I have recently read excerpts from Emile Durkheim's The Division of Labor in Society. There are a few points in that work that I am still unsure about. I can't decide if I agree with him or not on these, and I think that writing it out might help me to come to a conclusion.
He said that mechanical solidarity "can only be strong if the ideas and tendencies common to all the members of the society are greater in number and intensity than those which pertain personally to each member... This solidarity can grow only in inverse ratio to personality... Solidarity which comes from likeness is at its maximum when the collective conscience completely envelops our whole conscience and coincides at all points with it. But, at that moment, our individuality is nil. It can be born only if the community takes smaller toll of us." I think that it is impossible to have a community in which every person is exactly identical, so I take this description as purely hypothetical. I think that even in a rural farming town in the US, there is not enough mechanical solidarity to eliminate personality, or even diminish it. Farmers don't live in entirely self-sustaining communities, they still need people to teach their children, people to run grocery stores, people to sell their crops to. It's true that they don't depend on each other for things, but they are still part of a larger society that they must be connected to in order to survive. At least in the United States, the idea of mechanical solidarity is virtually obsolete. Organic solidarity is the sole cohesion found here.
Which brings me to my next point of debate. Durkheim says that organic solidarity allows personality to grow by forcing everyone in society to become a specialist in one area. He argued that "in higher societies, our duty is not to spread our activity over a large surface, but to concentrate and specialize it. We must... choose a definite task and immerse ourselves in it completely, instead of trying to make ourselves a sort of creative masterpiece, quite complete, which contains its worth in itself and not in the services that it renders." This is a very anti-renaissance type of thought. In the renaissance, people were encouraged to think in many fields of sciences and philosophy, but now it is rare to find someone with any kind of practicable knowledge outside of his or her college major. Why? Because someone who knows a ton about beetles can make more money (by doing a better job) studying beetles than someone else who studies plant and animal life in general. It's a competition issue. I have struggled a long time to find a reason to agree with this kind of thinking. I tend to prefer the renaissance method, so I'm not sure I can agree with Durkheim when he says that this division of labor is necessary in modern societies and that it is for the best. That's hard for me to swallow, because I think that narrowing our specialties also narrows our vision and our ability to learn foreign concepts. There are too many people that cannot see another person's point of view because they do not have similar backgrounds. People can't see the effects of their actions on other people because they are trained only to look for the effects on certain areas. This creates and fosters misunderstandings and disagreements that should be easier to resolve than they are. I think that more people would see eye to eye if we didn't have to specialize ourselves so thoroughly in order to secure our niche in the economy. That's my reasoning, and it's hard to agree with Durkheim on this point. An understanding and well-rounded society would provide more cohesion and solidarity than Durkheim's divisive and self-interested organic solidarity.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Saturday, February 23, 2008
RA: Fred Jones Part 2
Fred Jones Part 2
by Ben Folds
Fred sits alone at his desk in the dark
There's an awkward young shadow that waits in the hall
He's cleared all his things and he's put them in boxes
Things that remind him: 'Life has been good'
Twenty-five years
He's worked at the paper
A man's here to take him downstairs
And I'm sorry, Mr. Jones
It's time
There was no party, there were no songs
'Cause today's just a day like the day that he started
No one is left here that knows his first name
And life barrels on like a runaway train
Where the passengers change
They don't change anything
You get off; someone else can get on
And I'm sorry, Mr. Jones
It's time
Streetlight shines through the shades
Casting lines on the floor, and lines on his face
He reflects on the day
Fred gets his paints out and goes to the basement
Projecting some slides onto a plain white
Canvas and traces it
Fills in the spaces
He turns off the slides, and it doesn't look right
Yeah, and all of these bastards
Have taken his place
He's forgotten but not yet gone
And I'm sorry, Mr. Jones
And I'm sorry, Mr. Jones
And I'm sorry, Mr. Jones
It's time
This song is a portrayal of a moment in the life of Mr. Jones. It is sung to a fairly mellow accompaniment, meant to create a nostalgic mood for the listener. Ben Folds' voice shows little emotion throughout the song, it's just a string of words with few crescendos or diminuendos.
