Excellent Finals!

As I graded your finals, I could only think how wonderful your TOK papers will be. If you write your papers half as well as you wrote this final, you will be in excellent shape. I could not believe how thorough and in-depth your writing was on an extemporaneous essay!

Have a great break!

In our recent discussions, we have talked about finding an equation to model everything in our universe, everything from the micro to the macro, the tangible to the intangible. I find this task to be taking on too much. I believe that capabilities such as finding the universal equation cannot be achieved because some things are not meant to be discovered. I don't mean this as in the moment that a person finds this equation that Zeus will strike them with a lightning bolt, but this desire to know everything has an uncomfortable feeling with me.

Heisenberg and other physicists in the first half of the 20th Century had researched to develop an equation to map the formulation of quantum physics. All though their main goal had been too find this equation, Heisenberg was constantly troubled by the variables. His primary concern to solve was that uncertainty is actually a property of the world. And in this it was physically impossible to measure specific momentum and particle positions to a degree that would able him to model an equation to quantum mechanics.

Physicists have come up with formulas such as the Schrödinger equation, and Heisenberg's matrix model, but how do these improve our society? Sure, physics and science play a key role and our advancement is dependent upon critical thought. But maybe the Schrödinger equation, and Heisenberg's matrix model are a little too much? Sorry about the location of the equation above, but I am happy living my life without worrying what that even means.

Asimo

I apologize that this is extremely unrelated to the current topics at hand, but I saw this video and needed to share. It appears that robots (or at least this one specifically) are learning to embrace abstraction, an ability supposedly characteristic of humans. Here is the video for those interested:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18wSJs6LIc0

If you don't wish to watch the video: Asimo is presented with an object "Chair." He looks at its properties and can identify it as a Chair. He is then is presented with an office stool which he recognizes as another type of Chair. And then he is presented with a small table, which he recognizes as not a type of Chair.

Main point: we should warn Will Smith.
(An awful IRobot reference)

Hunger Articles

Of all the information present in the articles on hunger, what I found most interesting was the statement made that hunger kills more people every year than AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis combined. Diseases such as AIDS have no known cure; a diagnoses is certain death. However, hunger is not incurable. In fact, the resources used to cure hunger (food, obviously) is so overwhelmingly present in my life that I often throw food away without a second thought. When I was a child my grandmother always told me to eat all my food because there were children starving all over the world. While that argument seems stupid to me now (really, how is my food going to help them?), it has become obvious that food distribution, not food availability is the factor killing people in poverty. Everyday I hear of scientific studies to find cures for AIDS, cancer, and other diseases that are currently fatal. Hunger is fatal as well, but there is a known cure. Why then, do I not hear of scientists studies to discover ways to distribute the food that is already produced. The task seems much easier than curing AIDS, and the problem is much more widespread. I think the answer has something to do with the state of American poverty. Poverty in the United States is much less a result of food distribution than poverty in other countries. With all the cheap food available at WalMart and McDonald's we find it hard to conceptualize that food just doesn't exist in the abundance and cheapness in other countries as it does in the United States. Therefore many Americans, including myself, will donate food to homeless shelters or money to humanitarian groups. However, very few are able to recognize the need to research a way to eliminate this problem rather than merely donate. In effect, it is a problem of knowledge. Most of us only know about foreign poverty through articles and tv reports, very few have been able to see it or experience it. This knowledge is too removed, and doesn't allow us to realize the correct way to cure the problem of foreign hunger.

1 life + 1 computer + 10 minutes = -100 lives

To be honest none of the information in these articles surprised me. I've seen similar facts and figures year after year but the numbers merely build. Even though I know I've seen it all before, I'm still shocked by what the articles have to say. I don't think it's the numbers and figures are what makes my jaw drop: it's because of the lack of help being done to prevent the rise in these figures. The articles focus on world hunger and especially, child hunger. What I don't understand is that so much focus has been put on world hunger that less attention is being put on our own country's problems with hunger. It may sound selfish but it's true. We need to learn how to balance between help in other countries and our own. In the U.S. Declaration of Independence, it promotes the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Isn't a part of life, food and water? If we don't eat or drink we die. It's as simple as that. We should have more than enough resources for everyone to have what they need; and we do. The problem is people are consuming what they want, exceeding what they need. In the first article (Blake), it said "everytime an American bites down on a steak or hamburger, they're contributing to global hunger." This is because this burger (probably soaked in grease, topped with too much bacon, and more than one stacked patty) is excess at its finest. You always hear the expression "Less is more," it's because less is enough. Less is the minimum and I don't mean minimum like minimum wage. I mean the minimum that you can survive well; you are fit, happy, and healthy.

The one aspect that also moved me emotionally about the articles was the mothers having to choose which child lives. They don't know the future of their child: what they will amount to, what they will acheive. However, the mothers have the power to end this one life by denying their child a basic right to life. It doesn't make sense that many individuals today are pro-life when it comes to abortion yet when it comes to hunger they fall short. During the election I heard so many campaigns about being pro-life or pro-choice but I didn't hear a mention of tackling hunger [national or world-wide]. I just don't understand how this inconsistency in support can be tolerated when I can't even begin to think about how many children have died in the time that I have typed this entry on the blog.

Why Help When Big Problem will Still Persist?

People have been telling me and posting on the blog that the issue of poverty will never be resolved. Though that is true, the issue of poverty should still be tackled. Even though the problem with poverty will continue on the big scale, it might not persist on the smaller scale. What that means is this: when someone helps a family in need, they are alleviating that family's needy disposition. The problem of poverty, even though it will persist on the large and national scale, it will not persist for that family that was aided from poverty. People who claim that helping people in poverty will not eliminate poverty are being ignorant; they want to find an excuse not to help others because they find that the big picture matters way more than the little picture. All I have to say to that is this: without the little picture the big picture would not exist. By helping anybody in poverty you are alleviating some aspect of their suffering, even if the big problem with poverty still exists overall it does not exists within the aided family. So when it comes down to relieving poverty, keep in mind while you might not be able to  change the overall condition of poverty you might be able to change the individuals that experience such poverty. 

Life

There is no arguing that poverty and hunger are major problems in our world. 12.2% of Americans do not currently have the financial stability to provide reliable sources of food for their families. I do not think there is an educated person on this planet that would deny that hunger and starvation are serious problems. The question then becomes what to do about this problem. As to the article about the Spanish Funds that were originally earmarked for Africa going to the United Nations, I find nothing wrong with this. If the Spanish Government feels that their own tax payers’ money would be of better use to citizens of Spain by going to the United Nations, then there is where the money should be going. It is, in the end, the Spanish tax payers’ money and it should help them. Anyone who criticizes this action should take a long look at the United States Budget and realize the hypocrisy in their statement.
By no means do I have a solution to hunger problem of the world. In truth, there is enough land and resources to provide food for every single person in the world. However, it is not economically practical. What benefit does a person have to growing food if they will not be reimbursed for their time and effort? Unless someone is willing to pay for the entire world to eat, then we are at a standstill.

NUMB=scary

Ok. First I will respond to Mr. Perkins's post on Aristotle's view of resource redistribution. Hypothetical, dreamy, perfect, Utopian situation: We lived in a world in which every adult is responsible enough (when going through tough times financially) to use the help of others constructively to get back on their feet. When your neighbor just lost his job, you loan him some money, he immediately begins searching for a new job, he eventually succeeds, and even if he lands a minimum-wage-paying fastfood job, 7$ an hour is better than nothing. He eventually does not need your help anymore, and then little by little, pays you back for your good neighborliness. OH, WHAT A WORLD! But, Aristotle, I'm sorry. There are just too many people with their hands open and waiting for Uncle Sam to "give a little," and the problem is, most of them forget step 2! THEY DO NOT LOOK FOR JOBS. THEY KEEP ON HAVING KIDS. THEY DO NOT CARE THAT RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS ARE PAYING FOR THEIR WRECKLESSNESS. (I understand that there are exceptions, but I'm simply talking about the majority) Until the day government stops being so lax, lenient, and self-destructive (in a well thought out, gradual program which REDUCES welfare, but does not end it in one swift step, of course!) I really do not think that our society can ascend to the level of morality, logic, and courtesy which Aristotle assumes in his proposition.

