Response to Hallie Jackson: The Art of War

Hallie asked, Do you think there will ever be a world in which war does not exist?

I think a warless world is a fantasy. From the beginning of time, humans have fought with one another over food supply, land, power, etc. Considering this fighting has been going on for half a million years—and is still going on despite advances both in peace efforts and weapons—it is unlikely that we will ever learn to get along.

Humans are, by nature, selfish creatures. We want what we can’t have, and we often will go to war for it. The truth of the matter is we have more to fight over than ever. As the population continues to grow exponentially, resources and land are getting more and more scarce every day. This is the reason we’re in Iraq; we want their oil because we don’t have enough in the United States, so we go to war to get it. As times get worse, tensions run higher, thus creating a volatile environment.

I believe it is more likely that the world will soon collapse into a state of mayhem. Resources will be used up, and everybody will be fighting to stay alive in a place where they don’t have enough food and land. It is unlikely that the opposite will ever come about.

My question in response is, What would it take to make you go to war?

Population Control

It is my opinion that religion came about not only as a means of explaining life’s mysteries, but also as a form of population control. For years, the powerful members within a religion have ruled their followers. They dictate how the people think, behave, spend their time, and even eat. There was a time when religious officials were considered as powerful and important as kings.

As time goes on, religions are becoming less and less prominent in the majority of people’s lives. The population is not allowing their beliefs to dictate how they live their lives. There is more “immoral” behavior taking place than there was in times of religious prominence.

My question is, Now that religion is not determining how people act, what do you think has replaced it? What do people look to as a guide for how to live?

Response to Emily Follin: Rewrite the Ten Commandments

I’m responding to Emily’s question, Do you think that the appeal of religions that embrace the carnal aspect of human nature will bring about the complete fall of more restrictive religions?

I don’t think that’s going to happen, no. Religions have survived for thousands of years, and are still going strong today. However, it is true that the influences of the times are creating changes.

Religion is being affected by those carnal aspects that Emily referred to. The thing is, instead of religion completely falling because of it, religion is instead adapting. There are many churches popping up all over the country that practice less restrictive sects of Christianity, for instance.

Not only is religion changing, but so are the people who are practicing and preaching it. People are becoming more accepting of different beliefs and lifestyles. Of course, there are still many churches whose followers are very strict, but there are also many more who have congregations full of people who practice, but do not view those carnal things as sinful and partake in them. In my hometown, the Jewish church is being led by a gay rabbi for the first time ever.

The times are changing, but religions are, too. As people in the world become more and more open about certain ideas and lifestyles, religion is becoming more and more lenient. Human beings are known for their ability to adapt, so why shouldn’t religion do the same thing?

My question in response is, Do you think there will ever be a time when all religions can come together and merge and become one?

Darwinism: The Answer to the Population Problem?

According to Darwinism and natural selection, those who are strong will survive and those who are weak will perish. This rule was in play once upon a time, before the development of medicine and medical technology. The sick and dying were not healed or saved, and they died off. Only the healthy and strong were left.

In many places in the world today, there are population problems. The number of people is growing exponentially, but the amount of land is not. Therefore, we are running out of space for people to live. In some places, land is being created by piling dirt and rocks in the ocean.

Part of the problems surrounding population is that fewer people are dying than in the past. This is because of all the medical technology we now have. People who are sick get better—or at least live longer—and people are living significantly longer. Naturally, this is good news because we can keep our loved ones with us a little longer. However, it is bad news with regards to our population problems.

My question is, Do you think our population would be under control more if we put Darwinism into play?

Response to Emily Minns: Fate

Emily asked, Why is something as far-fetched as fate so commonly widespread and believed in and why is it an attractive belief?

I believe there are a couple reasons why people cling to faith. The first is, they want to be able to explain the unknown. The unknown is scary, and humans are naturally curious. They have to find a way to appease that curiosity, in this case with God.

Another reason people cling to religion is because it gives them a scapegoat. People don’t like accepting responsibility for things that go wrong, so they blame God. Furthermore, when things go wrong—like cancer or the death of a loved one—there is nobody to blame, so people conveniently blame God.

A last reason people cling to religion is because they rely on that promise of a better afterlife. Many people lead good religious lives so that they can get into Heaven. If religion didn’t exist, they would have no idea where they would go after death.

