Adriosss OMG Blog!!

The invincible tico

Last Friday I went to Multiplaza to buy a very required spare part for my TV (a new remote control). I expected Multiplaza to be empty since the swine flu was developing rapidly in Costa Rica and the news stated public places must be avoided. I was wrong. Multiplaza was full, there were elderly people, medium aged people, young people and even babies. As I entered something caught my eye instantly. There were various people coughing and sneezing, probably from the common cold (since we were now in the rainy season) but still, it the uncertainty and fear of the swine flu I couldn´t help but feel uncomfortable. The people sneezed and coughed at, between and around other people and no one seemed to be alarmed whatsoever.

Once I had recovered my composure and was far enough from the crowded food court to think straight, I started to observe the anthropological aspects of my experience. I was witnessing the “Tico” attitude at its fullest. Anthropologically, every culture in the world is ethnocentric (believes that their culture is superior or better to a certain extent) and I was observing an ideal example. In the same way that people always believe bad things are not likely to happen to them, us Ticos believe bad things will never happen to us or reach Costa Rica. There is always an invisible veil in which we firmly believe that protects us from the outside world. We live in a country ruled by peace and nothing catastrophic has happened to us in a very long time. Hurricanes turn to neighboring countries at the last minute, epidemics like the avian flu and the SARS don’t reach us and wars don´t affect us much. This veil is as effective as it is visible and people don´t seem to understand this.

Thirteen days after the first death by swine flu happened in Mexico, 1614 more cases were reported of which one third died. Our first death of swine flu happened yesterday May 9 but people don’t seem alarmed whatsoever. Concerts continue, massive parties continue and Multiplaza continues to be packed with people. The swine flu is currently not very dangerous and most people infected are treated and cured quickly. Nevertheless, we must not forget an important aspect of this illness; it is a virus. The nature of the influenza virus is very interesting, as I learned in the discovery channel´s epidemics special. In the same way that the avian flu suddenly mutated to infect humans and then mutated to be transmitted by humans the swine flu mutated. And, it is in the virus´s nature to mutate sometimes with terrible consequences. The common cold constantly mutates becoming immune to last year´s vaccine. In the same way, the swine flu virus suddenly could become immune to the only two medications it is affected by and then, then we would have a problem.

The swine flu takes at least five days to express itself in symptoms. As scientists from the world´s influenza research capital in Atlanta predicted, the epidemic cannot be stopped. It will reach Costa Rica in its full force almost certainly. Right now that force is quite petty but we should not underestimate it.

I wonder if the Tico veil will persist or if the epidemic will hit us in massive numbers in a few days. In both cases I believe the Tico attitude will persevere ignoring the dire news and staying optimistic till the last possible moment. I am still not sure where this attitude, this Tico behavior originates. Is it a defense mechanism, ignorance, a random human attitude, not existant and I have watched way too much TV or a simple lazy reluctance to alter our daily lives? This, I guess, is for everyone to decide for themselves.

 The alternative solution

An insurmountable chasm? or a small yet risky step?

                 I remember reading not long ago an amazing and eye-opening article on global warming in a “Popular mechanics” magazine. I have always been interested in ecology and nature, and, I had read thousands of articles concerning global warming throughout my life. Nevertheless, this was different. It talked about the tiny window of change the world had and all the depressing facts about global warming I was so used to. Yet, it contrasted with all the other articles since it gave concrete and revolutionary ideas to tackle the issue. It talked about genetically modified trees, climate altering mechanisms and revolutionary forest creating ideas. But it also talked about one more solution, a necessary solution that would give the main blow to our carbon based world; alternative energies. Alternative energy is an umbrella term that refers to any energy source intended to replace an old or ineffective fuel source with undesirable consequences. The term fluctuates greatly adapting to the undesired consequences being replaced. With wood being the main source of energy in the late medieval period, coal was once proposed as an alternative energy source that would stop the excessive deforestation. Petroleum was once a fresh alternative fuel too in the 19^th century, when entire whale populations were being exterminated in order to manufacture whale oil. The world continued developing and today, we see these once novel and promising fuel sources as obsolete, undesirable and dangerous. A new era of ecological uncertainty has begun and we now observe the terrible consequences our actions have had on the world we live in. With Global warming, deforestation and species extinction we now seek a new breed of alternative energies. We seek fuel sources that can sustain the world´s overwhelming energy demand while lacking the fossil fuel´s undesired side effects. Plenty of possible solutions have arisen. Yet, even though scientists estimated a ten year window of opportunity to reverse the effects of global warming, there continues to be no strong worldwide support for any of them, or at least not strong enough. Nevertheless, this lack of support is not without reason. Yet, even so, will we remain idle while the world is in the brink of ecological disaster?