The second thing I want to say is that I am utterly embarrassed (rightfully or wrongfully so, I'm not sure) that, when reading the hunger articles, i was honestly, completely and absolutely, NUMB to every single word. I felt while reading them, that every number and statistic did nothing but make the paragraph pass more quickly, and I comprehended not a SINGLE stat. It's not as if I read an article on hunger every single day, so I cannot plead over-exposure as the cause of my insensitivity. I almost think that it is the effect of detachedness. I personally have never faced hunger, I personally eat well more than my fair share every meal, and nobody I personally know faces a situation unlike mine. Nonetheless, it is a problem. And, as we have seen from the articles and further posts on here, there are many ways to fight the problem. #1) Doing something is better than nothing. #2) after researching further on the economic efficiency of the different ways of helping, one should act accordingly, helping the hunger problem by using the method found to be most efficient economically/ most convenient. (whichever trait causes more participation) I do tend to agree that a lack of food is not the problem, but the distribution is. Whether sponsoring livestock to be grown or sending money to Haiti, help is needed. And as for having to pick which child lives, there is NO WAY on this earth that I would EVER be able to do it, but once again, i don't need to.

Like Victor said, resources are finite. But that does not mean we can just ignore the problem, saying that "hey, in a few centuries there won't be food anyway, so why bother now?" People do not live for centuries. Their lives are finite, too, and in this case, more finite than the resources fueling them. Therefore helping is both logical and moral, as long as we are perpetually trying to fix the CAUSE of the problem, and not just fix the immediate and current situation. adlskfj I mean I guess the point of ALLLLL of this is that we aren't actually there starving, picking out whether little joe or johnny lives, and so all we can really do is go off of what we got (potentially chillling, yet frighteningly uneffective--for me at least--articles), make a judgment (am i going to help or not?) and then act.

Hunger Articles

As much as i hate doing this...i have to refer to Carl Gibson. One day during his rants on something other than physics he showed us the iconic picture of the earth taken by the Apollo 11 astronauts on the moon. He said the earth was not infinite, our resources are limited and will eventually run out. After reading these articles that picture jumped right into my head. At the time i was just hoping i could learn about kinetic energy but now i see what he was talking about. The population of the earth is increasing dramatically and by 2012 its expected to reach 7 billion. Our population increases but our resources are finite. I believe the human race will follow the standard population curve. It will continue to increase until resources dip to the point where growth cannot occur, at which point it will level off. But when will we reach this point? If you look at the human race one clear things stands out; our need to improve our situation. We develop methods, invent things, learn things all to better ourselves. In a way these have all helped us increase our chances of survival, they are a higher order animals way of passing on genes and acknowleging darwin i.e. "hey i dont like small pox...no worries ill just develop a vaccine" or "man i wish my crops would grow, no worry ive got slash and burn, along with fertilizers." But i dont believe there will ever be a method to solving the problem of the finite earth. Even if the population problem is solved, which is highly unlikely, we still are trapped to the parameters of this place. The only way to truly solve this problem is to get yourself a paradigm shift and get off this rock. btw this is Victor

Articles Response

WHICH CHILD EATS WHICH CHILD DIES and HUNGER AMONG U.S. CHILDREN. I find the argument "even if we feed a few people the problem is going to exist, so we can't really do anything about hunger" to be exceptionally flawed. In addition to the large-scale solutions suggested by the article, I think another solution could stem from the idea that "2008 was a record year in terms of harvest. There's more food per person in 2008 than there's ever been in history. The problem is not food, but how we distribute it." It would take some innovation and will to solve the distribution problem, but it's not impossible. Hunger as a problem could be battled, not even taking into account the idea that helping individuals is as important--to those individuals--as trying to solve the overarching problem itself.

ART OR FOOD. I don't think it's useful to argue whether or not the $14 million should have come from taxpayer money to go to this ceiling; the representatives believed it was necessary, and it was effectually their call. The only aspect of the debate I can plausibly argue is that $1 million of that money was earmarked for African aid. Ethics aside, just looking at this from a governmental perspective, it seems quite clear to me that this ceiling does not constitute African aide. I suppose meetings held in the room may deal with human rights in Africa or something to that effect but really... when that $1 million were approved, I'm sure the intent was understood that the money would go to Africa. Not art. Throw back in ethics, and this expenditure is absurd. I have a hard time believing they could not find at least $1 million-worth more of private donors to fund the art.

response to the articles

I think the comment made by Wolff in the first article was really chilling: something about how anyone who has been born into an affluent, not-starving family is just lucky. And I agree with whoever said that being born into such a family presents those lucky people with a duty. A duty to realize that we cant always apply our reasoning or circumstances to these sorts of decisions...yes, maybe people should get their acts together and work on birth control and stuff but REALLY!!! I guess I can understand how people say that large families are just asking for it. But I cant believe that! Its easy to say, from our perspective, These people are pathetic and lazy and lacking in personal responsibility. But thats a pretty wide judgment to make and I think there are people who have ended up killing off their kids in Haiti from no fault of their own. So isnt it better to risk helping some bums and provide aid to the people who really need it? And give them the benefit of the doubt that not all these large families are the result of carelessness or manipulation or laziness? I mean, yeah longterm we need to teach them to fish I guess. But whos gonna be left to learn if we dont just assume they were acting in their own best interest and help them out? Its kinda like giving money to those people downtown who I just know are going to use it for cigarettes and stuff which is totally lame but do I need the money all that desperately??NO!! I dont think thats naive. They might as well have it to spend it however they want and thats not really helping them (---1.theyre using it in a bad way 2.they wont get any food or anything from it 3.it doesnt teach them to work for themselves) but I think that everyone should get the right to have some money!!! (argh that is kinda naive and pretty scarily liberal but Im not all sorted out on my moral beliefs?!?!?!) I guess that is a stretch and not quite part of the "duty" We All Have To Less Fortunate People and stuff but sorta same idea.

SO Im not sure that makes any sense but to kind of sum it up.... We can sit here and say that these people should have made more informed decisions but I really dont think anyone who hasnt been in that situation has that right. We have a duty to realize that our sorts of reasoning dont always extend to their situations. (---flashback to our "best convo of the year" that one day in class---)

And then...the third article about the UN ceiling. I forget who said in class that its all about how it was TAXPAYER money, but I think that really is the key thing there. And how Jill said that it was assigned to be used for a certain thing and then wasnt used for that certain purpose. So if youre gonna push a load of tax money into a pot called Relief and then go paint a ceiling with it, youre taking something (rights??) away from the taxpayers and the people who were originally going to get relief, whether or not they depended on it. SO, not fair.

So I BELIEVE that before you call the shots on somebody who is starving and choosing children in Haiti, you go live in Haiti and see how you feel. Until then, we might as well help them out. And eventually teach them to fish.

from Keane Mossman

The following is from Keane:


In regard to the first article concerning Hunger in Haiti, I do understand that hunger there is a significant problem, but the way the country historically has gone about solving the problem is not the right way to do it. As much as I hate to say it, if the woman there are worried about feeding their children than perhaps they shouldnt have as many children? Same pertains to the United States and a college education. Here we are pressured more than ever to get a college education but it is very expensive. So what is a woman in America supposed to do when her 5 children all want to go to college for 20,000$ a year? The solution is to think in advance. Morally it sounds terrible to say something like that I know, but as humans we cannot take on challenges that are bigger than ourselves if we have strong doubt that we cannot survive the struggle to reach the goals we set. The goals must be backed by something before they can be attained. In Haiti a woman should make sure that she can support 1 child, then if she can go on and support another. A person knows what kind of situation they are and what they are capable of doing and if they are in a very poor place with little resources bringing multiple people into the world only dispells the resources quicker. From a moral standpoint I believe we should help the people by teaching them how to grow or produce their own food rather than just giving it to them, but from a more realistic point we have limits in this world one way or the other and we cope with what we have and the key is planning for the future and learning from what you have...

I always knew that hunger posts a big problem to the world. However, I was still surprised by the first two articles. "A child dies of hunger every six seconds, and hunger now kills more people every year than AIDS, malaria and tubercuosis combied." Everywhere, we hear about AIDS or other diseases. Although we all acknowledge the existence of hunger, at least to me, the problem of hunger becomes so obvious that it didn't seem as important as diseases such as AIDS. At first I thought, it is because I'm in America, where hunger is not as big a problem as in other countries. But after I read the second artical, I realized that, hunger is a big problem even to the U.S. I think the U.S. government has tried to help everyone in need with things like the foodstamp etc. However, is everyone taking advantages of the U.S. government? I have heard that, many N.C. students, who are in need, didn't even take advantage of our free/reduced lunch program.
Also, I didn't think even after I read the articles that the problem of hunger is food. Instead, I agree with Patel in the first artical that "the problem is not food, but how we distrubute it". U.N. Human Rights Council are spending $14 million on a stupid ceiling! Including the money ($1 million) that was suppose to be used in African aid. The problem is not that we do not have money, but we did not use the money well enough to help everyone in need. Also, it is ironic to me that the Human Rights Council are the ones behind this project. It is everyone's basic right (or even the most basic and important right) to be provided with food, like stated in the first article. If the Human Rights Council do not provide everyone with their basic rights, and instead, spending millions of dollars on an art project instead of food, then what the point of a Human Rights Council?