My question in response to this post is, Do you think people would be more likely to reject religion if some other explanation for the afterlife was proven?

Desperate Times, Desperate Measures...

We were taught in our philosophy class that above all else, humans value self-preservation. The majority of human actions stem from the need to protect and/or better oneself. Sometimes our bodies will even take such action without us making a conscious decision; the body will shut down (aka faint) if it is not getting enough oxygen, rest, or sustenance in an attempt to conserve and preserve life.

There are been some cases where people do things to stay alive that they would not normally do. There are true stories of people who have been stranded in groups and have resort to cannibalism to survive. Why not? If you are stuck in the frigid, icy mountains with no immediate way to safety and no food supply except your dead friend, human nature would dictate that you use your friend as a food supply. Food is the most basic human need, and in desperate times the body will settle for almost anything to fulfill that need as long as it preserves life.

Despite the fact that your brain and body demand that one eats his friend to survive, many people still will not resort to such a thing. No matter how desperate they are, they will not do something as repulsive and corrupt as consuming another human’s flesh. They would rather die than commit such an atrocity. Their moral belief that it is wrong is too overpowering

My question, therefore, is, Do you believe it is possible that too much emphasis is put on morality? Why or why not?

Response to Lisa Diamond: Altruism

Lisa asked, Do you think there is one model, one epitome, to look up to that is the definition of what 'good' should be?

My answer is decidedly no. Everybody has flaws, so there isn’t one perfect being that people can look up to. Furthermore, everybody’s definition of what consists of a “good” person is different.

To a religious Christian, a “good” person would be a morally perfect being that does not drink, do drugs, or have premarital sex. As I said before, there is no such thing as a perfect being, and I don’t think people who drink or do drugs or have premarital sex are “bad” just because of that. In the German culture, drinking is a popular pastime. The Native Americans believe in using hallucinogens to be closer to their gods. The hippies believed in free love.

In some places in the Middle East, it is considered “good” to throw acid on a woman’s face if she does not put on a veil. Men who do it are praised there, while people in America would never think that was an acceptable thing to do. This is just another example of how people can disagree on what makes up a “good” person.

My question in response is, Who do you consider a “good” person to look up to and why?

50% of Marriages End in Divorce...Why do Humans Bother?

Sex is a necessity for all animals. Every human has a driving need to copulate. Part of it, of course, is because of the intense pleasure it brings. Part of it may be the need to feel connected to another human being. Most of it, however, is the innate need mate.

Sexual intercourse in its purest form is about populating the planet. However, humans are developed enough to assign other values to it, like the ones mentioned above. Because of this, the natural order of evolution is disturbed. Instead of having intercourse with as many people as possible and producing as many children as possible, people tend to commit to one individual. Many never have children at all.

Obviously, the need to commit is strong enough to overrule our need to procreate. Therefore, my question to all of you is, What is it that drives us towards such a life? Why do we not go with our natural instincts?

Response to Joshua Nitti: My Theory of Human Nature

Joshua posed the question, Do you think humanity will survive if we keep being selfish?

Went I first went to answer this question, I wanted to say yes. After all, human beings are naturally selfish creatures and always have been, and we’ve already survived like that for half a million years. When I talked to my friend about it, however, he brought up the point that we may have always been selfish creatures, but it’s been getting progressively worse. I realized he was right, and changed my answer.

It seems that every generation, humans get more and more selfish. Material possessions have gotten more and more important and valuable, big corporations are getting more money while smaller ones die off, and people like Tim Geitner are basically stealing taxpayers’ money to benefit themselves. Our entire economy is on the downfall, tons of people are jobless and homeless, and nobody seems to be doing anything about it.

The more selfish people are in this day and age, the more people they screw over. The number of jobless people will keep rising, which will cause the number of homeless people to keep rising, which will make the death toll rise since it’s hard to keep healthy with no health care or food. Especially in the winter. America as a country is on the decline, mostly from people being selfish.

My question for everyone is, Do you think these selfish behaviors (and therefore the decline of a prosperous America) are in any way related to the decline of religion in our society?