                One of the most hopeful energy source possibilities lies in the bio-fuels. In contrast with other “eco friendly” energy sources, the bio fuels have the potential to sustain the colossal fuel requirements of the industrial and transportation sectors of society that are currently sustained mainly by petroleum and coal. The main issue the bio fuels attempt to tackle lies in power. The bio fuels strive to achieve a fuel that, when combusted, will produce the least CO2 possible while remaining effective and powerful enough to fuel the world. Of the many bio fuels currently being developed biomass fuel, biodiesel and bio alcohol stand out as the most promising. Yet they are all subject to hindering factors like: their economical viability, their ecological effect and their effectiveness.

Biomass is organic material made from plant and animal byproducts; it is very dynamic and can be molded to produce energy from various organic wastes. Biomass contains stored energy from the sun that can be converted to heat and steam when burned. It is a renewable resource; that is, it can always be replenished (by growing more plants or collecting more manure for example) and in theory can be used indefinitely. Biomass energy does produce CO2 given that it must be burned, nevertheless, it produces such low quantities of CO2 that it can be considered carbon negative (it produces less CO2 that the one absorbed by the original plant during its life cycle). Even though it sounds excellent and ideal, biomass does come with a great issue. It is not economically viable. Even though biomass in theory is well rounded, in practice it is very ineffective. To be able to make biomass a main source of energy with the power to fuel the world, the quantities of plant and animal byproducts needed are overwhelming, the technology required to make them efficient is staggering and the money to achieve both requirements in today´s economical circumstances is impossible.

Biodiesel is another very promising fuel with the possibility to surpass the fossil fuel dependence gap. Biodiesel refers to a non petroleum-based diesel. It is manufactured from chemically reacting lipids (like vegetable oil). One of its best assets is the fact that it can be combusted (alone or mixed with petroleum) in common diesel engines. It this way, biodiesel has a great economical advantage over the other bio-fuels given that new and sudden technology implementations are not needed worldwide to utilize it. It is because of this, and other lesser factors, that biodiesel is currently one of the most used alternative fuels worldwide. In the EU, “The Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation” obliges suppliers to include 5% renewable fuel in all transport fuel sold in the EU by 2010 and in the US, usage has increased drastically and continues to increase due to the “Energy Policy Act” of 2005. Nevertheless, biodiesel comes once more in hand with various negative consequences. Even though biodiesel can be in theory economically viable and even economically beneficial, other factors hinder its development as an alternative to the fossil fuels. The sheer amount of reactant feedstock sources (that is crops to produce vegetable oils) is overwhelming. The worldwide production of vegetable oil and animal fat is simply not sufficient to make biodiesel an alterative to the fossil fuels.  For example: The estimated transportation diesel fuel and home heating oil used in the United States is about 160 million tones and the actual production for vegetable oil for all uses is currently 11 million tons. If the whole arable land of the US (1.9 million square kilometers) were devoted to the manufacturing of biodiesel from soy, it would just provide the required 160 million tones. Biodiesel is still effective if used alongside petrol in mixture (like it is used in the EU) nevertheless, it does not constitute (at least just now) a viable alternative for fossil fuels.  