I am addressing the issue of personal responsibility in Haiti.  I think that the people in Haiti are very deserving of our aid and are in desperate need for food and other necessary supplies to provide them with adequate clothing and shelter.  Just as the second article comments, the poor people at Haiti are not at fault for being born into an impoverished country.  The only acceptable way to evaluate their personal responsibility is to judge the actions they have taken concerning their situation.  I believe that no one should have to choose which child should survive when dealing out food; however, the parents do have control over the size of their families.  I am not saying that people who are poor automatically should not have large families.  I only think that perhaps they should take into consideration the repercussions of economic hardships on their children’s lives BEFORE starting their families. 

            I agree that the government should get involved in eliminating poverty to a certain degree, but I cannot honestly support a government system limiting the number of children a family has (as they do in China to try and eliminate a great deal of poverty and prevent over-population).  I think that the individual families must make their own decisions regarding family size, and that it is their personal responsibility-not the governments-to insure they can provide for the children they choose to have or not have.  However, I also admit that many of the families may have no accurate way of judging how many people they can reasonably support and that there are so many families who are already large, that an outside group or government or SOMEONE must step in to solve the already existing poverty. 

            I like the idea of teaching the native people to make the Medika Mamba in order to supplement a great deal of the nutrients needed. Although this does not solve the problem of poverty, it certainly is a start to a temporary fix in certain parts of Haiti by providing the community with jobs and food.  Perhaps we need to have individuals and private agencies in the United States willing to step up and help these struggling people either by  providing them with a small degree of education, decent-paying jobs, or enough food/money/other handouts to get the family back on their feet.  As a way of giving back to the community for the blessings given to us as Americans, we need to help these other struggling people.  This should be something we do out of goodness and willingness to help others, not to be dictated by the government.  Honestly, if the government donates our money through taxes, we see little of its development and have no personal connection or knowledge to where the funds go---they could be used to purchase “300$ hammers” or other ridiculous projects.  By donating money as individuals, we are upholding our personal responsibility to the rest of humanity.  How sad is it that we have to have the government to take away our money and give it to the impoverished? How selfish are we as a nation that we cannot donate a few dollars through our own will? Donating privately also allows us to choose which charity/country/area/group of people/type of project we put our money towards.  Once we see the results of our own endeavors, won’t we be more willing to support new projects in the future?

            And as a response to the poverty project/ where the money is going; perhaps we should give the money instead to a program that purchases livestock for families in impoverished countries? For example, they purchase cows, goats, chickens etc so that the family can sell milk/cheese/eggs for profit and keep some of it for consumption? I will look more into the project and get a name and idea of how much money it costs. It may be a more direct way of getting involved, though

typical poverty article.

The first article was well-done, but frankly, not surprising, interesting, or anything unique. It's a typical world-hunger/poverty awareness article. The problem does exist, like the article elaborately explains. A solution is given: "The problem is not food, but how we distribute it." Redistribution of food? He's right--the problem isn't the amount of food. The problem is the leaders of these impoverished countries and the poor decisions of adults to have children if they can't afford to feed them. Wealthier countries are wealthy for a reason. To solve this problem, we must rely on organizations that help curb world hunger and encourage representative democracies, capitalism, and true liberty. Succeeding economies reached through free markets mean more products and more food. On a more basic/personal level, parents need to be responsible for themselves, their lives, and their actions. Don't have kids if you can't afford them. In the words of Neal Boortz, "Don't buy a yacht if you can't afford one. Don't have kids if you can't afford diapers." The problem is a big one...and certainly one that concerns me. But redistributing wealth from one country to another is a temporary solution. Like the article mentions, teach them to fish, don't just throw one at them.

We can't change it

This may make me a horrible person, but I wasn't moved by any of these articles. They're sad, but I was already aware of the dayly struggle for families to provide nurishment for their children. I have a hard time caring about people I don't have to interact with on a daily basis, problably like most of the students in this school who don't realize that students, sometimes their classmates, don't eat on a regular basis. As the world is right now, nothing can be done for the millions of starving individuals in the world, so I don't worry about something I can't change. My influence is limited and even if I attempt to help those dieing from starvation I can't help everybody. But I don't mean to say that nothing can ever be done. I just done believe a group of unknown highschooler can solve anything. Even if we feed a thousand people the problem will still exist. The root of the problem is the lack of resources which in this lifetime cannot be solved, so I didn't get worked up over information I already knew, and I don't think anything can change my mind.

The first article had the strongest effect on me. I prefer to look at the problem of hunger and poverty using my emotions and not just focusing on the numbers involved-- how many people, how much money-- I think when people just focus on that it creates a disconnect between the people suffering and ourselves. Even though the second article was focused on poverty in the United States I felt the most disconnected with that information, because there were too many numbers too many statistics, and  by the end those numbers could have been anything their significance got lost in the lists of all the statistics. I liked the first article because it included a real example. A choice that although I am not even close to being able to truly understand I can imagine to the best of my ability and it makes me feel bad for the people starving and the children dying. Also, I agree most with the method of aid the first article suggests. Teaching the people of Haiti to make their own food is the best solution in the long run, but I don't think the United States can really use the same approach to deal with the US hunger mentioned in the second article. In Haiti most people have land they can grow food on or they have agricultural communities but in the United States the people starving in the middle of cities, where are they supposed to plant their crops?I think the third article did a good job of putting the whole situation into perspective and illustrating how the aid funds aren't being used correctly. But, I'm not all that shocked by the amount of the money spent, because I feel like the United States is constantly throwing large sums of money around on things like war that I feel could be better used to help those suffering in our country. I think the difference in this case is that money was supposed to be used to help people and spain claimed that building this mural was helping people. I don't really know how I feel about this in this moment if I was one of those tax payers I would be upset, but I can imagine that 50 years from now when the economy is better the people of Spain might be proud of their mural in the UN building. All three of these articles do a good job for the most part of illustrating the problems with hunger and the problems faced in combating hunger, yet sadly none of it was stuff I didn't already know or haven't heard before. Hunger might be getting worse but it has been present forever and we've failed to fix it so I don't think unless there are some drastic changes in strategy that we'll be able to help combat hunger and starvation today.

Too Many People

To me, these articles really just say that there are too many people alive today. The problem of hunger is only magnified by having more people; the arable space of the world is finite. Expecting to solve world hunger in the face of current overpopulation isn't realistic. We should deal with that first.

Okay, everyone should read the articles and understand that hunger is a real issue both in third world countries and also in the US. However, I would be shocked if anyone was surprised to hear that people are starving. Yes it's a horrible truth that people die from starving, but these articles seem to just restate what we already know but conveniently forget: people go hungy everyday and die from starvation. I hope that people would donate to a soup kitchen or hunger charity and try to excite others to do the same instead of just complaining about people eating steak.

"The" Question

The most powerful part to the articles to me is the end of the first article. That question that many people bring up, why in the shuffling of the soul deck was mine placed in the united states of america into an affluent white family. Thinking about this too much makes my brain hurt so i won't try to put it down into words but i will explain what effect the question has on me. I have a duty. When i am at all able, in the time i don't divide between school, my job, and other activities i have something else to be doing. That is to find whatever way i can to help the problems in our world. It is too too unfortunate for these people simply to be born into a place where they dont have any chance to change their life, they simply don't have food growing up. The world is already scary enough growing up, realizing how big it is and all the bad things in it but to be starving at the same time is tragic. Because of this i feel an innate sense of responsibility that i should be doing something, anything whenever i can. This ranges from donating money to donating my time to just learning more about the problem so i can better explain it to others so they can help solve it as well. My point to all this is that everyone in good condition should find time to do this, i truly believe this is our human ethical and moral duty to others as it is said that the right to food is a natural human right.

Article Responses

Personally, the first article was my favorite out of the three. I thought that the employer in Haiti was very smart in her solution for helping people in a food crisis, by teaching them how to acquire their food. As the article stated, the solution does not solely depend upon each particular country. When countries collaborate, they create  more powerful and effective solutions. It is obviously awful that parents have to choose between their own children's lives, but I do have to say that it is partially their fault. It is not always their fault that they don't have food, but choosing to bring a child into the world knowing that they do not have the means for feeding is too careless. I don't wish to get political about it, but it does bother me that women, especially single mothers have a child and yet decide to have another child without means for feeding him or her. 

The second article is more specific to U.S. food shortages. These food shortages all connect to many other issues including poverty, unemployment, etc. In order to resolve the food shortage, it is necessary to try to reduce poverty. Simply feeding people is a temporary fix, and will by no means end the food shortage. The United States government needs to find a solution for all of the people in poverty instead of focusing on temporary fixes that aren't even working. 