The audience: younger people, those who are preparing to start careers or who have recently begun working for a company. Most of Ben Folds' listeners are under 30.
WATCO not acknowledging someone's accomplishments on their emotional well-being? Not acknowledging someone's accomplishments is detrimental to their emotional well-being because being ignored is super depressing.
The basic argument of this song is that all of us go through life both replacing people and in turn being replaced by someone else. When you spend 25 years working for a company, you end up putting a lot of yourself into your work, and your work is an important part of your identity. When you don't receive any acknowledgment of your effort and dedication when you leave, it hurts you. Everyone has a basic human need for attention, and even retirees need a friend or two.
Most of the argument comes through pathos. " And life barrels on like a runaway train, Where the passengers change, They don't change anything, You get off; someone else can get on" gives a metaphor of how life works that the listener has to apply to his or her own life experiences. The lines " No one is left here that knows his first name" and " He's forgotten but not yet gone" are separated by several minutes of the song, but they give the same message. He's still around, but no one seems to care. These are highly charged lines, emotionally. The audience cannot hear them without feeling something at the same time.
STAR: I believe that this argument is fairly typical of what an artist might say. Many artists who identify with romanticism believe that they feel things very deeply and are qualified to explain emotions to outsiders. Ben Folds follows suit. The argument is accurate, being ignored has hurt most of us at some point in our lives. We don't like it. Psychologists generally agree that all people need to be recognized and need to be valued in order to be happy. The argument is relevant to the audience because many of them are still in the early stages of their own careers and need to know how to cope with the changes that will come to co-workers and to themselves. Since there are so few lines of lyrics in this song, they should all be relevant to the principal purpose of the song. None of the words are excessive or unrelated to the story of Fred Jones, so I think that it is a well-constructed song.
by Ben Folds
Fred sits alone at his desk in the dark
There's an awkward young shadow that waits in the hall
He's cleared all his things and he's put them in boxes
Things that remind him: 'Life has been good'
Twenty-five years
He's worked at the paper
A man's here to take him downstairs
And I'm sorry, Mr. Jones
It's time
There was no party, there were no songs
'Cause today's just a day like the day that he started
No one is left here that knows his first name
And life barrels on like a runaway train
Where the passengers change
They don't change anything
You get off; someone else can get on
And I'm sorry, Mr. Jones
It's time
Streetlight shines through the shades
Casting lines on the floor, and lines on his face
He reflects on the day
Fred gets his paints out and goes to the basement
Projecting some slides onto a plain white
Canvas and traces it
Fills in the spaces
He turns off the slides, and it doesn't look right
Yeah, and all of these bastards
Have taken his place
He's forgotten but not yet gone
And I'm sorry, Mr. Jones
And I'm sorry, Mr. Jones
And I'm sorry, Mr. Jones
It's time
This song is a portrayal of a moment in the life of Mr. Jones. It is sung to a fairly mellow accompaniment, meant to create a nostalgic mood for the listener. Ben Folds' voice shows little emotion throughout the song, it's just a string of words with few crescendos or diminuendos.
The audience: younger people, those who are preparing to start careers or who have recently begun working for a company. Most of Ben Folds' listeners are under 30.
WATCO not acknowledging someone's accomplishments on their emotional well-being? Not acknowledging someone's accomplishments is detrimental to their emotional well-being because being ignored is super depressing.
The basic argument of this song is that all of us go through life both replacing people and in turn being replaced by someone else. When you spend 25 years working for a company, you end up putting a lot of yourself into your work, and your work is an important part of your identity. When you don't receive any acknowledgment of your effort and dedication when you leave, it hurts you. Everyone has a basic human need for attention, and even retirees need a friend or two.
Most of the argument comes through pathos. " And life barrels on like a runaway train, Where the passengers change, They don't change anything, You get off; someone else can get on" gives a metaphor of how life works that the listener has to apply to his or her own life experiences. The lines " No one is left here that knows his first name" and " He's forgotten but not yet gone" are separated by several minutes of the song, but they give the same message. He's still around, but no one seems to care. These are highly charged lines, emotionally. The audience cannot hear them without feeling something at the same time.