Bio-alcohols are biologically produced alcohols from the fermentation of sugars, starches or cellulose (this last one being very difficult). It is viewed by many as the long desired alternative for gasoline since it can theoretically combust in a common gasoline engine. Ethanol is by far the most used Bio-alcohol worldwide, particularly in Brazil. Ethanol based fuels are very promising since it can be produced in great quantities specifically from sugar cane by fermentation of the sugar and of the cellulose from bagasse (a sugar cane byproduct). It is seen world wide as one of the most optimistic solutions to global warming. The USA is the world´s largest producer and consumer of ethanol fuel and, alongside Brazil (the second largest) they produce more than 90% of the world´s ethanol. Ethanol can theoretically be used alone.  Yet, most modern cars would not sustain it effectively in a mixture with a ratio of ethanol to petrol higher that 10%. This is one of the issues that come in hand with ethanol; it is extremely corrosive. It is so corrosive that normal gasoline engines would not be able to use it, as said before, with a ratio of ethanol to gasoline higher that 10% and, even at this ratio, car engines would suffer a decrease in functional life. Adding to this, there is another issue that arises with ethanol if used in great quantities. Ethanol wastes are very pollutant and, when producing ethanol at great quantities, wastes will be released into the environment. These issues alongside the deforestation that would happen in order to produce enough ethanol are the main factors hindering its global production.

There is another sector of the so called “alternative energy sources” apart from the bio-fuels. This is formed by various inexhaustible resources such as wind, water force (Tidal energy and hydro power), geothermal heat and sunshine that could be harnessed to produce energy.  These alternative energies are commonly utilized to produce electricity. Geothermal energy in 2005 comprised 0.3% of the world´s electricity demand, hydroelectric power comprised 20% and wing energy 1.5%. These percentages are rising exponentially. Nevertheless, the most promising source of energy in this group is, by far, solar energy. The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of Earth is so vast that in one year only it would be about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth’s non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined. The possibilities are mind- bottling. Yet, the issue lies in the harnessing of sunlight. Currently we are able to harness 0.1 exajoules of solar energy out of a technically possible 1575 and a theoretical 3,900,000. We currently use photovoltaic technologies to store solar energy. Theoretically, they are very inefficient; nevertheless, if we were to fill 4% of the world´s deserts with these inefficient photovoltaic panels, the whole world´s energy consumption would be satisfied without the need of any other energy source. Note the word “whole”, I know it sounds crazy but it is certainly true. Nevertheless, money comes to ruin our hopes once again. These photovoltaic technologies and the maintenance of these technologies are extremely expensive and not viable at such massive amounts. At least, until we develop the technologies further.

Another energy source currently evaluated as a possible solution to our energetic problems is hydrogen fuel. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, constituting about 93% of all atoms. We can find it here on Earth at huge quantities as well; for example in water and all living organisms. Hydrogen when combined with oxygen yields great quantities of energies and, in specially fabricated hydrogen fuel cells hydrogen can be utilized as a motor fuel worldwide. If used correctly hydrogen fuel can be up to 3 times more efficient than a normal internal combustion engine and yields absolutely no undesirable products. Based on these and other factors many propose hydrogen economies as the solution to our ecological problems. Driving the countries´ economies towards the massive production and usage of hydrogen fuel would constitute an ideal alternative to the loathed fossil fuels. So, one would ask: Why hasn’t anyone done it? Well, because it is not yet possible to do so. Currently the production of hydrogen fuel cells is extremely expensive and the actual hydrolysis of hydrogen and production of the energy cell would require more energy than the one produced. The idea is excellent but the technology is not there yet. Scientists expect hydrogen economies to be viable by 2040 developing it in four phases: Technology development (phase 1), initial market penetration (phase 2), infrastructure investment (phase 3) and finally the fully viable market (phase 4). Thus the idea is neat but not yet viable plus many believe we only have 10 years to develop an eco-energy solution.