The third article confused me a little. I don't exactly know what type of art work they were putting up but I think that the artwork is being blown out of proportion. The desire for a mural on a ceiling does not mean that the people working in the Council are not doing their job. Of course it would be better if they used that money in order to help the people that need it the most but I think it falls into a completely different category. The city of Indianapolis designates a certain amount of money for different purposes. The money that is in a welfare program is not in the same area as the money for landscape designing. Could Indianapolis function without landscaping? probably, but it does not have anything to do with the people in Indianapolis who are in poverty. That is the way things work, and unless there is a complete change in the entire world on these principles, there will be no difference. There must  be a complete paradigm shift. 

The first article provides a staggering perspective on the degree of poverty and hunger which is an everyday reality in the third world. The picture of mothers making a choice between their sons and daughters, deciding who will live and who will die, is enough to impress the grimness of the situation on anyone. If statistics are sometimes hard to comprehend and convert into meaningful understanding, this article provides a very real and very emotional description of what numbers might mean on the personal level. While I agree with Ryan on the immense weight of this experience and the impossibility of any of us to truly comprehend what it must be like, I think it speaks in a way that a number of dead on a battlefield cannot -- it gives us an example of the actual thoughts and pain which must pass through these individuals' heads.

The second article, focusing on poverty in the United States, takes a much more practical and statistical approach. Though its numbers are certainly alarming -- 11.9 million Americans went hungry in 2007 -- we are not given the same close and personal view of the problem. However, the article continues to impress the gravity of poverty -- it's not just a third-world issue, it's happening in staggering proportions right here in the United States.

These articles cast a negative light on the allocation of relief funds by the Spanish government described in the third article. While it is certainly important to build the infrastructure of international organizations, and the UN Human Rights Council is likely an appropriate target for relief funding, using aid funds for a $14 million painting is unacceptable. If the money were used simply to build the necessary headquarters for the council, funds intended for relief might be appropriate. However, a $14 million ceiling is an expression of decadence which is s distinctly unethical use of money clearly not intended for this purpose. When experts believe that "hunger can be conquered" and relief funding can provide mass quantities of valuable, nutritious food products like "Medika Mamba", there is no excuse for using aid funding for such a misguided purpose.

What is the source of the problem?

Last Thursday I had the opportunity go see my favorite author, Greg Mortenson, speak at DePauw University. After reading his book, Three Cups of Tea last year, I have sided with Mortenson's beliefs that the only way to fix poverty is to build schools and educate children. However, his real emphasis is to educate the girls of these poverty stricken villages of rural Afghanistan and Pakistan. By educating the girls of these villages, these villages will have foundations upon which they can grow and become more productive. Mortenson says that over time, this procedure of educating WOMEN will significantly reduce poverty, and thus, reduce world wide hunger.

Robert Malthus projected that there would be a day when the population would surpass the food supply that this world is capable of producing. I completely agree with these Malthusian ideas. Overpopulation in this world is the base problem for the hunger dilemma that is sweeping the earth.

Using a combination of Mortenson's and Malthus's ideas, the conclusion can be drawn that women need to be educated about the effects of bringing new humans into this world when they have no chance of supporting them properly. In article I, Haitians are troubled by terrible hunger problems because they live in horrible conditions and continue to have multiple offspring. If the article says they know they are faced to make the decision between which child gets to eat, and which child dies, then it seems plausible to think that they would be able to make the decision on whether to have sex and risk bringing another child into the world that will not survive.

Hunger.......Its Real and What We Need to Be Doing to End It

After I read the article that stated that "mothers in Haiti wait to name their newborns because so many die of malnourishment" I was like WOW, hunger is truly a terrible thing. When I wake up in the morning I usually try to eat breakfast. There are some mornings that I wake up for school late and then end up being in a rush and miss breakfast. I would go to school and as I sit there in Russell's class I would moan with hunger. Thinking back was I really hungry? Compared to these children and families in these impoverish conditions my hunger can't even be called hunger but rather meaningless complaints. These people go for days without the level of nourishment needed. They struggle on basic human needs, such as food and water. It is terrible what these people go through day by day, suffering the pain and struggle that is hunger. I find that the only solution is by education, not on math or science, but on food. We should teach these impoverish and hungry children and adults how to grow food properly,how to gather and obtain food, and the proper way to store the food for later consumption. We should also go about teaching these hungry individuals who are impoverish the art of properly financing themselves and their family, and just maybe, we can make them self sufficient and even hunger itself would not be an issue for them and their family.

Reconsidering Priorities

For starters, I don't know if this was intentional on Mr. Perkins' part or not, but I suggest that everyone read the articles in the order listed on the post. It puts the last article in a better perspective.

I pulled some quotes that I thought were especially important to me. A lot of these fit PERFECTLY with the conversations we were having on poverty and welfare.

"They try to keep them alive by feeding them, but sometimes they make the decision that this one has to go" -- I can read this sentence, but I don't think I can actually comprehend this statement. To me, it is like reading that 24 people died in a bomb attack in Iraq. The number seems staggering, but I realize that I will never (assuming our country does not take a significant downturn) be able to understand what it is like to choose between two children. What kind of way of knowing would you use to pick between two children. I think there is none. If this does not illustrate the severity of global poverty, what will ever cause people to take action? For most people, I sadly believe that it takes personal exposure to the experience before you can empathize. I think this is why the poor give a greater percentage to charities.

"The right to food should be seen as a human right" -- this quote simply posed a question. Is the right to food a human right? It is not in our bill of rights, and people die of poverty and hunger in the United States. The government attempts to combat this problem through social programs, yet "one in eight Americans struggled to feed themselves adequately." We afford even the worst criminals the right to food and shelter. Should this right be granted to everyone, regardless of circumstances or will?

"Instead of throwing fish in the crowd, we should be teaching people how to fish" -- This strikes exactly on the issue of personal responsibility that we discussed earlier. However, I think this illustration is significantly different. Those in the United States often argue in favor of personal responsibility because welfare is a drain on the system. This is not the same as the premise of personal responsibility that we use to argue. Instead, this refers to the necessity of TEACHING people how to grow their own food. I would argue that most of the starving Hatians are not starving because of a lack of personal responsibilty. They have VERY few ways of providing for themselves or getting an education, regardless of their willpower. Does our principle of personal responsibilty even remotely apply to a country without the opportunites that we have in America? Where do you draw the line in order to define personal responsibility? All Americans are not equal, just as all Hatians are not equal, yet I doubt that many would argue that these citizens are not in need of handouts, at least temporarily.

"The government said these people have several ways of coping -- eating less varied diets" -- interesting point that we talked about. Those in poverty rely more on processed foods and have less varied diet. It seems like a vicious cycle leading to poor health, high healthcare costs, less money for food, and a less varied diet.

"$14 million of taxpayers’ money to the project, including nearly $1 million earmarked for African aid" -- taxpayers money going to the arts over poverty? I think that this really poses important questions about the frivolity of society in general, especially in light of poverty. Is this spending justifiable? Even spending originally marked for African aid. It really makes us reconsider our priorities.

In light of this article, it makes me wonder if our intention to raise money for mosquito nets could possibly be redirected. The World Food Programme states: "hunger now kills more people every year than AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis combined." Though our idea is not bad, maybe this is a more pressing concern. Thoughts?

Read and Comment

Your assignment is simple. Read each of the following and offer your comments.

Which Child Eats, Which Child Dies?

Hunger Among U.S. Children

Art or Food? (Note: Restrict comments to the first part of this article about the U.N. ceiling.)

Aristotle's Thoughts

I was inspired by Victor's previous post and his reference to the practices of the Roman emperor Nerva. Interestingly enough, I was reading the following passage from Aristotle's Politics VI.5 today at lunch.

Where there are revenues the demagogues should not be allowed after their manner to distribute the surplus; the poor are always receiving and always wanting more and more, for such help is like water poured into a leaky cask. Yet the true friend of the people should see that they be not too poor, for extreme poverty lowers the character of the democracy; measures therefore should be taken which will give them lasting prosperity; and as this is equally the interest of all classes, the proceeds of the public revenues should be accumulated and distributed among its poor, if possible, in such quantities as may enable them to purchase a little farm, or, at any rate, make a beginning in trade or husbandry.

I will be interested to see what others make of Nerva's and Aristotle's ideas.

