Final Essay

What makes a life meaningful? (draft)
-My personal interpretation based on experience-

There are approximately 6.8 billion people in the world with 6.8 billion different opinions and perspectives. There is no right or wrong answer to the question of how to live a good and meaningful life.
However, at this point I do have an answer for this question. This answer would apply only to my own life for being something that fits my beliefs, my experiences, my thoughts, etc. Therefore it cannot apply to anyone else.
One of the people I interviewed regarding the elder research back in February said, "Living a life meaningfully makes a life worth living" This statement represents all people with all kind of perspectives. Everyone has something meaningful in their lives and they base their decisions and actions on what they have created. And at this point this statement also represents me.
I used to believe that adding no meaning to life would be rather effective to move forward. There would be no reason to suffer from a breakdown if there was no meaning in it to begin with. There was also no reason to get excited over a compliment for the same reason. Currently I do not believe that this is the right way to live my life. My perspective has changed; I am not as acute about it as I used to be. However, being this way I still do not consider this the right way to live my life either. I do not feel satisfied with the way I am living my life. Therefore, I have agreed to study some of the social alternatives of how to live a good and meaningful life in this course.
My current definition of meaning of life is a translation to purpose.
What is my purpose to live?
After all, I do not have an answer for this question.

The dominant, marginal and prohibited messages suggesting the type of life I should have are not helping me. During this course we have overlooked at these different types of messages and I concluded that these were just definitions of happiness that did not fit my beliefs, thoughts, feelings, etc. I have grown used to these but I do not acknowledge them as my purpose in life.

As I understand, being able to distinguish the different types of messages, dominant, marginal and prohibited, that are constantly communicated, allow us to create an access to profoundly analyzing ourselves under cultural influences. It's also important to distinguish how these messages contradict one another and for what purpose. Living as we are told makes the world a much more organized place.




Corporate media indeed contributes greatly into what we believe or think is right or wrong. We are taught that we need to improve so that we are accepted into society. We have representations on how a beautiful woman is supposed to look or how happy and complete we can be with money. People live their lives "trying" to become better, wealthier or skinnier so that one day in the future they can achieve that described happiness, and if they don't, they keep on "trying" until they die.

Furthermore, I am aware of how these messages impact my life. I too have the need to be part of something, and live happily along with others. But personally I do not agree on how we are told to be in a specific way in order to fulfill the expectations of somebody else. This is what I recognize as culture. I have been living under culture my whole life as a fish has been living underwater without being aware that he is wet. Accepting or avoiding reality makes no difference in reality. Our cultures have raised us as puppets and a puppet cannot cut his own strings, but the puppeteer can always change.

It is inevitable to live under culture. As human beings we have the capacity of thinking way beyond our imagination, we just do not allow ourselves to do so. Most of us are designed to live limitedly. Even if we analyze and understand corporate messages or folk culture messages to live our lives in a different way, it will never be enough. Most of us do not feel satisfied. Our lives are so corrupted by idealisms that we do not have a sense of what is to be happy, or even alive.

Achieving perfection is always an alternative to live happily. At this point my definition of perfection remains the same. There is no such thing as the ultimate perfection. To someone, even one person, that definition will not fulfill his expectations, therefore the ultimate perfection will not be quite ultimate, or even perfect. Perfection is an opinion. In most cases it is a culture's opinion, but we believe it is the truth. In my opinion being perfect is boring. There is no room for creativity or analysis. There is nothing to improve, nothing to work on. Even though people pursue perfection they do not accept it, because truly, it is not wanted. By communicating that perfection is difficult or even impossible to achieve, people would automatically have a reason to live. Perfection is easily interpreted as happiness, which is what we need to live a good and meaningful life. For example, finding the perfect wife, the prefect job, the perfect car, etc. would complete our lives. But according to whom will these be complete when we do not feel satisfied?

Would we feel satisfied once we reach an old age? In order to feel more at ease about where my life was heading, I have studied the elder life during this course. I considered this a good opportunity to confront my fear of growing old and even overcome it. However, I did not succeed. My thoughts on seniors and their way of life remained the same. I think Old people have still so much to live. Most people see them as our past but they could also be our future. It is because elders do not participate in our lives as much that they are seen this way. They are kept away from us by us, and they keep themselves that way.



Furthermore, I also think old people have so much to offer. They have experienced so much in their lives and their words can guide us out of particular problems they have experienced before. Even though I do think that their advice might not work because of the generation gap, it can still be applied to our lives as a way of learning the vast difference between that generation and this one. Regardless if the person is wise or not they still contribute to the 6.8 billion opinions in the world, somebody will listen to that person thinking he or she is right.

Most of us do not bother to know beyond more what is communicated about old people. We believe that the information we receive about them is enough to have them participate in our lives time to time. In our culture it is believed that we do not need old people to function, therefore there is no need to include them. This is due to their lack of physical strength and reliability.

I believe that old people are no victims, and they should begin contributing. Not only to the lives of their families but to their community. There are many ways to contribute. Elders are physically capable of doing simple tasks that would benefit others and themselves. They lived a long time without depending on others but themselves to make things happen, there is no reason to stop now. If old people wish to participate more in our lives, then they should make it happen. If we feel that old people is being pushed away, then we should stop it. In the end we are all human beings that have experienced being young and will experience being old.

Although the main aspect that differences me from an elder is age I am still afraid of becoming one. This is because I have the feeling that if I live 60 more years the relationship between youth and the old people will not change. This inauthentic fear of loneliness at old age has contributed to my unhappiness at this point.

It could be that I am rather uncomfortable with the idea of dying before even learning my purpose in life. I am personally not afraid of dying at this point. I am only afraid of the transition. I might not feel comfortable with the idea of growing old because I am scared of the loneliness I might also experience, and loneliness is one of the ten aspects of death. After analyzing the inevitability of death in this course I have concluded that there are indeed only ten aspects of death in most cultures. These are: loneliness, time (inevitable), sacrifice, nihilism, despair, destruction, intoxication, madness, greed and rage. After learning these, the idea of growing old and even dying in some way became less scary to me.