All the ideas are promising yet, they all come with risks. Whether it is economical, environmental or technological factors there are numerous variables hindering the massive development of these alternative sources. Nevertheless, we cannot stand idle and observe our world decay. In my opinion we must act now. We should certainly keep the risks in mind and avoid hasty decisions (like the one USA made by investing mainly in ethanol finding devastating ecological consequences). In my opinion we should not look for a lonely hero to save us from this ecological perdition. Most all the previously discussed “alternative energy sources” do not constitute a viable and concrete solution to our energy problem. Nevertheless, they do help lower our dependence to the fossil fuels. In 2007 91% of our energy came from undesirable sources of which 85% are fossil fuels. Yet, 9% of this energy is renewable and is rising constantly. In my opinion any help that could be provided from alternate sources to increase this number is welcome. We do not need to choose between ethanol, biomass or biodiesel to fuel the world´s cars. We do not need to choose sun, wind or water energy to provide for the whole world. Why don’t we use them all? Imagine if all the previously proposed solutions were to be implemented at their viable quantities and significant investments were implemented. The possibilities, in my opinion would overpower the risks. Together they would constitute a great power, strong enough maybe, to save the world. Or at least to preserve it long enough for a better solution to arise.

Journal #3

GM trees, a solution to global warming and deforestation or the crashing of our ecosystem?

Some time ago, I read an article (in the Popular Mechanics magazine) on the future of genetically modified trees (or GM Trees as they are better known).  It mainly talked about the future influence GM trees would have on our lives and how these genetically improved trees could constitute a solution for some of the greatest issues we are dealing with today. From battling global warming with super effective CO2 absorbing trees to the restoration of forests to the production of super fuels, the GM trees were portrayed as heroes. I got really interested by the subject, I mean, what is more appealing than a concrete solution to global warming! So, I started to research. And what I found was an incredibly controversial and two sided topic, a topic backed on both sides by (what I considered) very reliable and convincing sources. On one side GM trees were portrayed as heroes and on the other, as ecological catastrophes waiting to happen. Thereby, I asked myself, should scientist create and distribute GM trees on our environment?

Scientifically, GM trees are trees who´s genes have been altered in order for them to behave in a certain way, for example, GM trees that are immune to various deceases affecting and injuring forests.  In many ways these GM trees are similar to modified crops given that they are altered genetically to work more effectively. Yet, with trees being bigger organisms and producers of wood (a universal form of fuel), their possibilities when genetically altered are mind-bottling. For example, a simple reduction on the lignin (a constituent of wood) production of certain species of trees, would have as consequence an organism exceptionally effective at making ethanol (compound used to make biodiesel) and pulp for paper, thusly tackling two great modern day issues (fossil fuel dependence and deforestation) in one GM tree species. Gm trees could also be used to create super effective CO2 absorbing forests resistant to harmful diseases, this achieved by adding a pieces of specifically chosen genetic information from various CO2 absorbing and of disease resistant tree species onto native trees´ DNA. Add one last genetic code for fast growth and we have a plausible solution for Global warming. As I said before, the possibilities are amazing. Yet, since the first time scientists tested with GM trees in 1999, environmentalists have pledged war to fight the idea. 115 of the first GM tree specimens were destroyed by activists at a test site in Bracknell, Berkshire in 1999. Fervent opposition like this has hindered the development of this idea, yet, this is about to change. Even though many ecological entities (like the world rainforest movement) are still fervently opposing the idea, yet, Gm tree development is booming worldwide. For example, Canada´s federal government in Otawa is currently spending an average of $20-million a year to create genetically modified trees and says commercial plantations could be just a decade away. Their main goal being the production of trees impervious to spruce budworm, trees that produce better quality wood or modified trees for other commercial benefits.