Some Things on Welfare

In our discussions the question of whether welfare is solving the problem, or is the problem has frequently come up. Welfare dates all the way back to the Roman Empire when Marcus Cocceius Nerva instituted programs that gave land to Rome's most needy residents, made loans to wealthy Romans whose interest was paid to impoverished families and he outlawed a 5% inheritance tax. In short...his plans wrecked the economy. Nerva was attempting to regain public support for the office of emperor which lost public confidence due to previous tyrannical emperorships , however his plans spent more than was coming in. Debts amounted to the point where chariot races and other fantastic games (hallmarks of the Roman society) had to be suspended. This is the problem many see today with our system. People are afraid of continuous aid without anything in return. In the U.S. our welfare system is set up so that people who are truly in need do receive aid, however they must contribute something for that aid and must eventually be weaned from it. Obviously our system has its problems with hundreds of fraudulent cases occuring. If these people will go so far as to cheat a system which has a goal of at the very least suppressing one of society's ills, than it tells a lot about the human character. Throughout human history there have always been the "haves" and the "have nots," however that is not necessarily an argument for ending welfare. I do not believe that with these programs we will cure poverty but we can at least alleviate it. I believe that when giving out welfare, you cannot give too much or too little. In government we discussed supply-side economics with an optimum marginal tax rate where the population would be taxed just low enough for it to have an incentive to work and spend money thus stimulating the economy while still having rates that could cover the U.S. budget. I believe that welfare can and should be modeled after this. The rate cannot be so low as to make it unaffective, but not high enough for it to be taken advantage of. btw this is victor

A Graveside Test

Today my wife is at the funeral of her uncle. When I spoke with her on the phone, she said her father, who is usually an emotionally reserved man, was nearly inconsolable as he stood at the casket, repeating his brother's name over and over. I do not know what he was thinking, but I can guess.

This relative experienced a tragedy early in life and in some ways never recovered. Although all the family members tried to help this individual over the course of his life, I can imagine that my father-in-law was thinking of what else he could have done to have helped his brother through the years.

With regard to our poverty discussion, I agree that people should work to their full potential. I agree that a person who is able bodied should not take a free handout. Yet I can never imagine a person standing at the graveside and saying to the departed, "I did too much for you." Consider the graveside test one more way of knowing.

Questions on Singer's Solution to Poverty

Money is an indicator of how much society as a whole, however right or wrong, perceives an individual’s worth. To dispute the current impoverished situations of individuals, we must assume that society incorrectly values certain individuals, for example those in the entertainment industry. To propose a solution we must assume that we have a better system of evaluating individual’s worth. I cannot claim to assume or prove either. Yet I can offer some questions.
To focus on poverty in children: Others, such as Singer have pointed out that we ought to try to equalize the opportunities of children, gotten only through “biological luck.” Yet this “biological luck” includes far more than just the wealth of the parents. It is hair color, eye color, I.Q. and a million other characteristics. To equalize all the “biological luck” would produce uniformity and a loss of uniqueness. Is abolishing poverty the same as trying to abolish other signs of “biological luck” or if it is not, what is different about abolishing poverty?
Although, abolishing poverty may not have as an extreme affect as that, the ability of parents to raise their child has long been claimed as a right and to place the state or any other entity in charge of the child’s basic needs seems to infringe upon this right. Although it may be argued that the state or other entity would only intervene in times of extreme need-such as in child abuse cases-the other children would be affected by taxes or the moral obligation to donate. This organization would then influence all children taking from some and giving to others. Whose right is it to raise the child, and therefore who is responsible for the child’s basic needs?
Society gives an individual money, on the basis of a trade for talents or products, or on the basis of entertainment, or on the basis of being valued by someone (inheritance), in a bargain both sides made. Singer suggests that we have a moral obligation to give this money to impoverished children. He implies that the money is not the sole property of the individual but that others, on the basis of need can claim it from him. To give this money is not mercy on the part of the individual but justice on the part of society. Is the money given to an individual for some trade (of money for talent, products etc.) belong only to that individual or does society still have a claim upon it?

Responding to Friday's Discussion

So for some reason Friday I found myself really frustrated with the discussion regarding salary. I think now it was because nobody was making any sort of distinction between what is ideal and what is practical, but most people's opinions were based around one or the other.

Perhaps this is just my interpretation, but it sounded to me like what the presenter was suggesting was at least some degree of socialism: equal pay for equal amount of work (as opposed to equal pay for equal type of work). I think this would indeed be ideal, if everyone who worked hard were rich. However, this is not at all practical. Everyone simply can't be rich, with inflation, etc (I don't think I have to go into the economics of it, it's pretty clear). And as for the suggestion of removing money from the absurdly wealthy to give to the hard-working poor, I don't think that is practical either: the principle of removing anyone's earned money would achieve only uproar from the people about the need to defy a communist government.

Then we move to the practical which is not necessarily ideal (and certainly is not, in my opinion). Those who pay for education and training in effect invest in themselves; they are paying money to receive what they hope will pay off in the future (through a good job and high salary). This unfortunately tends to result in a system where those with money are able to afford a rich future, whereas those without are unable. I think this is where the problem must be addressed, in INVESTING in people early, rather than trying to give them equal results later, which is impractical. Perhaps the answer is more affordable education for all, which may be a step closer to socialism, but at least it's not a dangerous leap into near-communism.

My Own View-A Look at Laziness

For me this may be one of the most difficult topics to deal with. To come to a conclusion i have to combine viewpoints from both sides as well as address certain emotional ways of knowing from experience.
I do think we have a definite responsibility or rather should feel a responsibility to others around us not so blessed as most of us are. However, this responsibility should only go so far. There is a significant difference between helping someone and crippling their desire to work. I understand that most people on welfare have to get a job as a part of their program but the difficulty and performance at these jobs is extremely sub par. What makes me more upset than anything is someone who is in need of help, is getting help, but is not working their hardest at whatever it is they do to deserve and compensate for the help their receiving. It doesn't matter what you're doing a person should take pride in their work and try to do whatever they can to be the best at their job. When i worked as a busboy i knew that the job might not be the most prestigious job or that i had to work harder than anybody to keep my job or earn more or less but something within me wanted to be the best i could and work my hardest every night to deserve whatever money i was receiving because i know there are many people out there that would work even harder to get half of what i was getting. Why people in need or close to it don't adopt this attitude, i simply don't understand. So many times i receive help at all sorts of work establishments and the people either lack the desire or just don't do their job well. Why should i want to help someone that isn't willing to take their opportunities and do what they can with them.
These are my conflicting feelings of obligation and frustration with the condition of many of our people. From my experiences i see people that just want to get by doing as little work as possible and i just don't support that. And the sad thing is i don't know if there is any solution to how i feel about this at all but it definitely makes me hesitant to fully support either side of this debate. The point i will leave with is that there are some people that deserve legitimate help but there are MANY more that deserve to be where they are and they pass it on to their children by not instilling the right attitude in them from the beginning. While this may not seem fair to the kids, it is if you look at the fact they will probably do the same thing to their kids and continue the cycle. Somewhere the inherited laziness needs to stop and until it does on a large scale i can't fully support more or even the current funding and help we provide through the government and other organizations.

West Wing Quote

This quote from The West Wing (Season 2, before Sorkin left)
comes from one of the White House senior staff, explaining why
a certain line (Tax cutsto the rich fund faster private jets
and bigger swimming pools) won't appear in a speech.
"Henry, last fall, every time your boss got on the stump and said,
"It's time for the rich to pay their fair share," I hid under a couch
and changed my name. I left Gage Whitney making $400,000 a year,
which means I paid twenty-seven times the national average in
income tax. I paid my fair share, and the fair share of twenty-six other
people. And I'm happy to 'cause that's the only way it's gonna
work, and it's in my best interest that everybody be able to go to
schools and drive on roads, but I don't get twenty-seven votes on
Election Day. The fire department doesn't come to my house twenty-
seven times faster and the water doesn't come out of my faucet
twenty-seven times hotter. The top one percent of wage earners
in this country pay for twenty-two percent of this country. Let's
not call them names while they're doing it, is all I'm saying."
Just some food for thought.
EDIT: Yeah, the formatting's weird. Whatever.

Now You've Got It!

The past few posts, some with comments, have captured the very essence of the 21st Century Agora. I am absolutely delighted by the high level of discussion, none of which was initiated or mediated by me. So pleased was I with all this that I forwarded these posts to several friends, both in and out of NC.

Keep up the great discussion on this and other topics! :)

I think I need to clarify what I said in my last post. I do not believe that we have an "obligation" stemming from some overarching ethical code to redistribute income in order to assist people in poverty. I do, however, believe that a realistic approach to modern society requires that we provide assistance to those living at exceptionally poor levels. If we want to fight crime and the other problems that follow poverty, a pragmatic outlook leads us to address the problem at its core. The "moral necessity" I spoke of is not a moral necessity to assist but one to protect the rights of all Americans (in all classes) who are threatened by the effects of poverty. If this requires money, it is no more inappropriate or contradictory to a capitalistic ideology than any other funding dedicated to programs like law enforcement, defense, and public works. To me, all of this is necessary to maintain a "social system that leaves men free to achieve, to gain and to keep their values." Dreams of total individual independence are utopian ideals which cannot be realistically cast upon a functional, modern society.

one more:

"...This does not mean that he is indifferent to all men, that human life is of no value to him and that he has no reason to heolp otheres in an emergency. But it does mean that he does not subordinate his life to the welfare of others, that he does not sacrifice himself to their needs, that the relief of their suffering is not his primary concern, that nay help he gives is an exception, not a rule, an act of generosity, not of moral duty, that it is marginal and incidental--as disasters are marginal and incidental in the course of human existence--and that values, not disasters, are the goal, the first concern and the motive power of his life."