STAR: I believe that this argument is fairly typical of what an artist might say. Many artists who identify with romanticism believe that they feel things very deeply and are qualified to explain emotions to outsiders. Ben Folds follows suit. The argument is accurate, being ignored has hurt most of us at some point in our lives. We don't like it. Psychologists generally agree that all people need to be recognized and need to be valued in order to be happy. The argument is relevant to the audience because many of them are still in the early stages of their own careers and need to know how to cope with the changes that will come to co-workers and to themselves. Since there are so few lines of lyrics in this song, they should all be relevant to the principal purpose of the song. None of the words are excessive or unrelated to the story of Fred Jones, so I think that it is a well-constructed song.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
FW: Peak Oil Crisis. (One perspective)
There is a problem with oil. People tell you that it's ok, we have enough oil left in the world to last us another 50 years. But that's a bunch crap. The US fills up about 4% of the total population of the earth, but we consume about 25% of the petroleum produced worldwide. It's an enormously disproportionate amount that we use. China and India are well known for having a plurality of the world's population. Historically, they have used relatively little energy and oil for fuel, but their economies are starting to boom. China is quickly leaving the third world and is industrializing faster than any other nation on earth. The population of both China and India (put together, not each) is expected to grow by 25% by the year 2025, and their consumption is expected to double by then. Can you imagine all those billions of people using as much energy as the US currently uses? It's almost unfathomable. Chinese people are expected to increase their use of personal automobiles by more than five-fold by 2025, and all of Chinese citizenry will be demanding oil to fuel their cars.
That's not the only problem we have. There is a limited amount of oil on the earth. The US demands far more oil than we are able to produce. We stopped discovering new oilfields on American turf in the 1930s, and by 1971 we had stopped producing enough oil to match our demand. Since then we have been force to import additional oil at an increasing rate. Whenever one country begins its decline, it imports from someone else. Then that second country reaches its own peak of oil production sooner and begins its decline. Now both nations are forced to import from a third country, who runs out of oil even more quickly because they are trying to supply the needs of three oil-thirsty countries. This leads to a domino effect, forcing nations to reach the point of no return, the beginning of their decline in oil production. When a country exhausts its oil fields, there is no going back. There simply isn't any more. The days of the Texan oilman are over. They can no longer guarantee that their oil fields will yield enough to meet demand, and their resources are depleting very rapidly. This is happening worldwide. It's already in progress. US fossil fuels have lasted us barely 150 years, and now they are gone. We can hold onto some natural gas mines or some oil reserves for another 5 or 10 years and then they are completely gone. Other nations are starting to face the same dilemma. What do we do when there is no more oil?
Some experts place the date of depletion of the world's oil supply around 2035, others who are more optimistic place it at 2050. If China and India indeed begin demanding more oil at an exponential growth rate, the number could even be as low as 2030. In any case, no one has ventured to estimate that our oil reserves and new discoveries could possibly last us longer than 40 years from now. Experts estimate that before the end of oil, crude oil prices will skyrocket to $300 per barrel. After that, we will have no way to fuel our cars. There will be no way to transport anything over long distances, shipping will grind to a halt, and produce will stay in the fields to rot. There are no backup plans. Urban dwellers will starve, because there will be no food to be found anywhere in the city. The Peak Oil crisis will force the survival of the fittest. The world's human population will plummet to pre-industrial revolution lows. We will no longer continue to support human life's exponential growth. There will be panic and extreme economic depressions worldwide, deeper depressions than have ever been recorded in world history. Television and radio broadcasts will cease, communication will become impossible. Civilization could collapse entirely.
That's the problem with our dependence on foreign oil. It speeds up the domino effect. It hastens the collapse of modern society. All electronic information will be lost, scientific progress will be erased, and all the hard work of the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries will have been largely in vain, from a "conservation of humanity" standpoint. The rise of industrial technology and our addiction to oil could lead to the undoing of mankind.