This reminds me of the quote from the movie Brave Heart, "Every man dies, no man really lives". What is being alive to us? If our definition of death is entirely clear, then why is it that our definition of life is often confusing to us? Life could be a mere balance between good and bad; a balance that no one entirely possesses. It is possible that by experiencing sadness and experiencing happiness equally would allow us to discover the feeling of being alive. However, I have not experienced this in order to know if it could really teach me how to be alive.
Death can only exist if there is life. But is there really any life in this current world? At this point, I have a different understanding of what life is. This understanding contributes greatly to my own happiness and it has to due with living as an animal, which was the following unit of this course.

Before now I did not used to consider myself as an animal, but as a human being. This unit is the one that has affected my habitual way of living the most. We are indeed animals but we do not behave as such and this is because we do not see or think of ourselves as such. If we are not animals then what are we? How does our culture respond to this question? Our culture has set different types of "obstacles" through time. These prevent us from seeing ourselves as our natural being. These obstacles insist on communicating the significant aspects that difference us from other animals, and these are the truth for most people. However, at this point I still believe that identifying ourselves as actual animals would allow us to live happily. We would value our bodies more and become more physically active. These changes in our lives would physically and mentally impact our lives as human beings. These are based on our animal self rather than our usual self.

If we were to identify ourselves as animals and be aware that we are on our own in terms of surviving then we would be much capable of not only providing ourselves with what we need but also accomplishing the act of living and depend on our physical. This is my current ideal way of living happily. Responding to my natural needs without question and not living under any culture or obligation would give me a sense of freedom. However, at this point I have not achieved this way of living. I think this is due to my actual natural way of being which is living as a machine; a machine that constantly questions life and give meaning to every aspect that occurs. The main difference that I identify between human beings and animals is that animals are unreasonable and live presently. Because of our culture and the messages we have received we cannot live in such way.

Furthermore, we might indeed share some aspects with other animals, such as our natural needs. However it is not complicated to interpret ourselves as different from animals because of our level of reasoning. Regarding the philosophy obstacle, humans also treat other humans as objects. We even treat ourselves as objects the most without even considering our feelings. However considering our feelings for such thing would not make us behave naturally either. It is complicated to understand the animal way of life because we are not familiar with it, in terms of actually experiencing it. I think that our fear to experience this significant aspect of ourselves is due to how we were educated and influenced.

I am aware that regardless of my beliefs, I am just like an animal surviving each day in wilderness. As different species we now have a different concept of survival. Society is difficult to survive in. Similarly to animals we prepare to live in on our own, and provide ourselves with needs. However, we also provide ourselves with wants, which makes us break this bond. . It is because of our consciousness that we keep on dividing ourselves with other animals. However, I think it is possible to become more in touch with our natural beings. Taking care of our own bodies, appreciating and respecting our natural needs, and do not hesitate in surviving would represent a life in which I finally could live satisfied.

How am I expected to live? I still have a very specific idea of what I am supposed to do as a human being in this culture at this age. I have been taught that as a human being I should follow an idealism created by the corrupted mind of the adults. The ones who bestowed "the truth" upon us, we are different from animals. The world relies on this reasoning to keep rotating. The "the truth" has been long wrecked and it is nothing more but a mere skeleton of a concept. Communicating that we are not like the rest of the animals happens to fit the truth that we are seeking. It is no different from a puzzle one cannot solve. Animals seem to live the moment they are living. In our case adults fondly remember the past and children use the future to escape. However, we live in the present that is why we try to find the right way to live our lives for the future. But ultimately who lays out the right path? And how can we tell if we have deviated if we cannot see what is true? My understanding of life is not nearly complete and I honestly do not think I will fully understand the purpose of the human being habituating this planet.

The five different aspects of health could contribute the discovery of my purpose in life.
My thoughts regarding health in April are currently the same as they were. Before this unit I did not explore or even thought about what IS health. Like most people I followed the ideal of: If a person has a disease or doesn't have an adequate physical and/or emotional balance then that person is not healthy. I think that this is due to the lack of education of health in our culture. However, there is available information regarding the five aspects of health. According to our culture the five aspects of health and also known as the requirements to be considered healthy are the following: Social health, Spiritual health, Emotional health, Physical health and mental health.By simply stating these different aspects I automatically realize that no one is entirely healthy under this culture. In my opinion, covering these five aspects in a day to day basis is practically impossible as a human being with a monotonous life. However, studying these separately could provide an insight into our own lives and even lead us to apply one of them or even a few of them into our daily lives. This as a result could foment into our happiness and cause us to adopt a different perspective on life.

My definition of health was different before studying this topic in this course. Investigating and researching health has led me to reconsider my definition of health. Based on the most outstanding pieces of information provided, physical health is suggested to be the most important aspect out of these five different aspects. I am aware now that society gives more importance to looking good, not only physically but socially as well, than actually being healthy. For example, obsessed exercise and excessive consumption of vitamins and/or steroids are actually mentally, spiritually, and physically unhealthy. However, because of the massive messages communicated by our culture we do not consider the negative consequences of the instructions we are following on our own body and mind. By giving a good image of ourselves we think that things become much more easier, socially speaking. And we are also considered healthy.

However, most people do not remember the fact that It does not matter how healthy or happily we live our lives we are going to die one day. So, because not thinking about this people spend their entire lives or most part of it "trying to improve" physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually and socially and do not enjoy their lives because their attempts are never enough. I still think that no human being is healthy in this planet. Regardless of the social definitions of health, being healthy is also known and identified as being happy by most people. If happiness is such a struggle, then health must be equally complex.

Would eating right comfort me enough? During this course, I have studied what food is. Regarding this topic I have changed my point of view on defining food. Back in April the author, Michael Pollan, greatly influenced my understanding on food. Reading part of his book: The Omnivore's Dilemma provided me an interesting perspective on the human relationship with food. This involves other cultures and what these have done through time regarding their diet. This book is mainly known because the author "examines the ethical, political, and ecological factors that are intertwined in the industrial, large-scale organic, local, and personal (hunted-gathered) food chains, while describing the environmental and health consequences that result from food choices within these chains". After analyzing Pollan’s words and the current eating behavior in America, I have concluded that people do not appreciate food. This might be because of the current availability of food in the market. However, once this is no longer available people will begin reacting differently towards food. According to this book and other philosophers my physical body has a lot to do with what I consume. As Pollan stated "we are not only what we eat, but how we eat." I have never considered this statement before until I read it. Even though I have heard "you are what you eat" I did not take it into consideration. Where does this idea come from? Who decides what to eat and what not to eat?