            The positive side of the GM trees seems, at a first glance, overpowering. Yet, the opposition has very convincing arguments as well. Various organizations in which “The World Rainforest Movement” and the “Friends of the Earth International” stand out oppose GM tree development a wrong move at the current time. Like an article from “The World Rainforest Movement” states so clearly: “The fact is that genetically engineering trees constitutes a further step forward… in the wrong direction.” (http://www.wrm.org.uy/subjects/GMTrees/text.pdf). As I said before trees are very large and long- living organisms.  And, even though this characteristic might be beneficial for genetic alterations in many aspects, it is one of the main arguments against GM tree development. In contrast with GM crops, GM trees live much longer developing and changing drastically through seasons. This means that changes in their metabolism may occur many years after they are planted and thusly, to predict the long-lasting effect of a genetic alteration on a tree is very difficult. This is what many people argue; that despite great uncertainties and terrible potential risks, scientists continue meddling with genes in order to “improve” trees. This brings me to another point deeply argued when debating GM tree development, the actual improvements that are taking place. Many argue that of the improvements discussed earlier, many are minimal and not worth the risks, others will work but affect gravely the ecosystem and that others are only theoretical and very unlikely. Many environmentalists argue GM tree plantations and forests created to fight various ecological problems will only exacerbate the impact of other problems. For example, many negative possibilities could reside in faster growing trees that will deplete water supply for other flora at a quicker pace, biodiversity and ecological balance affected in forests containing trees engineered to be insect resistant or disease resistant and finally in intermolecular mutations found in ill constructed genetic codes resulting in contamination of a natural genetic pool with the reproduction of said trees. Thus, why many people argue that, by acting in a hastily manner, we will create biological green deserts that will result in catastrophe.

            This brings me back to my original question. Should scientist create and introduce GM trees on our environment? The idea of GM trees is certainly appealing; the positive consequences at long and short terms are amazing. Yet, there is a great amount of uncertainty when developing these men/women synthetically “improved” creations and releasing them into an already fragile environment. Both the possibilities and the risks implicate striking consequences. So, how do we decide? Must we take the risk that we´ve postponed since 1999 in hopes of avoiding ecological harm? In my opinion there is no escaping this technology, and the possibilities are well worth the risk. We are living in a world that is already in ecological suffering because of our unwise decisions and foolish actions. From the numerous ecological problems happening today, we created most. And, in my opinion, we should try and resolve them. We should follow the lead of other countries that have already started investing in this new science given that, in my opinion, genetic modifications might easily solve the ecological problems we are dealing with today, and the ones we might have to deal with tomorrow.

Bibliography:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/3349146/Bid-to-plant-genetically-modified-trees-in-UK.html

http://www.ecoearth.info/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=26291

http://www.wrm.org.uy/subjects/GMTrees/text.pdf        

http://en.wikipedia.org

Journal #2

A big radioactive problem

            Uranium is a very interesting element indeed. U-238, also known as depleted uranium, is the most common uranium isotope found world-wide. It has an estimated half-life (time for an atom to undergo radioactive decay) of 4.5 billion years, thus is commonly seen as non radioactive. It is also the heaviest naturally occurring element and, these characteristics, make it an ideal weapon. Because of its incredible weight (3 times heavier than steel) U-238 based weapons are excellent for armor-piercing. When colliding with its target, it burns at a heat of 3000 degrees Celsius, thus it can penetrate most anything it might find in its path. Plus, it is extremely cheap. An estimated 2$ per ton, given that for every kilogram of enriched uranium produced, seven kilograms of depleted uranium result as bi-product. Yes, it sounds like the perfect weapon, powerful, safe and cheap. Yet, a great cloud of controversy has arisen around the use of such weapons. I realized this when reading an article on “La Nacion” about the dark side of U-238.

The article talked about a village in New Mexico called “el Socorro”, a village that excised very close to the “New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology”. Turns out the institute experimented with our favorite isotope of Uranium (yes, U-238) very close to the small village and, cases of hydrocephaly, cancer and mutations due to genetic damage were increasing exponentially. Turns out the U-238 is not as good hearted as I originally thought. After reading the complete article and doing some research of my own, I found out the truth about the isotope. Turn out that, even though it is technically not-radioactive, when U-238 combusts (for example in exploding bombs or RPGs), apart from the amazing heat released and the overpowering impact, the isotope releases a very fine, chemically toxic and very radioactive dust that lingers in the environment and contaminates close by civil areas (like “el Socorro” village).