No "obligation"

I agree with Mr. Perkins; I LOVE THIS TOPIC! I completely disagree with Erik. I think that we have absolutely no duty to help those in poverty. Those in poverty have no right to demand our help or even expect it. The thing that bugs me about the debate over how to solve poverty is that those who might agree with me are accused of being "un-American" or "arrogant" or "un-feeling" or "ignorant" or "selfish." I help people and give money to organizations I trust that help people in poverty because I WANT TO. It makes me feel good to help people that have not been blessed as much as I have. I am extremely grateful for the opportunities I have had because of the hard work of my parents AND because of my own efforts. All of us want to end poverty; ALL OF US want to help those in need. The debate is over HOW.
To respond to Erik's position over our "obligation" to help others:

From Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness":

"One's SOLE obligation towards others, in this respect, is to maintain a social system that leaves men free to achieve, to gain and to keep their values."

"In the normal conditions of existence, man has to chose his goals, project them in time, pursue them and achieve them by his own effort. He cannot do it if his goals are at the mercy of and must be sacrificed to any misfortune happening to others. He cannot live his life by the guidance of rules applicable only to conditions under which human survival is impossible."

"It is medically possible to take the corneas of a man's eyes immediately after his death and transplant them to the eyes of a living man who is blind, thus restoring his sight (in certain types of blindness). Now, according to collectivized ethics, this poses a social problem. Should we wait until a man's death to cut out his eyes, when other men need them? Should we regard everybody's eyes as public property and devise a 'fair method of distribution'? Would you advocate cutting out a living man's eye and giving it to a blind man, so as to 'equalize' them? No? Then don't struggle any further with questions about 'public projects' in a free society. You know the answer. The principle is the same."

Cyclical Poverty

During the last class we discussed the differences between cyclical and situational poverty. We came up with a definition for cyclical poverty that i dont think is correct. I believe that cyclical poverty is more personal and is essentially a events that transpire that force an individual deeper into poverty. For example a man who is in poverty but is working is laid off work, because hes laid off he cant afford his car payments, without transportation he cant find another job, cant find another job he cant pay the rent, he cant pay the rent hes evicted and because he cannot trace back and get a job to own property again he is now homeless. Now this example though extreme shows that poverty simply builds and builds. It may even build to the next generation, now lets say the man has no job, he cant send his kids to school, they dont get the proper education (what the U.S. maintains as equal opportunity in education) and they too are in poverty, all because of him being laid off. I believe that there is no difference between situational and cyclical, instead situational is one aspect in the circle of poverty. Poverty in the economic sense is cyclical in that it continues and transcends generations. The situational aspect could be the initial reason for the start of the cycle (the man being laid off, the example of Hurricane Katrine in class)...i dont think you can ever end these examples, however if people are open-minded and proactive early enough these cycles can stop very quickly.

Why we can't avoid welfare

Ben makes a valid point regarding the necessity of welfare programs even in the face of freeloaders who take advantage of the system. Though most of us would prefer a "fairer" system in which only the people who truly deserve aid receive it, this is not a practical possibility in modern America. I'll go even farther about the necessity of welfare -- not only is it impossible to draw a line between laziness and necessity or between poverty within or outside one's own control, it is necessary to provide welfare to all of these people, even if they don't deserve it. In the end, we have to support everyone in our society, no matter how lazy, hated, or evil they are. America has always been about protecting the disliked and disadvantaged -- we are careful to ensure rights to even the most despicable criminals and reviled hate groups, because as soon as one person's rights are revoked, everyone's rights are threatened. We have to support people in poverty, no matter the cause, in the same way we have to pay for healthcare for someone who comes into the hospital having a heart attack, regardless of whether they caused it or whether they can pay for treatment. It is a practical and a moral necessity -- we cannot feasibly simply send people out on the streets if we want to maintain a peaceful and civilized nation, and we cannot morally lock them up or leave them to die -- even more than free money, this outcome would be distinctly un-American.

...the "e-mail"

Top Ten Poorest Cities (250,000 or more population)

City, State, % People Below Poverty Level

1. Detroit, MI- 32.5%

2. Buffalo, NY- 29.9%

3. Cincinnati, OH- 27.8%

4. Cleveland, OH- 27%

5. Miami, FL- 26.9%

6. St. Louis, MO- 26.8%

7. El Paso, TX- 26.4&

8. Milwaukee, WI- 26.2%

9. Philadelphia, PA- 25.1%

10. Newark, NK- 24.2%

The following facts come from an article by Glenn Beck of CNN.

-What do the top ten cities with the highest poverty rate all have in common?- Democratic Leadership

-Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961.

-Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected on since 1954.

-Cincinnati, OH (3rd)-...since 1984.

-Cleveland, OH (4th)...since 1989

-Miami, FL (5th) never had a Republican Mayor

-St. Louis, MO (6th) ...since 1949

-El Paso, TX (7th)...has never had a Republican Mayor

-Milwaukee, WI (8th)...since 1908.

-Philadelphia, PA (9th)...since 1952

-Newark, NJ (10th) ...since 1907

Einstein once said "The definition of insanity  is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

It is the disadvantaged who habitually elect Democrats - yet remain disadvantaged.

Poverty

My mom sent me an e-mail today not knowing that we were talking about poverty. I thought this was very interesting and might spark up some good conversation between people in our class.

Welfare and American Ideals

A large part of middle class America's aversion to welfare comes from what we discussed today as a "fear of laziness." For a class driven by the idea that rewards come only with hard work, letting our hard earned taxes pay for someone else to sit idle is an horrifying idea. Unfortunately, we let our instinct to defend the American work ethic get in the way of defending another American ideal that may be just as important - a fundamental of our legal system and our view of the individual. We consider an individual to be innocent until proven guilty, ostensibly because we feel it is worse for an innocent citizen to be punished than for a guilty citizen to be spared. If in tightening up welfare, we successfully reduce the amount of fraud, we haven't necessarily made an improvement. It's better to have some freeloaders weighing down the system while every person in need has access to aid than to make welfare so air-tight that the people who need it most are locked out.

Riches on different Levels

Can a "level of poverty" be established for the whole world to refer to? Absolutely not. World wide aid organizations can do what they are meant to do by supplying basic goods and services to impoverished people, but for some, the goods mean nothing. People who use these organizations to their advantage may see themselves as poor, but what about the populations in the world that do not even know they exist? Uncontacted Amazon tribes do not even know such organizations because they have never seen beyond their proximal areas.

Say for example a member of one of these "uncontacted" Amazon tribes found out about the development and advancements in our world. This Amazonian has now been exposed to the real world. He now knows that he does not have what others in the world have and take for granted. He is now labeled as poor by what we would see him to be.

Now what if he had stayed in his sheltered area and not have undergone that exposure? He was very respected in his tribe due to the number of wives he had and his hut was also one of the largest in the village. In this culture, that means this guy has it all. It all depends on the cultural perspective when determining poverty levels.

The use of relative/absolute measurements to gauge poverty can be used only within a culture. Perspective plays a very important role when discussing this issue of measuring poverty. Therefore, comparisons cannot be made across cultural boundaries unless one knows what the perspective would be like from each individual culture being compared.

universal language

Can I respond to a previous question/student's answer??? I don't think this qualifies as starting a "new discussion"....ah but anyway, on the question of MATH AS A UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE.  I think that math is absolutely a universal language.  It's not necessarily the numbers and symbols we should be concerned with, but the concepts behind them.  One may reply, "well, that applies to language, too, as all words represent concepts...what's the difference with math, then?"  Yes, languages are, to a certain extent, translations.  We can now master many languages in the world because of these translations.  The word "book" in English represents the same object as a "libro" does in Spanish.  But not ALL words can be exactly translated.  Different cultures treat different objects and subjects differently, and so their words--although listed together in a language-to-language dictionary--may have slightly different connotations.  The "words" of Math, however, always represent the same concepts....in ALL languages and cultures, no connotations needed.

Are there aspects of mathematics that one can choose whether or not to believe?