In extreme cases, when the world begins running out of resources, humanity will eventually begin fighting for food. The natural selection will begin and human kind will "appreciate" food at once. Taking food for granted takes the value that it has. However, at this moment the food is still available and as soon as it is this way people will not reconsider their action regarding food nor prepare for any crucial moment. My understanding of food is actually a gift. This might be because of personal beliefs and cultural education, but I have been taught to always thank for my food. As many other things in the world there is no specific definition for it however, I am willing to improve my understanding of my relationship with food and most importantly who should I thank for it?

Where does my food come from? Industrialization in America is one of the greatest businesses in the country. This unit is the one that emotionally affected me the most. Therefore I have carefully reconsidered my current actions regarding food for good. In this course while analyzing this unit I have realized that what I have been consuming all my life in order to "survive" has contributed to the destruction of this planet. And by so, I was also contributing to animal abuse in American industries. The irony of this has enforced my ideal that there is no person in this world that is entirely nice, caring, or right. And working towards achieving something like this is futile. Indeed it is more comfortable ignoring reality but at this point I cannot bring myself to do that. Becoming aware of facts such as these or facing reality allows me as an individual not to avoid it for the second time.

As Jared Diamond in his writing The worst mistake in the history of the human race said, “we do not appreciate agriculture. Destroying barns and replacing these with mass industries we have lost our ability of working for our food and respecting the domesticated animals raised in barns”
Companies have demolished barns and build industries to fasten the production of food from these domesticated animals. However, we are as guilty as them for purchasing what they offer. These companies would be nothing without us, the purchasers. There is no such thing as the innocent one at this point. Because of our development and ambition to improve there is not stop to these industries. I find it nearly impossible to make companies and purchasers reconsider their actions. I wonder, are we truly that blind that we cannot see our own self destruction or are we simply masochists?Is this Human nature?
To understand more our current choices and actions regarding self destruction, we have discussed human nature in this course. My ideas regarding this essential topic have not changed. I do think It is our nature to kill. As a quote from the movie Natural Born Killers stated: "It’s just murder. All God’s creatures do it. You look in the forest and you see species killing other species, our species killing all species–including the forests. And we just call it industry, not murder" If it is indeed our nature to kill then our actions are pure. But at what point is it not pure any longer?Killing other animals and plants to survive is in our nature. What is it that makes it so terribly impure? Another quote from the movie suggested a possible answer to this question. "You’ll never understand, Wayne. You and me, we’re not even the same species. I used to be you, then I evolved. From where you’re standing, you’re a man. From where I’m standing, you’re an ape. You’re not even an ape. You’re a media person. Media’s like weather, only it’s man-made. Murder? It’s pure. You’re the one made it impure. You’re buying and selling fear. You say “why?” I say “why bother?” Even if media is the one who communicated this right or wrong ideas to us, I still think there is no reason to murder such high number of living things. I think killing life might be pure, but over killing it is outrageous. In other words, I do not see a logical nor valid reason to cause this much damage to our surroundings. I am aware that my understanding of human nature is no nearly as much to state what it is exactly, however I think that by analyzing situations like this approaches my understanding to a next level.

Can change provide me a sense of happiness?I think that No changes can be done if people do not change their way of thinking. This would also involve question and reconsider our own actions. As Martin Luther King said, “the destiny of every man is tied up with others’ by the fact that we live together as a nation”. I agree with this quote and I also wonder: Why fight each other, when there is nothing to win? Although we might have experienced change in the country because of our new president Obama, it is still not enough to make a significant change that contribute to a positive outcome. We cannot relay our future in a single man. For not correcting out bad habits of over consumption due to greed we will experience nothing else but collapse.
Will experiencing collapse provide us an opportunity to live differently in the future?
Jared Diamond said:"In just a few centuries, the people of Easter Island wiped out their forest, drove their plants and animals to extinction, and saw their complex society spiral into chaos and cannibalism. Are we about to follow their lead?"

In this unit we have studied an extinct civilization that reflects all current civilizations in the world. The Rapa Nui's civilization took advantage of the surroundings and destroyed what it was elementary to survive, which in the same thing we are currently doing. I think that the reason of explaining why they unconsciously chose to terminate their own kind was because it was important for them to improve or become better. While living with this idea, they created their own independent world that only involved their daily needs and comfort. They eventually forgot about taking care of their home. They simply wanted to protect their values and it was inevitable not to do so as a human being. As a consequence the island could no longer feed the heads of each clan, which were: chiefs, bureaucrats and priests who kept the complex society running and the civilization drove to chaos. Because of this chaos a social and cultural collapse was triggered.

Our culture was influenced by another culture in the past, and as a civilization we are easily influenced by what is "better". As a consequence we try to improve ourselves mainly by the use of technology, which is the main factor that has been damaging our planet. It has been experienced by the Rapa Nui's civilization before and at this rate it will be experienced once again by us. We do not want to learn from our history's mistakes, we just want to modify them. Also, Despite hundreds of books and thousands of papers on the 'mysteries' of Easter Island, this genocide which wiped out Rapa Nui's civilisation has been largely ignored. As a matter of fact, nobody to date has written a detailed history of these traumatic events. Before this was mentioned in course I was not aware that this civilization even existed. This supports my idea that people is not interested in knowing about our self-destruction nor do something about it. As human beings we are rather afraid of our end but by not doing something about it, we are highly contradicting ourselves. Do we want to die, or do we not want to die? Based on our current actions I would say we have chosen to die. The world will keep on rotating but the human kind will banish because of this "foolish" choice. As the Moai Statues built by the Rapa Nui's civilization remained but their creators didn't, It is the same as what will happen to us.

“2 things are infinite, the Universe and human kind stupidity, and I am not so sure about the Universe”

And at this rate I am also not so sure about Human kind either.

Taking responsibility about all this damage would help us. I think that if we face reality before it is too late we can produce a positive outcome instead of what it is expected. My definition of responsibility has remained the same. In reality, responsibility does not exist. Therefore neither does right or wrong. Things are what they are. Responsibility is a linguistic phenomenon and it is also a choice. Sometimes people choose it automatically, others decide taking it based on a situation, while others never choose it. Responsibility does exist in a linguistic domain and people are identified as responsible or not based on the definition of being responsible. Right and wrong are also determined by language, and there are consequences as an outcome in either of these cases, making these WORDS reality for many people.

