Anthony’s summary of final paper

In the past, there have been monumental changes in the way people think about the world and themselves in the world.  Copernicus let everyone know that the Earth is actually not the center of the solar system like everyone thought.  Einstein proved the theory of relativity and helped people understand how physics worked.  As a result of these conclusions, mankind shifted their way of life and how they looked at it.  Here, in our generation of technological advances and environmental crises, we must now make a paradigm shift in the way we go about handling our recycling, pollution, and energy.  We mustn’t be flippant about putting waste into the atmosphere, as we have been, otherwise Earth will be a dark place when our descendants arrive.  How do we go about that though?  How do we encourage everyone on Earth to shift the paradigm like Copernicus and Einstein did.  There are many tactics and we must utiliaze the most effective and use them soon.  We can use scientific fact like they did, so people know the facts and do something about on their own.  We can appeal to the people’s bank account, and talk about how much money there is to be gained and saved by being more consciensious.  We can scare people into action. We can gather groups of people and create hands-one projects like planting trees to absorb Carbon Dioxide out of the air which cools the planet.  And, in today’s society, we can also appeal to people’s sense of fashion and make it stylish to recycle and buy organic foods and drive hybrid cars.  This crisis is on a global scale, and it is important to remember that we, as mankind, can unite together and solve the problem as a team.  It doesn’t have to be the apocolypse everyday.  We can enlighten ourselves and brighten our future. 

Anthony’s response to Questions and Issues surrounding the Kurosawa and Animatrix films

1. In “Sunshine through Rain,” a boy witnesses the wedding procession of the fox-spirits. In doing so, he dishonors his family, and may be required to kill himself as reparation. Does a system of honor and shame make sense to you as a way of relating to other species? If so, how?No, that doesn’t make sesne at all.  Why would a little boy get punished for witnessing animals partake in a ritual of any sort?  Now, the important question however is, “Did the boy know the consequences ahead of time?”  Because if the boy was watching the fox-spirits and knew he wasn’t allowed, then he might be punished.  I don’t know about having to kill himself – that seems absurd, but a punishment might be in store for him if he knew the circumstances.  2. In “The Peach Orchard,” a boy is rewarded for his grief over the destruction of a peach orchard. Is grief an appropriate feeling to have toward peach orchards?Yes, of course.  There are no bounds to how appropriate it is to feel about anything in this world.  A peach orchard is hardly absurd, in fact, I even would grieve over a peach orchard dying, because it’s such a beautiful example of collective beuaty and fruitful life (pun most definetely intended).3. In both Kurosawa films, ritual theater mediates between humans and other creatures, both animals (the fox-spirits) and plants (the peach trees). What role might theater play here and now in mediating a relationship between humans and other creatures?Theatre today can use animals to hold a mirror up to the society of mankind.  This type of theatre gives animals certain characteristics common in humans and thus helps humans assess themselves using an outside, unbiased viewpoint.  Humans can be affected by this – I don’t think animals can be affected by theatre.    4. Given your ethical standards of behavior toward natural creatures, discuss those standards relative to artificial creatures, such as computers, robots, and other forms of artificial intelligence. If a strong artificial intelligence (capable of human-style thought and feeling) were created, what status would it have in your ethical system?I really value what is truly natural.  There is something very beatiful in the boldness of revealing nature.  Strong artificial intelligence sounds really interesting from a scientific point of view and a technological point of view, but a machine would come nowhere near the instinctual kinesthetic attraction I have with other humans.  Even if the robot was really hot and said really sexy things and made all the right moves, I’d still be like, “You’re a robot.”5. In “The Second Renaissance, Parts I and II,” the relationship between humans and intelligent/sentient machines is narrated in terms explicitly taken from the biblical books of Genesis and Revelation. Does that seem appropriate to you? If so, why? If not, what other stories or principles might organize our relationship to such machines?Yes it seems appropriate because those books talk about all creatures, and about God creating everything.  The author of “The Second Renaissance” is making a point that it’s okay to have robots here on earth – God created us and if we’re able to create something else, that’s the way of the world. 6. In “The Second Renaissance,” the machine nation of Zero 1 sues for membership in the United Nations. Would strong artificial intelligences have political rights in your ethical system? How is this answer related to your feelings about the Turtle and Whale People having seats on town councils?  I don’t know.  I don’t think I would let strong artificial intelligence have political rights in my ethical system.  I just don’t trust them, and maybe it’s just because I haven’t really experienced what it’s like to relate to a machine like that, but they wouldn’t last long I don’t think and their opinion might be controlled or changed from some underground bootleg political project.  I don’t really like that idea.  The Turtle and the Whals People on town councils seems fine to me because it’s clearly humans who have a strong respect and understanding for another species and can speak on their behalf.  The equivalent of that with the robot situation would be if people dressed up like robots and atteneded meetings or campaigns.  That would be fine with me.