What impacted me the most was not the fact that the U-238 was actually radioactive. What impacted me the most was the fact that nothing was done about it. The experiments near “el Socorro” continued despite evidence and activist movements and, the use of U-238 weapons continued. I researched a bit on the use of said weapons in the ongoing war on terror. Turn out that, over 300 cities were most probably contaminated in Iraq on 2003 with the radioactive U-238 dust. And, cases of cancer (especially bone cancer) in those cities, have reached an all-time high. This information about cancer cases I obtained from an Iraqi oncologist called Jawad Kadhim Hassan Al-Ali who firmly believes the U-238 isotope of Uranium is the issue to blame.

Yet, as Jawad states in an interview posted on “La Nacion”; even though there is a universal believe that U-238 is harmful, there is not enough equipment or money to conduct the necessary experiments in Iraq to finally reveal the dark side of U-238. And thus, it will continue to be used. In my opinion this is ridiculous. The risks we take when using U-238 are extreme. If it turns out to be harmful, consequences could be observed up to twelve years from now.

Bibliography:

http://www.nacion.com/proa/2009/marzo/15/proa1899946.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-238

Journal #1

What!! No Free Gift!?

            Reciprocity is commonly defined by anthropologists world-wide, as the people´s informal exchange of goods or labor and, despite circumstances or economic systems, it is observed in every known culture on earth. Yet, reciprocity does not only mean the physical trading of goods, it also requires some kind of social implication. I learned this in Social Anthropology class and, from this scientific fact backed by overwhelming evidence, I found myself facing the following question: A question often argued upon in the anthropological world. If reciprocity is observed in every exchange, trade or barter on every society on earth and it always entails a social implication, is there really no possible exchange free of implications? Is there really no free gift?

            The supports for the statement that there is no free gift, reside in the complete definition of reciprocity, which is quite complex. Reciprocity is mainly separated in three components: generalized, balanced and finally negative reciprocity.

Balanced reciprocity occurs when someone gives to someone else, expecting a fair and tangible return at some undefined future date. It is a very informal system of exchange that implies great trust and is based in social implications. The exchange is not necessarily immediate and the size and value of the item are not necessarily relevant. This behavior can be observed in gifts inside a family or between close friends. Like for example, last week, when Pierre lent me money to buy food in the cafeteria. I haven’t paid back.  Yet, I most certainly will.

In the other hand, generalized reciprocity occurs when one person shares with another person without expecting anything in return. What makes this interaction “reciprocal” is not the direct exchange of goods, the “reciprocity” actually lies in the effect the exchange might have on both the giver and the person being gifted. For example, the sense of satisfaction the giver feels the social closeness that the gift fosters or even the expectations that arise from the exchange.

Finally, negative reciprocity occurs in an exchange were the item being exchanged and the monetary value given as compensation, wield the most importance. A person gives goods or labor and expects to be repaid immediately with some other goods or labor of the same value. Negative reciprocity can involve a minimum amount of trust and does not require a previous relationship whatsoever. Actually, it can take place among strangers. An example of this reciprocity can be observed in the barter taking place in markets or stores.