In conclusion, I have focused more on the insufficiency of life while studying each unit. This is because I do not feel satisfied with the way I am living my life, as previously mentioned. I do think that it is our nature to feel incomplete. Therefore we can never experience full happiness. Since the beginning my purpose was not achieving happiness, but simply finding a purpose in my life that would explain my existence. To me without any acknowledment regarding my existence it would be the same as being death. Happiness or Sadness should not be a reason to live. These are emotions that come and go as we experience life. Every human experiences it and he would never meet the extreme of one or the other.
As for myself I have not yet found my porpuse in life, but I belive that it relies in the future.



“A day without sunshine is…you know…night”

Collapse Assignment 2

Our world will collapse not the world. I say, So be it.

The time to stop production is drawing closer and closer. Some of us are aware of it some are not. Makes no difference at all. As we experience collapse we will also face reality at once. Witness the consequences of our actions at last. Some will learn from it, some will not accept it.

I do think that the most possible certain future regarding collapse will be rather economic. This will lead to the destruction of human kind. In other words, the economic collapse will be the titrant of our own collapse as a culture and as a kind. According to the Life after the oil crash article, the issue is not one of "running out" so much as it is not having enough to keep our economy running. Our economy being bad would imply millions losing their jobs, small businesses closing, companies crashing, etc. Many families would starve. The main problem will be obtaining food. The environment would begin to recover as we starve. Wealthy people will have the advantage the first years of the collapse. The difference between social classes will never be as clear. We will eventually forget about our culture and even realize how unnecessary it was. Many people will suffer. That is the future I imagine when I think of the word collapse. Thinking of this as my possible future what can we do now to prepare?


Before the hurricane Emily in Cancun, I was watching the T.V. news regarding this upcoming natural disaster. The reporter asked a woman, "How are you getting prepared for this?" and she responded, "You cannot prepare for the inevitable". At this point I still do not understand what she meant by saying that. I automatically think you can prepare yourself for anything, at least physiologically. However, I cannot seem to forget her answer. Maybe there is no way to prepare for this collapse. Other than accepting it, I do not think we can do much. Those in power still have control on what is available to us. I personally don't disagree with this collapse. I want to see the man realize his stupidity, and of course that includes myself. Yes I am afraid and it saddens me. But, whatever happens happens. I might not be physically prepared but I think I'm psychologically prepared. It is not going to be easy, but I do not plan on resigning unless I see a change.

Our society, bases the economy of the country mostly on oil. There is no enough oil to support the economy at this rate. The oil peak has already passed and a decreased oil "production" is the only thing expected. Oil Companies are concerned about this and are currently searching for more oil. They are spending more money than what they are gaining. No progress is expected any time soon. Regarding the consequences of this collapse, according to the article these unimaginable. Permanent fuel shortages would tip the world into a generations-long economic depression. Millions would lose their jobs as industry implodes. Farm tractors would be idled for lack of fuel, triggering massive famines. Energy wars would flare. And careless suburbanites would trudge to their nearest big box stores, not to buy Chinese made clothing transported cheaply across the globe, but to scavenge glass and copper wire from abandoned buildings.

It is clear that if there is no oil, there is not money, and therefore there is no food for us. We have not only based our economy on oil but our lives as well. If this ends our lives will be greatly impacted. Considering that oil contributes greatly to the production of modern technology (computers, phones, Internet,cars, etc.) Our habitual way of life would be also impacted.
How will we react with no anticipation. What are the world leaders doing so far to prepare their own people?

We have to consider that we have quickly developed our technology in the past 20 years. Although we might be running out of ideas, we are still producing new technology stuff non stop. Also the new energy that it is being spent into discovering new unnecessary things that would satisfy our comfort and distract us from the cruel reality. We are not allowing the planet some time to recover, instead we are quickly consuming all this energy. The article suggests that: The most significant difference between now and a decade ago is the extraordinarily rapid erosion of spare capacities at critical segments of energy chains.


Regarding early economy collapse the prices would increase. Not only gasoline but also food. It would be more expensive to purchase the necessary energy to"produce" and transport the remaining food to the markets. As the article suggests, The price of oil in the markets will begin to rise dramatically. This will initiate a circular hedging/hording mentality in large end-users, governments, and multi-nationals. The beginning of this chaos it is only that, the beginning of the chaos that is going to undoubtly happen due to the fact that we were not anticipated with this information. Media is to remain quiet until they have "solid" evidence to begin spreading information. The government would most likely not allow media to spread rumors beforehand. The government cannot afford the population chaos and lack of oil at the same time. Over-dramatic scenarios would be the following:
Gasoline will simply not be available to individual drivers, as precedence is given to heating oil, critical government and commercial uses, public transportation, transport of food and goods, etc.As previously mentioned it is most likely that we are going to experience starvation at some point. Ironically we would experience what some people already are in third world countries. Many would call this karma.


However, there are some current solutions to prepare for this disaster. According to the article "The community is the solution" people should focus on Housing, food, and transportation solutions in order to survive this. This article provides a complete theory and explanation of why this would be elementary and helpful. However, in my point of view I think it is futile. Yes we can get used to not using our cars, eating local, and being more reserved, but what good will it make if there is no food provided? Or how will you handle those who are struggling around you? Because of this preparations you would become someone who might survive, but not for long. If you consider that a middle class family decides to stick up to these solutions, for how long will they be able to continue regarding their economy and their environment. You would need a large group of people collaborating with you in these solutions to possibly make it work. And as far as I'm concerned almost no one is even aware of the current situation.

The date of December 12, 2012 is predicted to be the last day of the world. According to the media there are many pieces of information suggesting the same thing. The Mayan calendar ends in that date. The Chinese event calendar also ends in that date. The Internet web also suggests that something will happen this date. These and many other have been communicating that it will be the end of human kind. Although there is not information of what will happen, a movie was still made regarding this event. Everyone in the world has a feeling about this idea of the end. It could be happiness, at last! or it could be fear. Regardless of how we may feel it is important to produce some income out of this. Therefore, media might be using the idea of the end of the world as a way to earn a profit. We as human beings and as a community have no consideration or sensitivity towards other people.

I personally think it would be a good thing for the environment for the human kind to extinct. Although I am also a human being I am not against of this. I am aware that we have done way too much damage to even fight to stay longer. Many women dream about giving birth and making a family, but making a family in what? Bringing an Innocent life to this world would be rather selfish. We might experience the end tomorrow by a meteor inevitably crashing to our earth or by declaring world war III, and using nuclear bombs to kill each other. Or it might be in 5, 10 or 20 years. It makes no difference if we do not change ourselves.