15 minutes of Nature

As I sit here on what use to be the plaza and look over the balcony I see nature. This is the city that never sleeps, so cars and taxis are constantly filling the streets. I can see the lights from the Lincoln Center and here pieces of conversations as cars stop at the light in the middle of 65street. Its about 1:30am and its getting really cold, I always wonder where the squirrels go at night time they just disappear. You don’t really see birds much at night time either. It’s a pretty clear night, no clouds or stars.

I like looking up at the apartment buildings and watching lights go on and off, it looks like a checker board of lights. As I sit and watch I realize nature never stops, it keeps going. The tree keeps growing, the clouds keep moving, if there were clouds, and humans go to sleep and almost stop.

Blog #4 – “Coltan Confusion”

          I wrote my final in response to the “Dirt in the New Machine” article.  I don’t believe cell phone users have a unique responsibility to feel guilty about the conditions in Congo.  After reading the article, I don’t get the sense that refusing the buy Congolese coltan will improve the conditions there.  Unless the help is sent directly to improve the Congolese government, law enforcement, and healthcare, the country will not be improved.  In fact, and embargo on Congo may even make conditions worse by putting more people out of work.  This argument is not to say that none of us have a moral responsibility to help Congo – in fact we do.  I agree with Zach on this one.  If you haven’t, please read his blog below.

              After considering this point, I am disturbed that this article in the NY Times advocated the opposite.  To me, the idea that we Americans should feel guilty about using our cell phones is an enticing and interesting topic, that must have given this article a lot of press.  But it is really shallow in that sense, and ignores the fact without our money, Congolese are out of work.  Most importantly, cell phones or not, Congo is a place in dyer need of help, and that is all people should know and be focused on.

 

            After considering that, it makes me think about Christina’s support about the Vanity Fair Magazine’s Green Issue.  If someone doesn’t bring Congo’s issue to the mass media, no one will be aware of it.  Was the author of “Dirt in the New Machine” purposefully sugarcoating his article to give it publicity, or does he actually support an embargo on Congo?  Although I agree with Christina’s point that Vanity Fair helped bring the Planet’s issues to the masses, I don’t feel the same way about “The Dirt.”  Unfortunately, I think this article rallied support for the embargo on Congolese coltan, and ultimately hurt Congo. 

 

“Consumer Environmentalism”

“For too long, environmentalists have believed their cause–protecting nature–to be transparently right that they have thought little about their failure to appeal to deeply held national inspirations.” This radical statement made by Red Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger has recently challenged the concepts of modern environmentalism. America was born with individual liberties at its core and the pursuit of happiness as its sought for end. How, then, can individual liberties be a motivating factor in global environmentalism? Some environmentalists believe the fusion of these extremes is impossible because with consumerism (under their understanding) comes in innate selfishness that bonds post-materialism to personal gain at the expense of others and the environment. I believe this to be true in some instances while not in others. Industrialization and consumerism do help to encourage better services at a cheaper prices and bring them to the consumer at a higher level of integrity. For instance look at the personal computer. Within the last ten years computer prices have plummeted in cost while at the same time increasing standards through competition. Unfortunately, this equation does not work for all types of consumerism. For example, the industrialization of the organic market has lessened what the word organic originally meant while not necessary improving the quality of this food. So while a free market improves some aspects of our society it finds ways of polluting others.