Possibly One of the Most Commonly Used Phrases about Human Nature…

We’ve all heard it before, that timeless phrase. “It’s human nature to want what you can’t have.”

Not only is the phrase common, it’s also correct. If you asked anybody on the street, they could probably give you an example of a time when the phrase rang true in their lives. A girl has been good friends with a guy for years, but doesn’t develop feelings for him until one or both of them is in relationship with someone else. A woman doesn’t usually like chocolate, but she starts craving it the minute she goes on a diet. A man has a brand-new Audi A4, but covets the Covet that he can’t afford. You’re probably thinking of a few examples when it has happened in your own life as you read this.

My question is, Why is it that humans covet those things they can’t have? Is it because we are purely selfish creatures, as Pete believes? Or do you believe there is another reason?

Response to Jillian Covey: Darwin

Jillian asked, How do you feel about homosexuality and how do you defend your stance when questioned?

I was so excited when this question was posed. I myself am a bisexual, and therefore I am all for homosexuality. There are two reasons I could give to explain this. However, one of them is a little less formal and more risqué…so…if you aren’t into that, skip over reading that particular explanation and just read the formal one.

FORMAL EXPLANATION

There are two main entities that decided a long time ago that homosexuality is bad. The first is religion. The second is Darwinism.

Religion preaches that marriage is between a man and a woman. I believe that is silly, but even so why does that mean that two men or two women can’t just enjoy each other sexually or in a relationship? Well, religious people might say that the purpose of sex is to populate the earth, which gay people cannot accomplish, and therefore they shouldn’t have sex. To that, I say that plenty of religious people use birth control when they have sex, which is the exact same thing.

As for being in a gay relationship, most religions just claim that it is “unnatural,” which we know isn’t true because of our talk in class about how if something can be done, it is natural. Love is a feeling, and religion shouldn’t dictate what you’re feeling. Do you turn to God to tell you when you can be sad, and about what? No. You shouldn’t turn to God to tell you when and who you should love, either.

NOT-SO-FORMAL EXPLANATION

As a bisexual, I like both guys and girls, and I think that it’s totally healthy and more people should follow suit. There are just certain things that guys lack physically (boobs) and mentally/emotionally (they have a harder time understanding feelings, enjoy doing different things for fun, etc.).

Likewise, there are certain things that girls lack physically (penises) and mentally/emotionally (they tend to have more drama in their lives, tend to require more money, etc.). Since each sex has so much to offer, I feel like restricting yourself to a certain sex would prevent you from having a full sexual or romantic experience.

QUESTION

Do you think there will be a time when religions can accept homosexuality and treat gays equally?

So Say there was a God, and He had a Delete Button...

We were talking in class the other day about the dinosaurs. The discussion was about how they existed for 165 million years, but humans have only been in existence for half a million years and we’re already close to destroying the world. Just for reference, that is 165 million years dinosaurs existed without polluting, degrading, or dirtying the world. Humans managed to do all of that in roughly a third of the time.

We determined that our power of higher thinking was the reason for our destruction of the world. Since other animals lack the ability to build things and create things that are harmful to the environment, the earth was a healthier place without us. It is safe to say that the earth would still be healthy if humans had never evolved.

Or is it?

My question is this, Do you believe that if humans had never evolved and become a free-thinking and intelligent species, another species might have evolved in such a way? Now, before you answer, think about this: by being the most intelligent species, human being are filling a niche. We’re the top of the food chain and are able to domesticate lesser animals. If we weren’t here to do it, who would? Oh, and just for fun…if you answer “yes” to another species evolving to fill our place, which species do you think it would be?

Response to Emily Follin: Truth of Values

Emily asked, Although it is possible to believe that murder is the right course of action, is there anyone in history who actually believed that the murder of innocents (meaning that the murderer believed them to be innocent, not us) was right?

There are definitely people who murder innocents and think it’s the right thing. The most obvious example I can think of would be human sacrifices for religious reasons. While many groups sacrificed prisoners of wars or enemies they have enslave. However, there are many groups who sacrificed innocents.

The Incas—a Native American group that lived in South America—sacrificed innocents all the time. In fact, not only did they sacrifice innocents, they sacrificed children. They believed that by killing those children, their gods would be appeased, and they were not the only ones who took part in those kinds of rituals.