That's not the only problem we have. There is a limited amount of oil on the earth. The US demands far more oil than we are able to produce. We stopped discovering new oilfields on American turf in the 1930s, and by 1971 we had stopped producing enough oil to match our demand. Since then we have been force to import additional oil at an increasing rate. Whenever one country begins its decline, it imports from someone else. Then that second country reaches its own peak of oil production sooner and begins its decline. Now both nations are forced to import from a third country, who runs out of oil even more quickly because they are trying to supply the needs of three oil-thirsty countries. This leads to a domino effect, forcing nations to reach the point of no return, the beginning of their decline in oil production. When a country exhausts its oil fields, there is no going back. There simply isn't any more. The days of the Texan oilman are over. They can no longer guarantee that their oil fields will yield enough to meet demand, and their resources are depleting very rapidly. This is happening worldwide. It's already in progress. US fossil fuels have lasted us barely 150 years, and now they are gone. We can hold onto some natural gas mines or some oil reserves for another 5 or 10 years and then they are completely gone. Other nations are starting to face the same dilemma. What do we do when there is no more oil?
Some experts place the date of depletion of the world's oil supply around 2035, others who are more optimistic place it at 2050. If China and India indeed begin demanding more oil at an exponential growth rate, the number could even be as low as 2030. In any case, no one has ventured to estimate that our oil reserves and new discoveries could possibly last us longer than 40 years from now. Experts estimate that before the end of oil, crude oil prices will skyrocket to $300 per barrel. After that, we will have no way to fuel our cars. There will be no way to transport anything over long distances, shipping will grind to a halt, and produce will stay in the fields to rot. There are no backup plans. Urban dwellers will starve, because there will be no food to be found anywhere in the city. The Peak Oil crisis will force the survival of the fittest. The world's human population will plummet to pre-industrial revolution lows. We will no longer continue to support human life's exponential growth. There will be panic and extreme economic depressions worldwide, deeper depressions than have ever been recorded in world history. Television and radio broadcasts will cease, communication will become impossible. Civilization could collapse entirely.
That's the problem with our dependence on foreign oil. It speeds up the domino effect. It hastens the collapse of modern society. All electronic information will be lost, scientific progress will be erased, and all the hard work of the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries will have been largely in vain, from a "conservation of humanity" standpoint. The rise of industrial technology and our addiction to oil could lead to the undoing of mankind.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
TA: Topics for Energy
Here's the rundown.
1. Peak Oil Crisis, is it real? What do we do about it?
2. Is funding for fusion research realistic? (Not to be given to the U of course, they'd just waste it...)
3. Why do more people not use hydroelectric power?
4. Is nuclear power more earth friendly than solar or hydro?
5. Do Energizer batteries really last longer than Duracell?
6. Why ethanol is the beginning of the apocalypse and will lead to rampant anarchy and primitivism.
7. What will happen to the world population when we run out of oil reserves and we can't discover new oil fields? What will happen to the international market?
8. Was the industrial revolution detrimental to human progress?
9. The US tends to be very imperialistic and that earns us a bad reputation (with the middle-east and venezuela and china and Europe, and Central America and Russia, and everyone else in the world) which affects our access to oil and the prices we pay for it. What international policy changes could we make to cooperate better with our trading partners?
10. How much energy do Americans consume each year? What can we do to limit our use of energy? Will our small steps even help at all to slow the coming onslaught?
11. Biofuels could be a temporary stepping stone to ease our dependence on fossil fuels, but we need to find a more permanent energy source. If we stick with biofuels for too long the consequences will be far reaching and deadly. Are those consequences worth it in the long run? We have to find an alternative energy source before petroleum runs out and before we lose the ability to feed our population.
I think the one I would like to focus on is Peak Oil, but I also really like to take stabs at ethanol. I think ethanol would be very easy to find resources to quote from and so forth, but it would make a very boring paper at the same time, because the ethanol argument has been made so many stinking times that no one wants to hear it anymore. But honestly, I think it's a topic that needs to be argued until we find a solution. That's my quandary. It's interesting to very few people, but very many people could die based on decisions made in the US regarding ethanol. It's an extremely important issue, but I feel like people get bored reading about ethanol all the time in the newspaper. Would it make a good paper to publish in a professional journal? Absolutely. Would it earn me a good grade in class? Probably not.
