The Human Contribution

A classmates of mine (jeremy paquette) intelligently suggested that although we might blame the human race for many environental and ecological mishaps that may affect or somewhat destroy the fitness of the earth and its ability to support life, we might just be contriubting to the ever present concept of evolution. Pollution, global warming, research on animals, having a preferance as to what animals to eat, selecting a female partner and etc are all human activities that are comparable to other animals who prefer a certain food source to others, display a trend to mate with others outside their group (allopatric speciation) etc. The bottom line is we all; human and non-humans animals alike, are part of this earth and whatever we do might after all be just a matter of natural selection which in turn increases our fitness (the ability to survive from generation to generation) and consequently our contribution to evolution. When a deer from the savoy state forest decides to mate with another from North Adams, it does that to increase its genetic variations and in so doing, its fitness. Humans on the other hand do the same-that why the normal, average human being will mate with someone genetically different from them (outside the family). These activities are just natural to animals and are our contribuion to the evolution process. I make the same argument for technology as well, especially the research on animals. I do in no way condone the suffering and pain we might inflict on animals during research but i do say doing research into the gene that causes a strain of CMT is as important and similar to peahens prefering peacocks with bigger, brighter tails ( a representation of their healthy status and good genes). If due to research we can succesfully block the gene that causes the genetic form of CMT, without any aftermath, then we can possible have a couple with the blocked out gene pass it on to their children who intend pass it on and in due time have a sizeable population with no HSP27 gene thus eradicating the possibility of CMT. So although i think research could be at times cruel, i think it is just our contribution to the natural order of things, in the same manner by which gray wolves (Canis lupis) tend to mate with domestic dogs (Canis familiaris)- a possibilty of giving the respective specie a better chance or survival, thus shouldn't be judged at least on a moral basis for its intent but rather for the manner in which the intent is fulfilled!

Defending Meat Eating: A response to Pam Saunders

Before i even start this blog, i would like reinterate that i in no way necessarily support the views expressed by Pam Saunders but after searching for hours and hours for an article or piece of writing that could defend why myself and others eat animals and meat-products, i thought the least i could do was share this with my readers. In her three page article termed; "In Defense of Meat: Guilt- Free Choices, Pam Saunders raises two main (atleast to me) that are credible defenses for meat eating;what do we do with the cows and livestock we've grown for food and the a second issue referring to how plants use animal products-manure and decomposed matter for their own sustenance. The first argument she makes is widely known to many involved in animal rights discussions wherein it poses the question that we can't exacly let these animals back into the wild for the obvious reasons that they wouldn't be able to fend and provide for themselves as their wild counterparts would. I know we are the reason behind why these animals may have lost their natural instincts so some will say keeping them as livestock doesn't fix the problem either so they are better off being free and through generations, they can get these instincts back via evolution or just natural selection. The second argument and the one i'm most interested in ( for the purpose of this blog), is the idea of plants using animals for their survival as the natural order of things. Some may say this is a version of Benjamin Franklin's argument : if they can eat each other...then why can't i?" but i think its got some credibility! I'm not taking the "if they eat animals, then i could eat animals too" route but i would like to know how others feel especially the vegans and vegetaranians. Do you rethink you plant produce now that you know that it may have absorbed its nutrients and stored its reserves from animals themselves? Are u indirectly consuming animals when you eat plants?

Reality Check

What is reality? We may not agree on what we individually define as reality for the simple fact that the facets of reality are sometimes subjective and compiled with the discrepancies in our knowledge of the world or better yet if our knowledge or belief of our knowledge of the world is solely based on our interpretations of that "truth' or is it the "truth" beyond any human interpretations. Well we may never come to terms on the reality of the world or the truth of the world but what we can all agree on is the reality of the disaster in New Orleans called Hurricane Katrina. As my spring break, i alongside 18 others from MCLA (Massachusetts College of LIberal Arts) volunteered with the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) and together with other student groups from Miami University of Ohio, Oklahoma State, Taiwan, South Dakota, Portland-Oregon and many more (totaling and sometimes surpassing about 100 students daily) were responsible for planting 25000 trees (oak and cypress) in the Fontainbleu State Park in Mandeville ( on the city limits of New Orleans) which lost 90% of its trees thanks to Hurricane Katrina. The trip was eye-opening for it gave me and many others a perspective on how much the lives of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana were affected. Even after two years and counting, the devastation is still evident by the number of destroyed houses and bare foundations left standing in the neighborhoods of New Orleans. I was brought to tears listening to the stories of habitants who lost everything but are still steadfast in their faith in God (something or someone we still haven't come to terms to...His existence or none thereof) and are moved by the volunteer work and dedication the youth and many others are showing towards the rebuilding efforts. I write this blog to offer a voice for those in New Orleans that a lot still needs to be done and the reality of the matter is that although we may not necessarily have ties to the state of Louisiana, we kinda owe it to humanity and the people affected by this tragedy by doing whatever we can to help rebuild. In the words of Lady Chase who has owned and operated the Dooky Chase restaurant in New Orleans since 1942 " “If you come down here and don’t put a hammer to a nail, that’s ok. Just come. You being here is a push, and we need a push. We’ve have a lot of work to do down here.” and that sums it all......doing anything is something worthy of helping.