Whether it’s a religious ritual or not, those sacrifices were murders. The leaders of the tribes that decided to kill people to appease their gods were no less murderers than Hitler. They believed that by sacrificing the children, their world would be a better place, just like Hitler believed that when he killed Jews. However, those leaders fully believed that the children they were killing were innocent—in fact, that was the entire point. It was supposed to be a great honor to be considered innocent enough to be sacrificed.

My question in response is, Is it any less of a crime when people die for a cause?

Altruism and You

Professor Johnson brought up in class that as human beings, it is in our nature to be altruistic and want to do things for others. He talked about how, since we are social creatures, we like helping others to fulfill their needs. I agree wholeheartedly with this.

The thing is, there are all kinds of self-less acts happening every day. Some are big, such as giving someone in need a place to stay when they’re down on their luck. Some are small, like helping someone pick up papers that they dropped. Some are recognized and praised, like when celebrities give money to charities. Some slip by unnoticed, such as a person holding a door for a long stream of people. All these have one thing in common: they are regarded as good deeds and lead us to believe those doing them are good people.

What about this? A teenager gets arrested for a misdemeanor and—when the case is presented to the judge—is assigned community service. He begins volunteering in a nursing home as a result. Obviously, his work there is not of an altruistic nature since it is not a selfless act; he is serving himself in working off his community service. We would not regard the guy as a “good person” in this given situation, even though we would award that status to someone who was there voluntarily.

My question is, Although the teenager’s volunteer work is not altruistic in nature and one would not consider him a good person, is the actual work that he is doing at the nursing home any less of a good deed?

Response to Devan Monroe: Society and Social Networking

Devan posed the question, Can anyone truly not care what their society thinks of them, or are these people just fooling themselves?

I would have to say that people who insist that they don’t care what people think are fooling themselves. I’m sure there are moments when it’s true, but most of the time it isn’t.

Humans are social creatures. We need to be part of a pack or group. There are certain social norms that the majority of people will conform to because they want to be accepted by their peers.

Then there are the “non-conformists.” The thing about the non-conformists is that although they aren’t conforming to the usual social norms, they are conforming to less popular ones. For instance, a guy is walking down the street with dreadlocks, a tie-dye t-shirt, and patchwork pants. He would be considered a non-conformist by most people. However, although he isn’t trying to fit into the typical social group of, for instance, jocks and cheerleaders, he is fitting into a group of non-conformists called hippies. Everybody fits into some social group and does things to conform to that particular group’s standards. Furthermore, those non-conformists tend to seek out and befriend people with the same beliefs and styles.

My question in response is, Do you think it is harder for people of different social beliefs to get along? If so, what is a way to overcome that?

Unnatural?

We were talking in class the other day about fallacy, and we ended up in a discussion about how people often label things falsely as “unnatural.” What they really mean is that they think it’s “immoral” because anything that is capable of happening is technically considered natural. You remember; it was what led to the talk about toaster sex.

A couple outlandish examples that came out of that discussion included the aforementioned toaster sex and bestiality. Of course, these are things which we would not consider doing—despite that we have established the fact that they are not truly unnatural. There are many other examples of less extreme things that people do even though they are told it is “unnatural,” such having same-sex intercourse or being a nudist.

My question is, Do you believe people should refrain from doing things that are considered “unnatural” by others, either to protect themselves from persecution or protect others from feeling uncomfortable? If so, why?

Response to Brycen Walters: Evolution

Brycen posed the question, Will some people’s inability to accept scientific data over religious doctrines be there downfall? I believe that the answer is no. My reasons, however, might not be what you expect.

I am not a religious person. I believe 100% in the scientific theory of creation. I also believe that religious parties should accept the theory as true, despite what the Bible says. The simple truth of the matter is the Bible was written in a time when they had no way of knowing what we do now about the creation of the universe. If they did have a way of knowing, maybe the Bible would have been written differently.

That being said, I do not believe that those who refuse to accept the scientific theory and cling to their religious beliefs will have a “downfall,” as Brycen calls it. What exactly are they falling down from? I can honestly say that learning about the Big Bang Theory and accepting it as truth had absolutely no effect on my life, and I don’t think my life would be any different at all if I had not done so.