This brings me back to the original question. Because of the many aspects that reciprocity encloses, many believe there is no such thing as a free gift, one with no social implications whatsoever. So, I decided to test this statement, desperately looking for that elusive free gift (note that there are many anthropologists who do believe in a “free gift” and thus my research was not a wild-goose-chase). At first, my candidates for free gifts failed. I could see the reciprocity and social implications they concealed when analyzing them. For example, when I gave a pen to one of my friends, I certainly did not expect anything in return. Could it be a free gift? No, even though I expected no physical reciprocity, I found many social implications. For example, I did expect in some way for my friend to take care of my pen and lend me one if I ever needed a pen and, even though in a minute way, that exchange did have an effect our relationship. Thus, I could see the reciprocity. Finally, after various denied attempts, I found an exchange that was very promising. I considered an event that happened sometime last week when my mother gave a homeless man a few coins when we were stuck in a traffic jam. There were no physical expectations like in the previous example plus, there was no previous relationship or a plausible future one that could possibly be altered and, the exchange lasted an irrelevant 3-7 seconds. So, y analyzed it. And to my great deception, it was not a free gift. At first I thought it might just be one given its irrelevance when considering any social relationships yet, once again, reciprocity prevailed. I realized this when reviewing the different types of reciprocal exchanges. It was an example of generalized-reciprocity! Although the exchange was really impersonal, there was a reciprocal exchange in the emotional level. The reciprocal exchange happened in the feeling of satisfaction (slight or not) my mother experienced because of the exchange. The man got some needed money and my mother received satisfaction and numerous thanks.

Thus the “free gift” eluded me. Yet there might be other examples were this unusual kind of exchange is present. Thus, the question remains open: Is there really a free gift?

What knowledge of morality may be gained by focusing attention on the consequences of the thoughts or actions? Which matters more, the consequences for individuals or the consequences for the group? Can consequences be quantified or weighed scientifically?

Humans are constantly looking for the most reasonable solution to problems and questions. It can and is presented differently inside every human because it works on the personal level yet can be influenced by society. What is meant by this is that humans automatically give value to everything. Depending on what humans personally feel have greater value and the least consequences, do they make moral conclusions.

These consequences can also be measured and weighed, depending on how much value each person gives to the specific consequence. For example the consequence for not being eco-friendly can be measured by the amount of CO2 in the air and by the earth’s average temperature. Some people may think that the value of this is inferior to the value of the money they make by not being eco-friendly whilst others think the opposite.

We as humans are constantly thinking about the consequences of our actions even if we may think we don’t; it can happen on the subconscious level. An example of this is can be seen when a situation where a company is selling a medicine which is very effective yet which is sold at a price extremely excessive to the cost of manufacturing is presented. One person may chose to do nothing and put great importance on the value of money, finding that the option with the fewest consequences is to make a big profit. On the other hand, there could be someone who puts great value on fairness and feels that selling that product is disgraceful, finding that the option with the fewest consequences is to denounce the company of their practice.

Consequences for the individual matters no more than the consequences for the group because each person assigns different values for both of these groups. Morality isn’t just black and white, there are various different shades of grey; making it hard to say that something matters more than something else.

In what ways might a moral judgment differ from other judgments?

A “judgement”, like most words is hard to define but we found the following definition to please us the most. A judgement is the cognitive process of reaching a decision or drawing conclusions. So first thing is to see what a moral judgement is. What defines a moral judgement? Well it can be seen as a judgement that takes place due to your moral decisions; decision that you believe to be correct, based on what you feel right and wrong.

Your morals can and are influenced by many factors. Many of these factors are influenced by society. Society has a set of rules that are able to describe something as right or wrong. But these ideas and ideals are not just black and white; there are grey areas too. These areas become subject to review to see if certain actions can be considered as right or wrong.

Other factors that affect our morals are quite personal. These can be completely different from what society believes to be true. Some people are very racist and feel this is acceptable in their morals whilst society in general is usually very acceptant of different races.

Moral judgements can differ from other judgements. You can look at a situation and say that it would be morally better to take a certain action, for example donate money to a society whilst it would be a better economical judgement to not donate any money and keep it for your family.

To what extent does the state of a person’s knowledge play a part in deciding whether an act is right or wrong? Under what conditions would it be legitimate for a person to plead ignorance? Are people responsible for finding out as much relevant information as possible?

