poor and uninsured. They are among you. They are among you and even if it is not a moral calling we answer when we make sure everyone has access to proper health care, then it is a selfish one.

  It becomes increasingly more difficult in our modern era of self imposed isolation to fathom these webs and strings that attach the various stages of the socioeconomic ladder much to our detriment.

  Economy

  Pete Peterson on Running on Empty says that what is going on currently in our economic policy is the greatest generational war ever waged. Our children are losing, being massacred. Our debt has doubled in the last eight years increasing in that short time more than it had in all the years of our nation combined. We are now in an era of the bailout and some put the price tag on that at 7 trillion which would, almost, treble the debt-so in the last eight or eight and half years our debt has risen 300%-3 times the amount of all the rest of American History.

  These numbers are astronomical and some of us cannot even fathom what it means. It means that as the debt comes to roost, as much of this will be financed by bonds-which comes with it a price of interest (the most recent Bush tax rebate costs each of us 2000$ in interest charges that it incurred because we did not subsequently reduce spending-we increased it, and bonds were issued)-it will force other programs under or increase taxes exponentially. In fact, by 2032 if taxes are not increased dramatically (the heritage foundation puts it at in increase of more than 12,000/household) we would have to remove all other programs to pay for Social security alone-let alone debt or medicare (yup, no defense fund either)

  And if it is not funded by issuing bonds then we see that the only other way to come up with the money is printing money. This policy was most famously attempted by the German government where in 1923 it took 200 billion marks to buy a loaf of bread. Why? In short, when there is more of a thing it usually loses its value, as we print more money the value of the dollar goes down, and, subequently the prices of goods go up-another aspect of this that we do not address often is that what also happens as the dollar falls is that the debt holders/or possible debt holders of US treasuries will demand higher and higher yields to fund our 'programs' and this will lead to increased printing, or massive tax increases, or more program cuts (if there are any left) until they won't fund it anymore. The argument against this is weak, to me, they say that "America is not isolated" and that the world depends on us, so that, in essence, that gives us carte blanche.

  This is argued, to make a quick side note, on two fronts-one that America despite its preeminence, or supposed preeminence, is still subject to market forces which, many economists are loathe to admit now, that despite governmental interference it is still market forces in arenas that are still in the market e.g. currency. Secondly America is slowly becoming isolated because of its practices; oil is being debated to be not marked against the dollar, the dumping of dollars as measuring sticks by china, even our industries such as GE are slowly moving a bulk of their operations off shore as well as most of their profit to be coming from foreign destinations. With the jobs being sent offshore, with America increasingly becoming a service oriented nation (what happens when people stop wanting services?), what type of world are we leaving our children but one that is blasted environmentally, and devoid of a means to make a living? To take away two very important necessitites to be able to pass on our genes.

  Education

  I have gone on long enough. I will start with this on my next entry

  Be well
  G

   

   

  • 4:40 pm
  • 7 Comments