If I were to want to survive this collapse I would have to earn as much money as I can and play my cards right. It would be our turn to experience natural selection. But in this case during the early collapse it would be money not physical strength. My future and the next generation are in jeopardy. We cannot risk at this point. Other than that I do not want to attempt doing other realistic methods of survival.

Collapse Assifment 1, Easter Island Collapse

Regarding this article, Jared Diamond said:
"In just a few centuries, the people of Easter Island wiped out their forest, drove their plants and animals to extinction, and saw their complex society spiral into chaos and cannibalism. Are we about to follow their lead?"

This article is based on the extinction of Rapa Nui's civilisation. It is written in a way that would facilitate our way of connecting this civilization to our own. Our current actions as a society are causing great damage to the environment. I think that most people do know that we are self destructing by continuing mass production of things we do not need. However, most people do not accept it. Being aware that we are driving ourselves to the end is not nearly comfortable. As civilized human beings we want to continue demonstrating how rich and improved we are and leave that legacy for future generations. But the question is will there be future generations that would inherit our cultural values or beliefs? I think this is one of the least things we wonder when we produce. Is it the ambition that blinds us, or simply ignorance?

Because of this actions and way of thinking we can easily connect ourselves to the Rapa Nui's civilisation. According to Jared, this culture's development was actually suicide. It was clear that their island was Rich in flora and fauna, therefore there was no logical reason of why the people from Easter Island had to experience starvation. We could easily state that they made a huge mistake for wiping out their forest and leading themselves to extinction because of that. It was more important to follow their beliefs and stand out as a civilization. I do not understand the need do destroy what it is given. I could also relate this to religion; God provides the man with everything he needs to live, and as a symbol of appreciation the man goes an destroys what God gave him to build something the man likes, could be either a statue or a church. This idea is passed on to future generations along with threats. "If you do not do it, you will be punished."
Previous generations felt the need to be afraid of something bigger than them. This way they would have no other choice but to keep on seeking approval as human beings by constantly improving their life styles, when they were actually wanted to simply take advantage of their surroundings. How did this civilization develop these ideas to begin with? I think it was due to the colonists' influence on the islanders. As Jared Suggested, during that time natives experienced suffering for not being as developed as the colonists.There is no reason to believe that its civilisation could not have adapted and survived (in a modified form) to an environment devoid of large timber. What they could not endure, however, and what most of them did not survive, was something altogether different: the systematic destruction of their society, their people and their culture. Diamond has chosen to close his eyes to the real culprits of Rapa Nui's real collapse and annihilation.

Regarding Rapa Nui's civilisation, I do think that this is the reason of why they unconsciously chose to terminate their own kind. It was important for them to improve or become better. While living with this idea, they created their own independent world that only involved their daily needs and comfort. They eventually forgot about taking care of their home. They just wanted to protect their values and it was inevitable not to do so as a human being. As a consequence the island could no longer feed the heads of each clan. They were: chiefs, bureaucrats and priests who kept the complex society running. Because of this chaos triggered a social and cultural collapse. By 1700 the population dropped to between one-quarter and one-tenth of its former number, and many of the statues were toppled during supposed “clan wars” of the 1600 and 1700’s.

Focusing in Diamond Jared's book, 'Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive', Questions such as, Why did this exceptional civilisation crumble? or What drove its population to extinction? are asked in order to symbolize a much more important matter. Our current civilization. However, -The biggest problem faced by researchers who have attempted to answer these questions is the fact that the information written down by European discoverers and early visitors is extremely limited in content and reliability- In reality no one truly knows exactly what happened to the Rapa Nui's civilisation, for the simple fact that we were not there to witness it. We have no other choice but to rely on old records and the current Easter Island to figure out what happened. There are more theories explaining this self-destruction. One of the is the following:

The real truth regarding the tremendous social devastation which occurred on Easter Island is that it was a direct consequence of the inhumane behavior of many of the first European visitors, particularly the slavers who raped and murdered the islanders, introduced small pox and other diseases, and brutally removed the natives to mainland South America.

These theories are very similar to the ones we are experiencing today. Our culture was influenced by another culture in the past, and as a civilization we are easily influenced by what is "better". As a consequence we try to improve ourselves mainly by the use of technology, which is the main factor that has been damaging our planet. It has been experienced before and at this rate it will be experienced once again. We do not want to learn from our history's mistakes, we just want to modify them. Also, Despite hundreds of books and thousands of papers on the 'mysteries' of Easter Island, this genocide which wiped out Rapa Nui's civilisation has been largely ignored. As a matter of fact, nobody to date has written a detailed history of these traumatic events. Before this was mentioned in Life Doesn't Have to be Meaningless class I was not aware that this civilization even existed. This supports my idea that human kind is not interested in knowing about our self-destruction nor do something about it. As human beings we are rather afraid of our end but by not doing something about it, we are highly contradicting ourselves. Do we want to die, or do we not want to die? Based on our current actions I would say we have chosen to die. The world will keep on rotating but the human kind will banish because of this "foolish" choice. As the Moai Statues remained but their creators didn't, It is the same as what will happen to us. Our actions and mistakes, our legacy in this world, will remain undoubted. There is far too much proof that human beings habituated this planet and caused severed damage to it. And this is because similarly to the Rapa Nui's civilisation we consumed everything we needed. The Easter Island's treeless landscape is perhaps the most crucial piece of physical evidence on which Diamond has based his theory of ecocide. Diamond's whole edifice of ecological self-destruction basically rests on Easter Island's deforestation. According to this premise, the extinction of the native palm tree triggered a series of environmental and social catastrophes that culminated in Easter Island's culture crash. As palms were cut down to clear land for agriculture, to plant gardens, to construct big canoes, to obtain firewood for cooking and to transport and erect the giant cult statues, a cascade of environmental and societal knock-on disasters ensued.