The only thing that religious people are doing is having different thoughts. Those thoughts are not going to negatively affect their lives. Why would they? Either way, they were born, they’re living their lives, and they’re going to die.

My question in response is, Do you believe there is room for a type of God-like creator in the scientific theory of evolution? After all, something had to have caused the thing that caused the Big Bang.

Touchy-Feely = Touchy Subject

Sex has always been somewhat of a taboo subject. When we’re kids, adults shield it from us. You must be at least 18 to purchase pornographic material. PDA’s are discouraged in any and all public places. Religions consider it a sin. Even the words we use to describe it—explicit, smut, etc—are ugly and negative. The question is, why?

For most people, sex is a beautiful, intimate experience to be shared and enjoyed by two people. It keeps people healthy, both emotionally and physically; it’s a great workout and builds closer relationships with others. It is the source of all human life. It is human nature to want and need it. So why do people consider it so taboo?

Why tell a child some made-up story about a stork when they’re not likely to believe it anyway? Why insist that the legal age to view porn should be 18 when we all know that teenagers start getting horny and exploring the subject much younger? Why treat something that is considered so beautiful by so many as an ugly act?

This isn’t just something that happens today. All through the centuries sex has been treated as an unspeakable subject. My question for you is, Do you believe that sex is a subject that should be treated in such a delicate manner, and why do you think that has been the case all through time?

6-Minute Blog

Hobbes was an atheist and did not include any "appeal to divine creation, purpose, redemption, or judgement" in his theories. Considering he lived in the seventeenth century, he could not be open about his lack of faith without being persecuted. However, he was open about the fact that "he wanted to subordinate all churches to the authority of the state."

Do you agree with Hobbes' theory of church vs. state? How would life in the seventeenth century been different for the average person if the division had been present?

Response to Mary Marcil: Different Perceptions

Mary asked in her recent blog, "What other things make people perceive the 'world' differently?" She was referring to our talk about Solipsism, which--in Mary's words--"is the result of entertaining radical doubt of our every perception."

I'm sorry if this offends some people, but the obvious answer is drugs. Marijuana, LSD, ecstasy, magic mushrooms, cocaine, heroin, opium. They all alter a person's perception of the world around them, and their position in it. For instance, if someone is stressed out, they might smoke pot to relax because it makes things seem a lot less pressing and important. LSD and magic mushrooms both alter what things look, smell, taste, and sound like. Ecstasy convinces you that the best thing to do at the time is have as much sex as possible. Cocaine makes a person really paranoid, and they think they can't trust anybody. Heroin induces euphoria, and one feels like life is the best it's ever been for a while.

By the way, before anybody gets the wrong idea, I'm not some sort of junkie drug lord. I know all this from stories and common knowledge and, in some cases, research.

There are six drugs listed above. Say you took one every day of the week, with Monday being a day for sobriety. Your reality would be different every single day.

Another thing that can change people's perspectives about the world and their lives is death. When people have a near-death experience, they tend to change their perspectives on what's important in their lives. They may start being overly cautious and pious in an attempt to hold off their inevitable death. Some people have a near-death experience and decide to start living their lives without any thought of the consequences. They might start doing drugs and hooking up with various partners and buying extravagant things that they've always desired. The death of a loved one can have the same effects.

Response to Joshua Nitti: Lack of Evidence?

Joshua Nitti posed the question: Do you think that people believe in the idea of christian atheism because of lack of evidence?

I myself am an atheist. I am of the personal opinion (no offense to those who believe differently) that there is no supreme being who has the ability to decide how my life should be lived and what the circumstances of my actions are. Up until last week, I had never even heard of "Christian Atheism," but since I discovered what it was I find that I can identify with it.