1. Peak Oil Crisis, is it real? What do we do about it?
2. Is funding for fusion research realistic? (Not to be given to the U of course, they'd just waste it...)
3. Why do more people not use hydroelectric power?
4. Is nuclear power more earth friendly than solar or hydro?
5. Do Energizer batteries really last longer than Duracell?
6. Why ethanol is the beginning of the apocalypse and will lead to rampant anarchy and primitivism.
7. What will happen to the world population when we run out of oil reserves and we can't discover new oil fields? What will happen to the international market?
8. Was the industrial revolution detrimental to human progress?
9. The US tends to be very imperialistic and that earns us a bad reputation (with the middle-east and venezuela and china and Europe, and Central America and Russia, and everyone else in the world) which affects our access to oil and the prices we pay for it. What international policy changes could we make to cooperate better with our trading partners?
10. How much energy do Americans consume each year? What can we do to limit our use of energy? Will our small steps even help at all to slow the coming onslaught?
11. Biofuels could be a temporary stepping stone to ease our dependence on fossil fuels, but we need to find a more permanent energy source. If we stick with biofuels for too long the consequences will be far reaching and deadly. Are those consequences worth it in the long run? We have to find an alternative energy source before petroleum runs out and before we lose the ability to feed our population.
I think the one I would like to focus on is Peak Oil, but I also really like to take stabs at ethanol. I think ethanol would be very easy to find resources to quote from and so forth, but it would make a very boring paper at the same time, because the ethanol argument has been made so many stinking times that no one wants to hear it anymore. But honestly, I think it's a topic that needs to be argued until we find a solution. That's my quandary. It's interesting to very few people, but very many people could die based on decisions made in the US regarding ethanol. It's an extremely important issue, but I feel like people get bored reading about ethanol all the time in the newspaper. Would it make a good paper to publish in a professional journal? Absolutely. Would it earn me a good grade in class? Probably not.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
TA: A Term Definition
The basic argument is that limiting students to only have the options available in public high schools is blocking them from reaching their potential. In my original enthymeme, I used the phrase "keeping gifted students in high school", but that wasn't really what I meant to say. I need to define my A term very specifically. I'm not trying to argue that parents should pull their kids out of school. I'm trying to argue that AP courses aren't always enough of a challenge for every student, and that parents are foolish to believe that the government will change anything or that their children will be accommodated in any way. I am writing to parents who are content with letting someone else manage their child's education. I suppose that my A term could be something like "Using only the resources found in public education" or "not using other sources of mental stimulation outside of public schools" or something like that.
Also, I need to make sure that the term "gifted student" applies to a more specific group. Anyone who is willing to work hard can take AP classes in high school, and do well in them. But I'm referring to the kids who get bored in AP Chemistry and AP Statistics and AP Government because it is way below their level. I'm not talking about students who always get straight As in hard classes, but about the students who could be teaching the hardest class in the school. So "keeping gifted children in public schools" should really be "limiting really really really gifted children to public school programs (and nothing but public school programs) severely slows their progress". I just need to make those distinctions clear in my paper.