I believe that our current civilization and the Rapa Nui's civilisation share the same destiny, for the simple fact that we are both human beings. The whole world has concluded the same idea of how to live and survive at least culturally speaking. Those who study, analyze and recognize this information of the Eater Island are those who might be willing to make a change. Will it be enough? Everyone has their reason to continue on living and leave a legacy behind. We do not want to experience an end, but we are not avoiding it. Our reasons might not be enough to "unblind" ourselves. My future depends on other people and other people's future depend on me. By doing something, that might harm or help the planet will affect the lives of millions of people.
We are so focused on our own world that we do not realize that buying that one car or wasting two more litters of water is contributing to the destruction of this world. We are not an insignificant as we think we are.

Because of his writings, Diamond Jared is reasonably hopeful about the future of humanity. Nevertheless, he does not hesitate to foretell environmental calamity and societal breakdown in the most unhinged imagery: "By the time my young sons reach retirement age, half the world's species will be extinct, the air radioactive, and the seas polluted with oil ... There is no doubt that those who survive the collapse will also write nostalgically about our own era just like Jared.

-As Rainbird (2003) aptly concludes: "Whatever may have happened in the past on Easter Island, whatever they did to their island themselves, it totally pales into insignificance compared to the impact that was going to come through Western contact."-

Final Food Assignment

What is food and Why has it become such a burden to me?

As I study and analyze industrialization in Life Doesn't Have to be Meaningless class I keep on reconsidering my habitual diet. What I have been consuming all my life in order to "survive" has contributed to the destruction of this planet. I have run projects before to help the environment thinking that I was different than most people by doing so. By contributing to make this place a better place, I was also contributing to the animal abuse in American industries. The irony of this has enforced my ideal that there is no person in this world that is entirely nice, caring, or right. And working towards achieving something like this is futile. I might be causing harm to something else as I live my life and I haven't even noticed. I haven't wanted to notice. Indeed it is more comfortable ignoring reality but at this point I cannot bring myself to do that. After this unit I have come to focus more on the angle of the abuse and damage we humans are causing to ourselves and other species.

Responding to the song "cows with guns"
I found the song and the video funny mainly because it is not real. Sadly cows cannot fight to survive like those in the song. I do think animals live afraid after experiencing pain. However, their fear is not enough to make a change. It is in hands of the people who run the industries to stop the animal abuse. And it is also in our hands to stop purchasing the meat that is coming from these animals to make a change. This video reflected the human behavior during a revolution. It was clear when Che Guevara was mentioned in the song. Human beings have the ability to revolt against an oppressive power, and because of it, the opportunity to fight for their own rights. Cows do not have that opportunity, and not because they indeed cannot grab guns and revolt but because we who have the ability of saving them we are not providing them that opportunity. This song to me is a creative introduction to the reality of industries in America. But it could be also a lesson to the public that is it sill not aware of this reality. I think that the people who created this song still appreciate the animals and seek to give them the respect they deserve. By not giving them respect we continue on developing a huge mistake that began many years ago.

As Jared said in The worst mistake in the history of the human race we do not appreciate agriculture. Destroying barns and replacing these with mass industries we have lost our ability of working for our food and respecting the domesticated animals raised in barns. I personally think that the abuse in industries is due to the lack of the same abuse on the abuser himself. Because he has not experienced what the animals have gone through, he does not consider their pain. I find it the most unjust and disgusting thing to do, take advantage of the weak because it cannot communicate its rights as living organism. However, this leads to a major argument. The fact that industries are providing the public tons of meat to satisfy their needs is not wrong to thousands of people. As soon as there is meat it does not matter how or where it came from. That is one of the greatest comforts as human beings. We do not have to concern ourselves as soon as everything is going according to what it is expected. Our society lives in the ideal of we as kings of this kingdom, planet earth, have the "right" to consume any living organism other than other human beings. After all, the world was made for us.

If the world was truly made for all human kind, then there would not be starvation in other countries. There would also not be limited food due to expensive prices. The world was not made for us equally it was made for those who came and were put in power. Not everyone lives equally and therefore not everyone has the same opportunities. I think it is in our nature not to be equal to others. It has been attempted in many ways, such as communism, and it is not enough for most people. We have the need of having more and more, because we refuse to feel satisfied. Therefore, we take advantage of the world that was not made for us, and we kill it. We dominate other species, and we dominate the terrain by building it according to our own comfort. Out of all the animals in the world, the human being is the cruelest one.
I partly agree with what Jared suggested in that article. Developed countries have lost any type of appreciation and respect to other species. These are only seen as a profit. I think that the biggest mistake human kind has ever done is a different one, without this one none of this would have ever happened.

Furthermore to how we feel about the processed meat from industries, we have grown so selfish that thinking about our own well and satisfaction is a priority. If we feel like eating meat then we can easily acquire it from a super market. Companies have conveniently set prices that would make the people buy their merchandise. As the article of Industrial food isn't cheap suggests, not even the wealthiest people could afford the real price of industrial food in the market. This is because of all the money that is invested into building industries and machinery that would keep on "producing" the meat. Without mentioning, the energy cost of these machines that reduce the amount of time to collect all the goods by harassing the animals, is far too expensive. Paying this much money, abusing and killing animals, increasing the number of overweight population in America, consuming large amounts of energy, Providing possible infected food to the public, contaminating the environment, etc, are some of the consequences that come along with industrialization. And still these are not enough to make Companies reconsider "renovating" a barn. It all comes down to the production of money. The reason of why animals and the environment is suffering is mainly because of a profit. Thinking it in this way the reason of industrialization and these consequences do not nearly balance out. How much greed must you have to ignore all these facts in order to become wealthier than your neighbor?

As guilty is the one who produces as the one who buys from him. Yes companies keep on running their industries to become wealthier, but we are helping them the most. These companies would be nothing without us, the purchasers. We all are contributing to the destruction of this planet in some way. There is no such thing as the innocent one at this point. Because of our development and ambition to improve there is not stop to these industries. I find it nearly;y impossible to make companies and purchasers reconsider their actions. Yes, many people can change after becoming aware of the cruel reality in this process, but I do not think it is enough to cause a major impact that would save the little life that is left. Are we truly that blind that we cannot see our own self destruction or are we simply masochists?