Christian atheism has a few main views. According to BBC, those include:

• Religion is about internal spiritual experiences, and that is all.
• There is no world other than the material world around us.
• There are no beings other than the living organisms on this planet or elsewhere in the universe.
• There is no objective being or thing called God that exists separately from the person believing in him.
• There is no 'ultimate reality' outside human minds either.
• We give our own lives meaning and purpose; there is nothing outside us that does it for us.
• God is a projection of the human mind

Basically, there is no such thing as God, we are in charge of our lives and give them meaning, there is no heaven or hell. Christian atheism is about living by Jesus' love thy friend, love they neighbor, etc principals, without believing in the messiah or God. To me, it seems like Christian atheists don't believe in God because, like me, they think the likelihood of some man in the sky controlling our actions is a little ridiculous. Maybe lack of evidence has something to do with it, but it's more likely that they just don't want to have to worry about pleasing somebody who, in the end, can't fully be pleased. Just like Confucius believed it was impossible to be a sage, I think it's impossible to follow every rule of the Bible and Christianity. Perhaps so do the Christian atheists, so they follow the ones that make sense, and are good moral people who don't believe in God.

The Bible: Promoting Incest?

There is a section of the Bible (Genesis 19:30-36, to be exact), where a strange incident occurs. When breaking it down and examining it, it is clear that incest is occurring between Lot and his daughters. The passage goes something like this:

"And Lot...dwelt in the mountains, and his two daughters with him...the first born said to the younger...there is no man in the earth to come in unto us...Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve the seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine: and the firstborn went in and lay with her father, and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she rose. And it came to pass on the morrow, the firstborn said, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve the seed of our father."

Basically, Lot's daughters got him so drunk off of wine that he didn't even realize he was committing incest. Twice. I believe there are three ways this passage could be interpreted. 1) This passage is supposed to warn one of the dangers of alcohol. 2) This passage is supposed to warn of the wickedness of women. 3) This passage is advocating incest in times desperate times of solitude.

So, I guess my question is this: If the Bible preaches against such things as overindulgence in booze and incest, why do you think this passage was included in the Bible?

Sagehood vs. Philosopher King...ness

Since I left class early on Wednesday, I did not get a chance to pose a question that I had written for the Q&A segment of class, so I would like to pose it now.

We established in class during our study of Confucianism that sagehood seemed like an impossible goal. After all, Confucius himself admitted that he didn't think he would ever meet one. With a set of standards so high, it seems unlikely that any of us will ever meet one.

Between sacrificing any and all personal relationships with other people and going through intensive schooling, Plato's philosopher kings also had a high set of standards to live up to. That being said, my question is: Is becoming a philosopher king any more plausible than becoming a sage, or are they both two completely unrealistic ideals?

Response to Emily Follin: Communal vs. Personal?

Emily Follin raised the question in her blog, The Evils of Utopia, "Which is better: being raised communally or being raised by your parents, thus forming a personal bond with them?"

I live with a family of hippies. Just recently--in the last few weeks of August--I attended what is called a Rainbow Gathering with them. How a Rainbow Gathering works: many hippies (anywhere between fifty and several hundred) come together in a certain area of the woods and build up a community from what they carry in on their backs and whatever they can find in nature. What does this have to do with anything? As many people know, hippies tend to live communally. This includes taking care of children communally.

Since there is so much to be done to make a community work, parents cannot always keep a close eye on their kids. To help out with this problem, one or two people will volunteer to take care of them. They are responsible for feeding them, playing with them, keeping them clean, and making sure they do not get into trouble (and disciplining them when they do).

I was responsible for child care during my time at the Rainbow Gathering, and I can say from first-hand experience that there are many positives aspects of communal child care. First and foremost, it relieves a lot of stress for the parents. When there is so much to be done, it helps not to have to worry about what your kids are up to. This is probably one of the reasons Plato advocated it; when a philosopher king is so busy solving life's quandaries, it would be hard to focus on raising a child. Another positive aspect: when children are being raised communally by one or two people, they are all answerable to the same rules. This means a lot less conflict between the kids. For instance, if one kid's parents tells him not to play by the fire, and another parents tells their kid it's ok, then the kids might fight about it. A final thing to advocate communal child care: if one person is responsible for all the children, then there is no doubt that all the children will be taken care of. In example, if one person is caring for all of them, then they all eat at the same time. If busy parents are looking out for their own kid, they might forget to feed them, or may simply not have the time or resources to.

Despite my advocacy of communal child care, I also believe that children being raised wholly in that environment would be disasterous. After all, it IS critical to form that important bond between parents and children. Studies such as Jeanie have shown that no connection to your parents can result in the inability to interact socially with others. Therefore, it is my belief that parents should raise their kids, but there are many times when raising children communally can be a good thing.