Also, I need to make sure that the term "gifted student" applies to a more specific group. Anyone who is willing to work hard can take AP classes in high school, and do well in them. But I'm referring to the kids who get bored in AP Chemistry and AP Statistics and AP Government because it is way below their level. I'm not talking about students who always get straight As in hard classes, but about the students who could be teaching the hardest class in the school. So "keeping gifted children in public schools" should really be "limiting really really really gifted children to public school programs (and nothing but public school programs) severely slows their progress". I just need to make those distinctions clear in my paper.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
FW: Rabies
Rabies is a crazy little pest. I read an article once about how the tiny parasite gets into an animal's head, and changes its actions. Let's use a raccoon for an example. The rabies parasite somehow gets into the raccoon's bloodstream. It could be initially through food or water contaminations or I think it can even be inhaled. The parasites travel pretty quickly to the brain and situate themselves near the part of the brain that produces the hormones. They cause the raccoon to have uncontrollable urges to bite anything that moves. They change the chemical balance in the raccoon's brain to make it think that it needs to bite other animals. When the rabies reaches a later stage, the raccoon starts to foam at the mouth. Why? Because the little parasites have been breeding and now they've outgrown their host. They need a way to escape from the raccoon's body and enter some other host. So the raccoon bites a little kid and the foam from its mouth is swimming with parasites that slip easily into the kid's bloodstream. The raccoon's brain functions are so messed up that the raccoon can't survive after the rabies has left its system. The little parasites then set up shop and start to multiply and replenish the kid's brain, start to commandeer his thoughts and actions and make him go crazy and die, just like the raccoon. It's a pretty messed up world we live in. It's hard to imagine being hijacked by something you can't even see.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
TA: Topics on education
1. Availability of scholarships
2. Zero-Tolerance policies (for drugs, violence, etc.)
3. Effects of expulsion and detentions
4. Growing gap between advanced and remedial students - it is in the best interest of the advanced students to widen the gap, but it would benefit remedial students more to bring everyone to a level playing field.
5. Dress codes and uniforms
6. Property taxes to fund public schools creates inequality in the resources available to schools in different areas. Poor kids have fewer opportunities for education.
7. No Child Left Behind - Bush's little pet project that he used to get popular, but he also cut lots of funding to the program. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
8. Hiring coaches that are also teachers, or Hiring teachers that can also coach?
9. Public school libraries: do they have enough resources for high school students?
10. What's more important: Grammar, reading literature, or learning to write well?
11. Should there be logic and philosophy classes at the high school level?
12. There should be more academic options for high school students, like different kinds of sciences, social studies, psychology, etc. so kids can explore their options before college.
2. Zero-Tolerance policies (for drugs, violence, etc.)
3. Effects of expulsion and detentions
4. Growing gap between advanced and remedial students - it is in the best interest of the advanced students to widen the gap, but it would benefit remedial students more to bring everyone to a level playing field.
5. Dress codes and uniforms
6. Property taxes to fund public schools creates inequality in the resources available to schools in different areas. Poor kids have fewer opportunities for education.
7. No Child Left Behind - Bush's little pet project that he used to get popular, but he also cut lots of funding to the program. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
8. Hiring coaches that are also teachers, or Hiring teachers that can also coach?
9. Public school libraries: do they have enough resources for high school students?
10. What's more important: Grammar, reading literature, or learning to write well?
11. Should there be logic and philosophy classes at the high school level?
12. There should be more academic options for high school students, like different kinds of sciences, social studies, psychology, etc. so kids can explore their options before college.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
FW: Nuclear Fusion
Nuclear fission is what is currently used in all of our nuclear power facilities. Fission is a process of breaking down large elements into smaller parts, and in the process releasing astonishing amounts of energy. It requires unstable isotopes of rare elements in most cases and is a costly process. Nuclear fusion on the other hand involves the fusing of two small elements together to form a larger one, and releasing a ton of energy in the process. The materials used are much more abundant and are easily accessible. Hydrogen is commonly used in fusion, and the universe (not coincidentally) consists of 98% hydrogen. It is as plentiful as we could ever wish any power source to be. Unfortunately, the cost of converting hydrogen into energy requires incredibly high temperatures, and is too costly to serve as an efficient energy source. If scientists can achieve "cold fusion", or fusion that doesn't need temperatures so outrageously high, then it might be possible to produce more energy than is needed to produce it in the first place. Then nuclear fusion could be an extremely efficient way to become completely independent of any fossil fuels, domestic or foreign, and would also eliminate the worldwide economic problems that come from relying on bio-fuels made from corn, that often have inflating effects in many countries. With cold fusion, we could literally provide power to developing nations at a fraction of the price that it would cost now with our current technologies. It's too bad that we don't know how to do that yet. I wish politicians would stop talking about ethanol and start funding cold fusion research.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)