For aspirations of personal liberties to benefit our environment and protect nature it must be guided to do so. Consumerism will not always freely do so on its own. A customer in search of a car will not necessarily buy a hybrid car because it is good for the environment but will more likely do so if he knows that he will save money on gas. He will be able to see the results in his bank account. In contrast, a customer at food market will consider purchasing a organic food because it is “better” for the environment or supposedly better for his or her heath but the result are not as easy to see. The consumer doesn’t see the chicken coops or necessarily see visible results for eating organic food. Because he’s motivation is often noble rather than personal the industry is able to cut corners without the consumer noticing. If national inspirations are the answer to the environmentalist’s causes we must make sure that results for the individual are concrete and measurable otherwise room is left open for fraud and stretching of the truth.

Blog #3 – Peter Reardon-Anderson

        Both Kurosawa films, “The Peach Orchard,” and “Sunshine Through Rain,” answer almost identical questions.  In the first, a little boy is rewarded for his grief over a destroyed Peach Orchard, while in the second, a boy witnesses the wedding of foxes, and in doing so is required to kill himself for dishonoring his family.  While one is about honoring plants, and the other animals, both stories ask: Should an honor/shame system make sense to you when dealing with plants and animals?  I believe that it absolutely should, and that there should be no distinction between plants and animals.  In “Peach,” the boy had a natural human reaction of compassion for the peach orchard.  Likewise, in “Sunshine,” the boy’s family had an honor code (although strict) that was thoughtful for the animals.  These feelings are natural and humanly, which is why they make sense.  Why should we care for the peaches if they don’t feel anything?  We should care about the peaches because as humans we have compassion for the beauty and magnificence of a peach orchard, just as the boy does.  We care about these things, and they give us feeling and emotion, just as art does.  Anything that is so interconnected with us, like the peach orchard, we must respect, which is why the Japanese family has such a long tradition of honor.  If we give up this honor (for the orchard and foxes) we will eventually eliminate them from the earth.  We will miss them because they are what make us human – we are the reflections of things on this earth that move us emotionally.  Without these things we are dull and un-cultured.

            Does the death penalty for the little boy seem harsh?  Maybe, but you must ask this: Is the honor code of protecting animals (foxes) important enough to sacrifice one human (out of millions).  The Japanese certainly thought so.  The Japanese believed that if someone interfered with the foxe’s ceremony, then soon they might likely be taking over their habitat, then killing them, and ultimately making them extinct.  I firmly believe that these honor codes are a direct reflection of human feeling and that they are applicable to society and the treatment of the environment. 

ANASTASIA RESPONDS!!!

Woo, it took me forever to find this!!!! Alright I am responding to Kurosawa and the Animatrix films that we saw a LOOOOOOONNNNNG time ago, but I enjoyed them anyway.

Response to “The Peach Orchard”

1. I think in the human species, relating to animals for me in a system of honor and shame is not a thing I do or am willing to do. But I have never in my life had a pet or any type of relationship to an animal outside of cartoons, so my context may be different from someone who has a pet or had a pet that they love. I suppose if I had a dog that I loved and grew up with and I wanted to honor it through doing something , I would. But contextually I wouldn’t relate to other species in that way.

 2. I beleive that people can have grief toward land or something of that nature (haha, get the joke?)I did a play called “The Cherry Orchard” by Anton Chekhov in which my character, Luibov Andrevena, loved her Cherry Orchard and grieved over it and in it because it symbolized her childhood and a part of her life that had been better. So I guess it isn’t up to me to say if it is appropriate or not, but that I recognize that people do have feelings like that for land or something like land.

 3.My experience with theatre is that always seems to bridge either an understanding gap or a communication gap between two parties. A play or piece of theatre can make someone look at another person or group of people in a different way or it can help someone express a thing they were feeling in a way words cannot. Theatre can most definitely sway people into thinking certain things about animals, and can also ignite some kind of change in the way they are treated or understood. Theatre can also in this way instill and solidify habits that people might already have with animals, like the relationship people have with dogs or how sharks are “scary” because of their depiction in “Jaws.”