Comparing Rwanda to NHN

I brought up in class Wednesday the case of the Invisible Children--that is, the children soldiers of Uganda. When reflecting upon that, it occurred to me that discussing the Rwanda genocide would be more appropriate. I'm assuming that everybody has read An Ordinary Man for their respective English classes. For those who have not, I will fill you in a little.

In 1994, over 800,000 people were massacred in Rwanda. They were primarily Tutsis--a smaller ethnic class who once ruled Rwanda--and people who supported them and would not join in the killing. An Ordinary Man is the story of a hotel manager who hid over a thousand Tutsi refugees from the soldiers who sought them. One thing the book demonstrates is how completely normal, friendly people turned into murderers overnight. The author explains that a good deal of the ill-feelings and need to kill came from the hatred projected by a radio station, which perpetually made racist comments and dehumanized Tutsis.

The question I posed about the children soldiers of Uganda was, Are these children evil beings because they were given a gun and told to kill? The class consensus seemed to be that no, they were not evil because they were too young to know better and had no real choice in the matter. The majority of the Hutus who contributed to the slaughter of the Tutsis in the Rwanda genocide were teenagers or adults who had been brainwashed by years of hatred and months of subliminal--and not-so-subliminal--messages. The question I am posing now is, Are those people considered evil beings? Why or why not? How are the two situations (the children soldiers in Uganda and the genocide in Rwanda) different, and how are they the same?

Response to Hallie Jackson: Can we advance if we are self-less?

I would like to take the time to respond to Hallie Jackson's question on her blog, Self...ish? Hallie posed the question, "If people were-hypothetically-truly good and selfless beings, what would happen to us as a race? Would we continue to advance as we have?"

It is my belief that no, we would not advance if we were truly selfless. Part of this is because I agree with Hallie that there is no such thing as being completely selfless. The Romans who built the aqueducts did an incredible thing: they created a way to keep sewage out of the streets and people out of the sewage. The sanitation problems in the city got better, less people were sick, and the number of deaths went down. The system benefited everyone in the city, but the people who created the system were included in the list of those who benefited. Would they have started the aqueduct project if, for instance, they were told that only the highest political figures would be able to access the water? If they did, it would most likely have been only because they feared retribution if they refused--another incentive.

As college students, there are a lot of things that we don't want to do. To list a few, we don't want to clean our rooms, do our homework, adhere to the drug and alcohol policy (some of us, anyway), eat the cafeteria food. However, we do these things anyway because there is an incentive. If we don't clean our rooms, we might lose things or gross out whatever boy/girl we bring home for...ahem..."studying." We do our homework because we don't want to fail school and end up working at a McDonald's until we're forty. We adhere to the drug and alcohol policy because we don't want to get written up and kicked out of MCLA. We eat the cafeteria food because we don't want to starve and most of us don't have the money to order take-out every night. If none of those consequences existed, I'm willing to bet we wouldn't do any of those things.

Unfortunately, simple daily tasks are what help us advance as a person and then as a race. Sally cleans her room because Donald is coming over and she doesn't want to gross him out. Donald is impressed and sticks around to...ahem..."study" with Sally. They fall for each other, date, graduate, get married, have kids. Hypothetically, of course. Sally advances personally because she has a loving man and family. The human race advances because Sally and Donald are bringing more people into the world. Bobby does his homework because he doesn't want to fail. He ends up learning the new material better, getting an A in the class, going on to graduate school, and becoming a engineer and making a cushy amount of money. Bobby benefits because he has all the comforts money can buy, the human race benefits because Bobby designs the next World Trade Center.

On the opposite end, when we don't do things that benefit us, the human race suffers. If Lulu decides not to adhere to the drug and alcohol policy and gets drunk every night instead, she'll probably end up missing classes and therefore failing out of school. There goes a mind that could have been used to cure cancer or make another great contribution to the world. Dwayne doesn't like the food in the cafeteria, so he starts eating less and less until he has to be hospitalized. A few months of his life are spent trying to regain his strength when he could be going to school and getting his degree instead.

Although not all selfish behavior helps the world, many behaviors that benefit the individual also benefit the human race as a whole.