Knowledge vs. Belief

The one thing i have realized as a staple in our recent conversations has been the idea of knowledge and belief and how flimsily we sometimes interchange them. For the purpose of clarity as i continue this blog, knowledge refers to the things that we have evidence of; factual accounts of some sorts whereas belief will typically mean things we have strong convictions for and may sometimes lack the evidence to prove their validity. I know i am a man ( by man i mean of the male gender) and i can back this up from genetic research which prove that i have xy chromosomes and not xx ( which will make me female). I also have anatomical and sex roles that are associated with being males from my enlarged vocal codes to the fact that i can't give birth ( lack of a uterus) that confirm my knowledge that i am indeed male. Now to the question of belief, i believe that there's a God or at the very least a supreme being that is responsible for the creation of our universe and its entirety as we "know" it. The belief stems from my belief in the biblical recounts of the old testament to the new testament as well the accounts of the Qua- ran and the Kitab-i-Agdas as well as most historical books. Some may question this belief for there's no prove of a God but how many things do we belief in or rely on as true (knowledge) but can't prove? What we know or what we belief are two different things but philosophers like Ernst Von Glasersfeld have stipulated that there are some aspects of knowledge we will never attain; for the most part we will always believe in what we know as the truth.

Cosmological Theory of Philosophy

The cosmological argument is regards to the existence of a God; a supernatural omnipotent and omnipresent being in a nut shell postulates that "everything has a cause" thus the world has a cause or in this case a creator responsible for its being. The apparent flaw with this argument that many great minds have quickly pointed is that if God is the "cause" of the universe as we know it and if everything has a cause then what or Who created God? In other words is the cosmological theory self-contradictory? Well I'm not going to pretend i know the answer to this question that must have perplexed the advocates of the cosmological argument but let me run this by you all as suggestion. In the case of time, most scientist and philosophers suggested that time was a circular phenomenon rather than a linear function- a very large circle that will avoid any repeats in peoples' events and life in the same life cycle! So what if we apply this to the cosmological theory; maybe the cause and event function is more of a circular notion rather than a linear progression- wherein every cause has an event and every event in turn becomes a cause and vice versa. This probably differs from what cosmological philosophers might argue; that God has no cause but call me part of camp 2- i belong to that camp that suggest that the cosmological argument is sufficient in sort of proving the existence of a God if and only if He in Himself is created by something else as a result of the circular manner of creation and coming into existence. The next can or worms i might have left myself vulnerable to is who then is the creator of God or the cause of God? Well to me; " the lack of proof for the existence of God or in this case his 'cause' is not sufficient proof for his nonexistence"

Agnosticism: Human Nature or Skeptical?

Which is more practical? Is it more rational to believe that there's no God or be rest content that " no proof for his existence isn't proof for his nonexistence"! Some people attack the agnostic point of view towards religions because they think not having evidence or enough evidence to prove that there's a God is good enough reason to say that there isn't one while others think their stand is somewhat cowardly (for lack of a better word) since they remain open-minded and sort of middle ground between atheism and theism. In addition, the agnostic position to others is just a skeptic's approach to religion and the debate over the existence of a God or not. Personally, i think the agnostic position is more than just being a skeptic or a "coward" not being able to make up their mind as to which direction they'll take. Who said they have to be atheist or theist? They have already made up their mind and taking the stand that they would prefer more evidence in either direction before drawing a conclusion. I mean isn't that what we all do? isn't that what statistics and researchers do when they never say we reject a hypotheses thus accept the alternative. Better yet isn't that what we do on a daily basis when we don't believe things we can't comprehend at first mention because we would like more evidence. Atleast the agnostic is open-minded and ready to learn from evidence and not an atheist in disguise or as some think just on a middle ground so they can go either way and not be necessarily held to their previous convictions.

A pragmatic empiricism

According to Thomas Clark the society has to refrain from characterising itself by any epistemological belief or abide by any particular religion and in so doing maintain an environment where everyone can freely worship and belief what they want to. The same applies for policies, laws and rules that apply to communities and areas of the public including schools, universities etc. This is maintained by public schools not offering religious classes of any kind or particular doctrine so as not to put undue pressure on its students as to what way to abide. Then i pose the question of why then do we teach science like evolution in public schools wherein some people might object to that version of the origin of the world? If we make the argument that we have to expose the students to this scientific belief without any bias towards others or without necessarily asking students to question their faith and the knowledge of God creating the universe then we can make the same argument for religious classes. Why not teach history classes with the Bible as the text or better yet why not teach Islam to students from a historical perspective of the Mohammed's life, the jihads and the consequent segregation of Islamic followers or matter of fact we could just allow anyone with the authority to hold seminars or classes about whatever religious or epistemological belief they see fit as long as they have a certain number of interested parties? It will just be an extension of the real world empiricism maintained by catholic schools and other religious-affiliated schools in society!