I think this is a poorly worded question by IB [no offense to the IBO]. By asking whether someone is able "choose" to believe something is evident. One can choose to believe something or not, whether in mathematics, science, or art. The ability to choose is human nature. I believe that 1+4=5 yet someone else might reject that [despite its truth or lack of]. I think the problem is whether people accept the belief or not. There have been several theories, not only in math, where the theory isn't believed by most people, despite its recognition as truth now. The culture of the people causes them to adopt certain faiths. In addition, the more complicated a problem, the less people will choose to believe its validity. For example, in any math class there will be, at some point, 2 people who disagree on the answer to a problem:

6x-8=4

In this problem, x=2. However, someone may believe that x is some other number. Until they review the problem, they will insist that they are correct. Anyone can choose to believe or reject whether an aspect of mathematics. It just so happens that sometimes this choice is the wrong choice to make [assuming all of our commonly accepted mathematical knowledge is true].

Can mathematics be characterized as a universal language?

First look at the cartoon on this link:

http://www.cs.utah.edu/~draperg/cartoons/jungle.html

This author/artist views math as being a usable universal language. I however, strongly disagree that I could communicate using math ONLY with a person who spoke a different language. The mathematical symbols may be universal and the concepts may be universal, but unless one understands the concepts in his or her own respective language FIRST, there is no purpose in attempting to communicate. For example, I could write the problem 2 x 3 = ___ , take it to one of the German exchange students, and she would (hopefully) write the number 6. She knows to write the number six because she has been taught IN GERMAN that the little "x"means multiply just like I have been taugh IN ENGLISH what the "x"represents. Without our own languages, we would have no idea what to write in the little blank after those two parallel lines becuase we would have no grasp of the concept of multiplication. (ex quote: "There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary math, and those who don't" -anonymous)
Also, without other languages, the answer 6 is completely devoid of meaning. The 2 and 3 and 6 are all supposed to represent something else, but there is no common language to illustrate what they are representing. If there are three people and each person has two oranges, obviously there are 6 oranges involved...but I don't know how to say orange in German, I can only write arbitrary numbers down on a sheet of paper. Yikes! the bell just rang, more writing later!!

Prime Time

What do you think of this?

Are all mathematical statements either true or false?


I think I have to go to Kurt Godel, the mathematician/logician to answer this question properly. And in agreement with him, I'm going to say no; mathematical statements may be true, false, or undecidable. Godel defined such undecidable statements as those that may be true, but cannot be proven true or false.

Godel published his work Principia Mathematica in which he arrived at the "incompleteness theorem." The incompleteness theorem is often compared to the old philosophers' trick: "This statement is false." Is that statement true or false? Of course, if it were true, then it would be false. If it were false, then it would be true... It's an undecidable paradox. Godel applied this idea to mathematics with the incompleteness theorem that basically said the following:

"Godel essentially constructed a formula that claims that it is unprovable in a given formal system. If provable, it would be false, which contradicts the fact that in a consistent system, provable statements are always true. Thus there will always be at least one true but unprovable statement."
(Don't judge me, but that's Wikipedia's surprisingly concise description of the Incompleteness Theorem.)

As a result, mathematics is not simply statements that are either true or false. It is, as Godel revealed, a "logical mess," like language or anything else.

What does it mean to say that mathematics can be regarded as a formal game devoid of intrinsic meaning? If this is the case, how can there be such a wealth of applications in the real world?

Mathematics is a formal game devoid of intrinsic meaning because it begins and ends with arbitrary human inventions. A mathematical investigation starts with formulas, numbers, variables and the like -- all of which mean absolutely nothing if not placed in a very specific context and subjected to intense scrutiny. This separates mathematics from other areas of study because its results, as well as its questions and processes, are not of any value alone -- they can only be used to explain or relate to other ideas. The "discovery" of a new mathematical theorem simply means that someone has designed a new way to play the game -- a new way to use an artificial system to produce artificial answers from artificial input.

This being said, there are certainly fields relating to and using mathematics which are quite valuable and meaningful. Mathematical formulas are valuable shortcuts in solving problems in various areas of science which do produce intrinsically significant results. Though the specific formulas used in designing jets are arbitrary, the fact that they can help create a flying machine is useful.

These applications exist because mathematics has been designed around them -- we made the rules, so we can play the game wherever we want. We fool ourselves into thinking that we understand the world because we have discovered the mathematical truths at its core when in reality we have simply attempted to mirror what was already there. The examples of natural patterns Lillian mentioned are indeed all mathematical. However, this does not mean that we "found mathematics" after careful study of nature.

The patterns are there no matter how we describe them. Mathematicians cannot claim to have "discovered" mathematics in nature -- the patterns were in nature; they designed the mathematical system around them. I could just as easily (and more directly and specifically) describe the same phenomena in words. Mathematics is necessary because complex situations would render the use of words far too cumbersome -- we streamline and stylize the situation by using our system. The complex problems of the modern world are greatly facilitated by mathematics -- just we might design a game to aid in our understanding of any occurrence. The game has no value in itself -- the points are meaningless, the rules are arbitrary, and the score is not an ultimate answer to any question. However, the game of mathematics can lead to greater understandings just as a simulation involving students orbiting around a room might serve as an analogy for the solar system.

The fact that there are additional patterns in nature which cannot be described by our mathematical system serves as definitive proof of the seperation between natural patterns and human mathematical representations. On some level, everything must be a pattern and occur for a reason -- the cycle and operation of life, the function of the basic forces of physics, the creation of the universe. Our mathematical system cannot mirror these truths because we cannot yet comprehend them. If we could create mathematical representations of these collassal patterns, it would mean that we would have come to understand everything -- but it wouldn't be mathematics that we were understanding.

mathematics questions

We can use mathematics successfully to model real-world processes. Is this because we create mathematics to mirror the world or because the world is intrinsically mathematical?

i don't think math was created by people at all. i think we have created symbols and terms to make it easier to discuss and teach, but it has always been there. the example i have is how the fibonacci series appears in nature...like the nautilus shell is a perfect model for the golden rectangle. (and some flower petals, and tree branch patterns and i think there are others). so if that showed up in nature, then fibonacci or whoever it was who calculated the golden mean was really just discovering what was already there. that had already been produced by nature. i mean i guess that might tell some people that the whole universe is mathematical, or god really exists or something...i think it's really important though, and it shows some order in the design of the world. so yeah, i guess the world is intrinsically mathematical. or at least some of it has always existed. math's so different from other subjects, like english or something...if you write a book it has to be something completely new and different (i mean, generally) and make some breakthrough or present some new sort of style, it can't be something that's already been written. and i guess the mathematicians who really gain fame are the ones who make totally new breakthroughs, BUT the fibonacci series will always be the same as it was when the greeks used the golden rectangle in their architecture. math stuff like that doesn't change or become obsolete. the pythagorean theorem always works.(..which is why math is so boring) so. math wasn't created, it just has been defined more concretely by stuff like "the fibonacci sequence"or "the pythagorean theorem" or "the set of natural numbers" and stuff like that. mathematical order has always existed, i think.

Math Questions

I have put a set of questions from the IB Diploma Progamme Guide for TOK here. Look at them and start some discussions. You have only three guidelines:

1. You may not begin a discussion about a question on which someone else has started a discussion.

2. You may, however, reply to a discussion about any question from the guide.

3. Please cut and paste the particular question about which you are starting a discussion and post it one color, then begin your discussion in a different color. Please see Lillian's excellent example in red and green above.

Have fun!

I believe...

I think I'm sort of agreeing with Molly's post and disagreeing with it at the same time here. I'd like to make my own distinction between "I believe" and "I know." I agree that often times "I believe" is used in place of "I know" simply to avoid offense. But I don't think that is always true, and in fact I know ( ;) ) that "I believe" can be a very appropriate qualifier. For example, I believe that God exists. For me, this means that I in fact do think strongly that the existence of God is real, yet I acknowledge that others dispute the idea, there are plausible arguments against such belief. I qualify my belief as just that--a belief--because though I find it to be true, I recognize that it cannot be proven either way. Thus it is personal knowledge--a belief--rather than completely objective "I know" knowledge. On the other hand, I have no problem saying "I know" in cases where I feel I have arrived at objective knowledge even on a controversial issue. Let's take abortion, since it's already been mentioned. Allow the debates to start flowing, but I will say I know that abortion is wrong in some cases (to emphasize: in some cases). I base this upon what I believe to be objective ("I believe", since thoughts on objectivity cannot be proven truly objectively) , such as generally accepted moral code coupled with science, etc. (I can elaborate if it's really desired, but my point here isn't to argue my knowledge, it's only to make the point that I consider this an "I know" statement as opposed to an "I believe" statement.)
"I know" this post is starting to confuse me but "I believe" it makes a bit of sense.