To understand more our current choices and actions regarding self destruction, we have discussed human nature in Life Doesn't Have to be Meaningless class. I think It is our nature to kill. As a quote from the movie Natural Born Killers stated: "It’s just murder. All God’s creatures do it. You look in the forest and you see species killing other species, our species killing all species–including the forests. And we just call it industry, not murder" If it is indeed our nature to kill then our actions are pure. But at what point is it not pure any longer?
Killing other animals and plants to survive is in our nature. What is it that makes it so terribly impure? Another quote from the movie suggested a possible answer to this question. "You’ll never understand, Wayne. You and me, we’re not even the same species. I used to be you, then I evolved. From where you’re standing, you’re a man. From where I’m standing, you’re an ape. You’re not even an ape. You’re a media person. Media’s like weather, only it’s man-made. Murder? It’s pure. You’re the one made it impure. You’re buying and selling fear. You say “why?” I say “why bother?” Even if media is the one who communicated this right or wrong ideas to us, I still think there is no reason to murder such high number of living things. I think killing life might be pure, but over killing it is outrageous.

As a conclusion to this unit, I have stopped eating meat. I changed my usual milk to organic milk. I have came up with projects to make a possible change. And still, food to me is a burden. Meat or vegetables I cannot enjoy it. Thinking of the way it came from and who it came from makes me sick. The food I am eating is not food that was "shared" with me so that I could survive, but it is food that brings money to someone else. Someone I might never meet is providing me all this food at the supermarket not because of kindness, but because of greed. And I am helping that person become wealthier and wealthier, and therefore destroy the world I live in by ripping it apart. I am just part of the process of industrialization. The never ending chain of the modern life continues and continues, and only because I bought something from the supermarket at a good price.
I wonder how would I feel if I were to collect my own food from nature itself. I think it would be delightful.

If you cannot be saints of knowledge, then, I pray you, be at least its warriors. - Nietzsche

Food # 8 - Industrial Food

Response to Pollan vs Colbert:

After watching the video of the interview I came to the conclusion that not even Pollan is able to "escape" from the temptation of purchasing delicious artificial food. During the interview on Pollan's book "defending food" it gave me the impression that Pollan did not have enough "evidence" to support his arguments against Colbert. I think it was quite simple to defend the American way of eating rather than the food that it is being corrupted by industries. Many people would easily argue the same Colbert did, which is -Artificial food tastes good therefore we don't want to care- This origins from going to the supermarket and purchasing the habitual groceries. I think it is inevitable to live our lives without consuming artificial food in our society. Purchasing our favorite cereal once a month or our frozen corn dogs is far too easy and economic to not even consider ignoring these. As the article of Industrial food isn't cheap suggests, not even the wealthiest people could afford the real price of industrial food in the market. Companies have conveniently set prices that would make the people buy their merchandise. And as we blindly go through the corridors of the supermarket looking at the different attracting brands we ignore how this food could damage our bodies.


Furthermore, as Pollan discussed, our bodies cannot handle the different artificial ingredients or chemicals in the contained food we might daily consume. However, as Colbert said "but it is delicious!" In other words it does not matter how much damage the food is causing to out bodies as long as it tastes good. Not only in America but in other countries people have became too focused on their own lives that the only reason why they would not buy that bag of Cheetos is because it has too many calories and it would ruin their diet.
Speaking of diet, in this video Pollan recommended that what a person should eat in order to be healthy is food with less than 5 ingredients and of course home made. Knowing that people would easily fall into the temptation of buying junk food in the supermarket he said it was "O.K" to consume these once a week. I do not think Colbert agreed with Pollan's argument because he kept on debating that the food he was bias against is delicious and fun. Colbert gave himself an image of the standard American who doesn't have the slightly idea of what he is consuming and he is not interested in finding out because he enjoys eating it.


Response to Animal Cruelty:
I have always been against animal cruelty, but it has never been beyond puppy mills. After watching this video more than realizing something I reconsidered my diet. I have always known that industries did not treat domesticated animals in the most comfortable way. I was not aware that there was this type of abuse included into raising the food I consume. I am feeling rather guilty for purchasing meat at the supermarket. I could easily say "the chicken or the pig is already dead, why not eat it anyways?", but I'd feel disgusted about myself, specially after watching this video. Even if the speaker in the video was clearly bias, the images were enough to
make me reconsider.


Furthermore, me not purchasing meat might not make any difference at all in these industries, but at least I am not contributing to it. By saying this I could easily release myself from guilt. However, I do not think it is enough. I am planning on making a project that would do something about this animal abuse. Many people cannot bear to watch the reality of where the food is coming from, but only because we are not watching or hearing it it does not mean its not happening. As for reconsidering my diet, before i argued being too young to become a vegetarian but now I do not really care about that any longer. I have already damaged my body enough by consuming industrialized food to even argue that becoming a vegetarian would conflict my development.


In conclusion, It is as discussed in Life doesn’t have to be Meaningless class, America cannot be stopped from industrializing at this point. America is a juggernaut and avoiding crucial consequences cannot be avoided. As seen in the videos Meatrix, not only the massive destruction of barns is occurring but also animal abuse and bacterial development due to lack of hygiene. These problems eventually will have a great impact on us consumers of meat. In the most predictable future, it is highly possible that there will be no more pigs or chicken to kill and process. If not a disease could begin originating from these places and stop the production of meat. As a solution to help the ecology, industrialization can slow down in production and give some time to recovery. However many companies would not even consider this alternative solution. This is because these are too focused on producing money that they ignore the damage they are causing. I do not think it is time to point fingers at one another, in other words blame those who are producing. Ultimately we all are at fault, because we consume what they produce.

Comments

To Bao Lin:

I agree with you on how supermarkets might ""push" certain food/products to the consumers." I think that it is a method of commercialism and very effective too. Offering sales actually benefits the company to a certain point, until the costumer becomes a common costumer of that brand then they will withdraw the sale. Of course the price has to remain lower than the competition.

To Yu Xi:

I agree with you about people not being contsant with their habitual way of eating. It might be because they are not comminted to eating healthy or because they are too influenced by the fast food that tastes very good and it is also economic to a certain point. I think that this book might discuss the cultural way of our diet, however it also provides an example on the drastic differences from culture to culture.

To Maggie:

I can relate to you based on your understanding of this quote. I also do not follow specific ideas on what to eat and what not to eat. Ulimately the one who decides what is healthy for myself is myself.

To Quinn:

Like you I was not aware of this holidy until it was mentioned in class. I knew about it but it was under a different name and my family never celebrated it before. I do not think it is a good or bad holiday it is just there to symbolize some idea that some group of people made up.

To John L.:

Indeed the American and the Chinese food culture might be very different in some ways but it does not matter if we live in America. This is because we do what majority does and lose our cultural ways of eating in some way.