 4. A machine is made to do what I can’t do faster and often times more efficently. I vacuum because I can’t pick up crumbs with my fingers. I use a calculator to do large mathematical problems because it takes the calculator 1 second while it would take me 1 minute. That is the use of a man made machine, nothing more. If something like a machine with the “capabilty” of having human-like thought and feeling existed, I guess I would be a machinist. I suppose as long as it stayed out of the way, I would be okay with it. I remember watching the film and being disturbed, yet not surprised at how the humans reacted to the machines. It seemed just like how people treated blacks during the civil rights movement and sort of how people are treating gays and immigrants today. But of course it all comes back to religion for me. The thing doesn’t have a soul…. But that doesn’t mean it can’t exist with me. So I guess I went through typing all of that to say, if we can exist together then go ahead, do what you need to do. I’m not going to judge that machine looking thing and say its existence is not as important as mine, because we all -have purpose here on earth. But I suppose first we have to get the human-like robots.

5. I remember recognizing all of the biblical references in the “Animatrix” film and I guess it seemed appropriate because the humans were creating their own little species and souls. And I do believe that even now humans want to feel like God anyway. Generally speaking, it seems there is the power struggle to be on top, cloning things, getting recognized for creating certain thinga (which is not in-valid, it just proves my point.) So that didn’t bother and actually fit quite nicely. Also there were some logical things that didn’t make sense to me with how the film worked. There was a line, ” The machine’s worked tirelessly to do man’s building.” So for me, if you are a machine, my definition of machine at least in this context (Because I remember us talking about how puritans or other people thought slaves were machines) is that were made in a factory somewhere and you are made up of wires, metal, and you run on a battery. So logically, machines are INCAPABLE of having feelings like a human. They do not have souls. So say a “machine” is “working tirelessly to do man’s building” is like saying my calculator, man-made machine, is working tirelessly to add, subtract, multiply, and divide.  ANNNNNT! Not possible. And I feel a touch eerie because I know that Puritans (or whoever that was) said this same thing about slaves and they were also just machines. But duh….

 Also, the movies seemed skewed to me because of course if there is a younger looking white woman, who is in fact a machine, of course you are going to have some sympathy for the thing, even if you know it isn’t experiencing any pain because it has no soul. I suprised they didn’t show little robot babies being smashed to pieces and thrown off cliffs because if they would’ve done that, OF COURSE you would sympathize. No matter if it is a machine, it’s in a baby’s clothing.

6. Again I saygo ahead and let ‘em live. Adjust. The humans made them and they developed into a certain way of living and existing so let ‘em live. What do they want? In the film, they wanted a represenative in the UN but gosh that seems so silly! But I mean someone should represent them, I guess, but gosh it seems so silly!!! It just would seem so strange to me to be listening to a robot talk about how it would need like electricy stops on highways and stuff, especially when I knew it was a fake thing that a person made in a factory somewhere. ………..

 Oh I’m torn! I feel weird…..

OH! I forgot to repsond to the about the Turtle and whale people. Okay, Town Council does not need someone representing the Turtles or the whales in the water. At least with the robots they can tell them what they want. What are the turtles or the whales going to say?
**Bloop, Bloop***

Blog #2 – Peter Reardon-Anderson

It wasn’t a good idea to wait on this blog, because since September, it has gotten considerably colder outside.  As I sit on the steps outside of my apartment building, at 63^rd and West End, I will observe the city.  It is really cold, just about freezing temperature, and there is ice and snow all over the ground.  It is loud, too, from a combination of big trucks and cars, wind, people shouting, generators, machines, construction equipment, planes, and some thunder.  The sky is dull and gray, with fast moving clouds, looking as if it will snow.  At 4pm in the afternoon, it would usually be very light outside, but it’s quite the opposite.  All the trees are completely bare, making it easy to see far.  This spot really gives me a variety of scenes.  To the right, I can see the Hudson River, the West Side Highway, and into New Jersey.  I can also see dozens of huge buildings, at least 50 stories high and a construction crane.  In each passing minute it gets darker, and it has now started to rain.  The smell is not bad at all, in fact the wind and cold air probably make feel clean when it’s really not. 