Although the previous posts make some good points, I personally think that "I believe" is just a politically correct term intended to prevent "offending" others.  (Laurel started to say this in class.)  You either know something or you don't.  Belief should apply only to religion.  Religion is based on (for the most part) blind trust in a supernatural being. so despite arguments, no one will ever KNOW which religious follower is correct.  One religion is correct, though, whether it be the athiests, Catholics, Jews...etc.  Most people would say it should apply to ethics, since most people claim to be ethical relativists.  They say that what you "believe" is right is not necessarily right because other opinions exist.  Therefore, you do not "know" you're right--you "believe" you're right.  As an ethical objectivist, I KNOW that the highest obligation one has is to himself and his own happiness.  "Knowing" is often perceived as arrogance, so people use the word "believe" to appear more modest and "respectful" of others' beliefs.  Ironically, these people usually still think they are absolutely correct.  I don't love the words "I believe."  I hate the words "no offense."  You know what you know.  Admit it.

I Know I Believe I Think?

Going back to a topic we have touched upon in some of our previous classes, I believe that "I believe that..." (irony besides) is a strong statement in that it is simply difficult to refute. When someone prefaces a statement of knowledge with "I know...", it is often subject to immediate criticism and debate. For instance, the statement "I know abortion is wrong" would most probably generate more controversy than the statement "I believe that abortion is wrong." The first generates controversy because it seems to impose upon other people's personal beliefs. For instance if a pro-life advocate and a pro-choice advocate are having a conversation, the statement "I know abortion is wrong" implies, "I know that your belief is wrong." Whereas "I know" is an aggressive proclamation of knowledge, "I believe" is more emotionally based. Think about the things that we typically preface with "I believe": religion, abortion, politics, emotions, and cultural and ethical issues. Most would agree that there is no universal "truth" on many of these issues. Instead, truth and knowledge is based on an internal evaluation of the issue (similar to the article on introspection that we read a few days ago). Using "I believe" in conjunction with these issues indicates that the speaker has introspectively found personal knowledge -- however, "I believe" also implies that this knowledge is indeed personal and is not universal. When one says, "I believe in God", it does not imply that this is the only truth. While it may be the "truth" to that person, that statement also seems to acknowledge other beliefs at the same time. You can say that you "believe" something and also acknowledge other people's beliefs. Therefore, it seems as if "belief" is often used to describe issues that rely on emotion and faith as ways of knowing. Emotion and faith are difficult to refute because they are unique to the individual, and it is difficult to say that a particular emotion or faith is "wrong." When one claims to "know" something, it also implies that this knowledge is universal and supported by irrefutable reasoning.

Thus, "I Believe" derives it's strength because it is difficult to challenge a personal belief. On the other hand, "I know" derives it's strength because it seems to indicate the "knowledge" of a universal truth that can be explained through irrefutable evidence and reasoning. "I Belief" has the power of pathos while "I know" is an appeal of logos.

Belief mistaken for Knowledge

I think it's worth mentioning just how easily a fervent belief can be mistaken for knowledge.

For me at least, when I hear "I believe that..." (as opposed to "I know that..."), it suggests a degree of uncertainty. Although it may be believed just as vividly as any statement of absolute truth, a claim prefaced with "I believe that..." seems to me to be one that lacks sufficient proof or empirical evidence. Statements of knowledge, on the other hand, should obviously be more grounded in fact.

So here's where I see a little bit of a conflict: When someone holds a belief strongly enough, he/she often claims it to be knowledge when it actually is not. If you believe something firmly, it can actually be pretty hard not to do. For instance, I'm sure you could find two kids at our school at any moment with religious beliefs that directly oppose each other's (i.e. they are incompatible and cannot be simultaneously correct) who would each claim to know his/her belief to be true. But if knowledge can only be applied to true belief, then at least one of them should not be saying "I know..." I guess my point is that it's very difficult for the believer to distinguish between knowledge and firm belief.

Belief, Thought, and ANSWER CHUNG!

First of all, Chung raises a great question in the previous post. Get in their and discuss it!

The previous post brought up a discussion from last week regarding the statements, "I think that...," "I believe that...," and "I know that...." One notion I would like to throw out there is that believing, rather than knowing or thinking, seems most tied to action. Knowing that there is poverty, for example, affects many people does not, in and of itself, move most people to action. Thinking that it is important may move some. Believing that it is important seems to move the most to do something about it. Let us assume for a moment that this is the case, that belief is what is most closely tied with action. If so, then is a belief statement stronger than a knowledge statement?

Should the Omission of Ethics be necessary or even right for attaining a position of authority?

i was watching over some of McCain and Obama commercials and speeches and found that some of them are really rude and dismissive of ethical concepts, instead of talking primarily about their goals and purpose they bash the other person with argumentative diction, I was just wondering whether a person attempting to reach a position of authority over a large or even selective group of people should employ non-ethical methods in attaining that position?

Truth and Knowledge

I was thinking about what we talked about last on Tuesday about the difference between the statements "I think that," "I believe that," and "I know that." We stated that "I know that" was a stronger statement than "I think that" and "I believe that." It was also mentioned that perhaps "I think that" and " I believe that" were synonymous. Although I think that we often use those two phrases synonymously, there is a difference or else there would be no reason to put both of those up. 

When somebody states that they "know" something, we assume that they have evidence and facts regarding the situation. 

...Tying into the example between "This is a book" and "Obama is having an affair." 

I think that it is not so much about "Obama" having the affair as much as it is an accusation of someone having an affair. If "Wild Bill" was having an affair, wouldn't it require the same evidence as Obama to prove that it was true. "This is a book" is an assumed truth. We assume that since we've seen books before and the book in front of you matches the identifications that we have from past experience with books, it is a book. Even if someone is often caught having affairs, we still want SOME evidence for the accusation. 

The problem between truth and knowledge is that we often use truth to gain knowledge while we are also using knowledge to gain truth. 

I was studying for an AP psych test (btw, Mrs. Fritz is SO cool) when I came across the psychologist William James who devoted a great deal of his time researching and writing on the topics we have recently been discussing in TOK.....I did a little googling and found some key quotes from two of his most famous written works "Pragmatism" and "The Meaning of Truth". In "The Meaning of Truth", James emphasizes that for something to be true, it must not only be belived but also must "conform to reality". However, he draws a clear distinction between truth and fact in "Pragmatism": "Truths emerge from facts, but they dip forward into facts again and add to them; which facts again create or reveal new truth and so on indefinitely. The 'facts' themselves meanwhile are not true. They simply are" (p. 108). I think this is an interesting point to make; I interpret his words as meaning that truth is subjective while facts are objective. And although truths are subjective, they often contribute to the objectivity by revealing more facts....which hurts my head a little bit to think about, but i think that makes sense. In "Pragmatism", James also deals with truth and it's applicability. Perhaps this quote best outlines the sentiments of some people in our TOK class: "Pragmatism asks its usual question. "Grant an idea or belief to be true," it says, "what concrete difference will its being true make in anyone's actual life? How will the truth be realized? What experiences will be different from those which would obtain if the belief were false? What, in short, is the truth's cash-value in experiential terms" (p. 97)? Although seeking truth and seeking to define truth is a task James sought to perform daily in one way or another, he too became frustrated and unable to provide a simple definition for truth and its pertinence to his life. Perhaps his pragmatic views contributed to his percieved cynicism about the topic, however, if finding truth is so unimportant, why would he have spent time writing a book proving its unimportance?

Glorification or Coincidence?

As you know the week of swimming has finished for the 2008 Olympics. After all the races a total of 23 new world records were broken at Beijing alone. There has been great speculation surrounding the cause of the fastest times including stronger athletes and better swim suits yet there is one more suspicion that hasn't been given a lot of attention. I know it may seem like I have no life but I went online and researched the new world records set by Beijing and the previous record before them. I wanted to investigate my dad's theory that the Chinese have shortened their pool to make their Olympics appear to be the best. I went back to my knowledge of Physics and calculated the time differences per lap between the two times and the old and new velocities of the swimmers to lead me to calculating the change in distance between the two pools (Beijing and where the previous record was set). I averaged these distances for both men and women and figured out what percentage that small distance is of the pool. I'm not saying that this is the sole proof that the Chinese are cheating. I realize the swimmers are probably stronger this year and maybe their swimsuits make them faster but this deserves some attention. It may not make sense at first as to why the Chinese would very slightly shorten their pool as it gives everyone the same advantage. Looking at the opening ceremony, China certainly wanted to make their Olympics one that was not meant to be forgotten. Is it possible that the Chinese shortened their pool to ensure more records were set to make this 2008 Olympics truly unforgettable? And another issue with the pool is how is it measured? The pool must be 50 meters long yet it will probably not measure exactly 50m everytime. In addition where do they measure the full 50m from? Do they measure at every point across the pool or simply one or two? If they only measured at certain points, the pool could be shaped so that some lanes are longer or shorter than others. There are so many questions to be raised over this one pool and the Chinese are constantly being doubted not only about this pool but also with the ages of their athletes. Despite all the controversy one cannot deny that these Olympics won't be forgotten.

from Magister P...Please check out the document that Alley put together on this topic.