Food Assignment 7

Cooking Oyako-Don! (Japanese meal)

This meal is really easy to make and the ingredients are easy to find.

To make it you need the following:

- Eggs (For three pleople 6 eggs)

- Chicken (quantity of your choice)

- Onion (quantity of your choice)

- Mentsuyu (This sauce can be found in 89st and first av.)
Contained ingredients: Fish extract (water dried bonito, dried sardine), soy sauce (water, soybeans, wheat, salt), Water, Hight fructose corn syrup, sugar, salt, monosodium glutamate, alcohol, mirin (glucose syrup, water, rice, alcohol), Kelp extract (water, dried kelpt, salt, alcohol(, Disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate.

- Water

- White rice

For 3/4 of mentsuyu poured add 2 parts of water. While cooking, constantly try it and if you want add more mentsuyu or water depending on your taste.
It takes less than 25 minutes to cook and it is very simple.

Instructions:


Step 1: If you do not have a rice cooker then you can make the rice differently. I will make the rice this way to demonstrate how to do it. For 1 cup of rice use 2 cups of water. In this case I will make 2 cups of rice therefore I will need 4 cups of waster. In a pot fry the rice for 4 minues with a a little bit of oil. Then pour the 4 cups of water and cover the pot. After 25 minutes cooking at minimum the rice will be done.



Step 2: Meanwhile the rice is cooking cut the chicken into small pieces. I recommend boneless chicken to make it faster. In a pan fry the chicken until it is ready to eat. Add little oil so that the chicken doesn't stick to the pan. Spread the chicken out so that it cooks evenly.


Step 3: In a bowl put the quantity of yolks you wish for this meal and mix these.

Step 4: Chop the onion depending on how much you would like to use.


Step 5: Once the chicken is ready add the eggs and the onions to the pan.


Wait until the eggs are 3/4 cooked, then add the mentsuyu and water. In this case I will use 6 eggs, 3/4 of mentsuyu, and 2 parts of water.

Keep mixing until the eggs are done and constantly try it to find out its taste. You are free to add more mentsuyu or water. You can also add any other vegetable you would like, along with the onion. Or to replace the onion.


Once it is done in a bowl put the amount of rice you would like to eat and on top put the Oyako-Don! Enjoy and itadakimasu!

My own experience
I really like how it tastes. My sister does not like onions so she took them off to eat it. She really liked it too. My father enjoys eating Oyako-Don every time, and this time it was the same. I will bring this to my class tomorrow and give it to my classmates. I hope they like it too.

What my Classmates thought about my Oyako-Don:

Because it was after lunch many of them were satisfied and did not want to eat anymore. But some of them however decided to try it. The first one was Bao Lin, and she liked it very much. She wanted to take some home, but she couldn't because there was basically nothing left at the end. Dylan liked it and he finished it very fast. He complimented my cooking. Then I gave one to Mara and she finished it after class, she also liked it. I did not bring enough for everyone therefore I didn't give much to classmates. Next time I will bring more.

Response to Pollan 1

Michael Pollan and his book, The Omnivore's Dilemma, reflect a respectable point of view on our relationship with food. It deeply analysis and responds to the answer of "What should we have for dinner?" Although I have only read the introduction of this book I can tell that it suggests a different perspective on food from what we have seen. This involves of course other cultures and what these have done through time regarding their diet. This book is mainly known because the author "examines the ethical, political, and ecological factors that are intertwined in the industrial, large-scale organic, local, and personal (hunted-gathered) food chains, while describing the environmental and health consequences that result from food choices within these chains". I personally think that this book is rather interesting for discussing such matter. In a day to day bases I do not think much about food. This might be because I do not have to worry on obtaining food. Although I am thankful for the food I get everyday I do not analyze how this is affecting my life. According to this book and other philosophers My physical body has a lot to do with what I consume. As Pollan stated "we are not only what we eat, but how we eat." I have never considered this statement before until i read about this. Even though i have heard "you are what you eat" I did not take it into consideration. Where does this idea come from?
Who decides what to eat and what not to eat?


I am certain that these types of questions were also asked in Pollans book. While reading the introduction I encountered a few of them. For example, While referring to the American choice for food, Pollan asked: "where in the world did it come from?" In order to answer this question it is necessary to study the very beginning of alimentation. Although i have not read the answer to this question yet, I can tell that his answer relates the previous factors mentioned: ethical, political, and ecological.

The world is a competition, even regarding food. At crucial times like this when the world is losing a vast number of resources the world will eventually begin fighting for food. The natural selection will begin and human kind will "appreciate" food at once. Taking food for granted takes the value that it has. Regardless if it is cultural food is not appreciated in America. I think this is due to the availability of food at this moment. However, I do think that this will change in the near future. I wonder, if the world indeed will have to take care of the remaining food then will they come to analyze and reconsider their own actions regarding food as well?
Although this book does teach us about food and our culture I do not think many people will actually learn something from it. At this point food is available for us, therefore there is no need to reconsider anything. This is how most people think about their current life. - If it is there then no need to do anything about it- The value of this book will increase when food becomes more and more needed not wanted.

I am interested in knowing about my choices regarding food and what these bring upon others and myself. I will change my way in my part, but will it be enough?
Analysing human behavior, politics. ethics, etc. How will it change anything if the people who analyze it do not have the will of causing results. Although i am interested I think is also a waste of time. By myself I will not be able to change an entire culture. By reading this book i will not have enough motivation on changing the way people eat in America. There is too much damage done already to make a significant difference. In 10 years from now any culture's way of alimentation or diet will change. Politically speaking the problems between countries will increase and the trading market will become more greedy.

Focusing on the criticism of this book, Omnivore's Dilemma, The economist Tyler Cowen argued, "The problems with Pollan's 'self-financed' meal reflect the major shortcoming of the book: He focuses on what is before his eyes but neglects the macro perspective of the economist. He wants to make the costs of various foods transparent, but this is an unattainable ideal, given the interconnectedness of markets.In addition, some critical food theorists have claimed that the Omnivore's Dilemma is not actually a dilemma" This demonstrates the perspective this culture has on food. It is merely an economic factor rather than a gift, as it is seen in other cultures. Regarding once again the competition in America. It does matter what it is. There will be always economic competition involved. At this point it is not the polluted environment, or the lack of resources, or global warming what is driving us to an end. But the greed of human kind.