Although I’m surrounded by millions of machines, buildings, and cars, it feels very natural to me.  For one, I’m outside, and freezing, so I feel like if I stayed out here long enough, I would die, which probably happened to a lot of people in this cold natural environment.  The movement of people, sounds or urgency, and sense of purpose also make it feel natural.  For me, the man-made cars and buildings don’t spoil the nature.  It has gotten darker, lights have come on, and the sounds have gotten louder, making it feel the city is coming to life at night.  It feels natural because I’m used to the idea of people building colonies, to progress as a species and populate rapidly.   It is comforting that this place feels natural to me, however it being natural does not mean it is my favorite place to be.  Right now, I’d rather be on a rural landscape in the spring, than out in a freezing cold, windy winter night.  

Blog #4- Summary of Final Exam Essay-or “Forget the Phones”

I chose to respond to the question related to the “Dirt in the New Machine” text.

Summarizing, I concluded that the issue in the text concerning cell phones is not the real issue at hand. The article’s construction inherently revealed the nature of Western thought relative to the global community. Unfortunately we live in a world that seems to always consider financial gain and convenience before considering the negative effects that it may reap on the communities of the people tied to an issue. Thus I found it to be in “the Dirt in the New Machine.”

We have to reconsider what the term globalization really means. Given the article, and other media of its kind, it makes me think that America, as well as other powerhouse nations of the world have misconstrued the term “globalization” to exclusively consider the economical relationships of the world. I would like to challenge our modern day society to consider globalization in terms of the birth of a global community of people, as opposed to business and commodity.

The effect we have on individuals and communities is just that much greater given our ability to make global impact. Thus I hope we can move away from the issue of cell phones (which may at one time have been an issue, but not anymore considering our sources for Coltan have moved away from Congo), and get on with the real issue of bettering life in Congo, which seems to depend on some much bigger issues than the mining of Coltan.

P.S. This Course was …well…incredible. I’m going to miss you all.

The Bija

Blogfest 2007 (films-animatrix/kurosawa)

1.)  I do think that a species new to anothers system of beliefs and honor needs to be careful to respect the others boundaries.  However, I do not believe that a breach should be punishable by death.  I’m going to be increadibly lame and give another situation from Star Trek.  The Enterprise sent a landing party down to a new planet and found a perfectly(!) civilized, peaceful society.  Someone from the Enterprise was tossing a ball with a native and accidentilly stepped over a boundary into the garden to catch the ball.  As it turned out, any crime on the planet, stepping over boundaries included, was punishable by death.  What I’m getting at is that have you broken a law when you don’t know that a law exists?

2.)  Sure.  I mean, I might not grieve a peach orchard becuase of how I have been raised.  At the same time, all cultures respond to nature differently.  If everyone in the world had it in them to mourn a peach orchard, we’d probably not be in the tight spot with global warming that we’re in.

3.)  I think that in a society such as ours, ritual theater might not make the biggest difference.  From what I know, American culture responds much more effectively to just plain theater in that we do not (necessarily) have close spiritual ties to nature.  By just plain theater, I mean things such as seaskape(is that what is was called?) which unfortunately I didn’t get to see, but I believe illustrates my point.

4.)  I was actually thinking about this before reading the question.  As I watched, there was a scene that sparked my thought.  It was when four men surrounded one female, beating her heavily and it looked looked like it might be a rape scene.  I was terrified and confused as someone blew a hole in her with a shotgun and then I realized it was a robot.  I then thought, “wait, am I supposed to be relieved now?” And then, “ah, that’s probably the point.” I’m a little confused, but I think that I believe that if a robot posseses the power to be self aware and afraid of its own death.  Humans would need to be weary of causing undue suffering.  I now its a robot, but it seemed like these were REALLY made in our own image.

5.)  I’m going to put my neck out and say that it is appropriate that Genesis ties were incorporated.  By this I’m not bashing the bible in any way, I just believe that in this situation, humans were playing God with the robots.  At first, the robots were created in the humans image, but they were peaceful and all was good.  When one robot became “more aware” the humans felt they had the power/right to destroy them all.  Note the Adam/Eve reference with the apple-rotting apple-heart-transplanted into robot scene.

6.)  I really have no idea where I stand here.  To go with what I’ve previously said, I think they would have to be able to be members of the UN.  Besides, it seems they were the most powerful nation in the world in this film (or were going to be) so it only makes sense.  Shooting in the dark here, but I think they would have more of a right to be members of the UN than turtle people would have the right to sit in on town councils.