In all actions that involve a conflict of opinions (thereby could be considered right or wrong) there are two sides of the issue; the person performing the action and the object, person or entity being acted upon. And, usualy a person´s analysis of an action is based on their knowledge concerning that action. The problem resides in the fact that most people base their analysis of said action, on their own personal (and most possibly biased) knowledge. From past experiences to socioeconomic status, there are various factors involved in a person´s analysis of an event, factors that vary between people and that might not apply to others.

Hence, to be able to accurately decide if an action is right or wrong avoiding a possibly biased decision, one would need a considerable amount of knowledge from all possible relevant points of view. Thereby, consider a person analyzing a performed action and attempting to decide whether it is right or wrong. If he/she does not have enough knowledge about the factors affecting his/her decision and is not able to consider other possible perceptions people might have about that same action, for him/her to plead ignorance would be justified.

Given that, to accurately decide if an action is right or wrong one would need a considerable amount of knowledge from all possible points of view, it is always one´s responsibility to acquire all possible information considering an issue if attempting to evaluate it accurately. Yet, it would be really hard for one to realize when one has reached enough knowledge to accurately evaluate said action. Thus, even though a person might not be sure his/her decision is biased, it is always perfectly fine for him/her to state his/her point of view given that, it is already accurate for one person, and might easily be justified.

The people who never sleep…

                In many ways, we do live in a world that never sleeps. Life in our modern day society quickly becomes more and more demanding. We are expected and in many ways are desperate to succeed because, success now represents economic wealth and wealth, in our current society, is a requirement for survival. We have given economic success an incredible importance in our lives and, since everyone desires this, we now face an exaggerated amount of competition to achieve it. Life has become for many, a never-ending competition for money, we do everything in our power to achieve it. We desire it not only as a necessity for survival; it has grown to be an addiction. Money has quickly become for many, the one mean towards happiness. In many ways our live revolves around it. We work at school daily and compete for good grades, we study in college in order to achieve a good job and, we work hard at our job in order to gain money. We do all this to ensure our future as a happy one (one with money). Nevertheless, we hardly stop working to appreciate what we have achieved.

A few days ago, I read an interview conducted in “La Nación” newspaper of a woman by the name of Raquel Ramirez that stuck me and made me reflect on my own life. Raquel Ramirez exemplified the ideal modern life. A talented singer and hard worker she fought all her life to become a mezzo-soprano and finally achieved it. She fell into the vicious cycle I was previously talking about; her life revolved around tours and international concerts, and barely had time to spend with her family. Yet, one dreadful day, she was diagnosed with leukemia. She was estimated a few more days of life. In that moment, she understood that she was in the verge of death, and immediately knew what she had to do. She forgot about a tour in Nicaragua and a series of previously vital concerts and operas, she only needed to see her family. Against all medical odds she survived, she said he daughter had given her the will to endure, and that now she saw life differently, more brightly.

We often place money and work as our topmost priority and neglect the other aspects of our life. Aspects that can very easily be, much more important than these material desires. As soon as Raquel regained strength and came back to her home, what she wanted to do was to see the world, exercise and spend time with her family. Her work quickly fell from her top priority to take secondary role in her life.  It took a life threatening disease to open Raquel´s eyes and make her analyze her priorities. Many people don’t get this second attempt at life.

Yes, money is without a doubt an important part of our lives. Without economic wealth, life in our modern and materialistic society is almost impossible. Our own need and desire for money make us desperate to obtain it. Consequently we sell more and more goods making us depend even more on money. We have come to put a price tag on everything we can, today almost nothing is free. We need its constant flow to fulfill our most essential needs, from food to energy to water. Yet, if we are not careful, we can easily be absorbed by this vicious cycle, a cycle revolving around money and success. One that can deceive us from understanding what is truly important, subtly hindering our appreciating of life.

 A few days ago my friend Clement pointed out a sign in a poster, in front of the school´s secondary office, it talked about some needy and poor children and how we should help them by donating gifts, and how in this way, we could give them a true Christmas. To what extreme has our society come to depend on money? How materialistic have we become to consider a true Christmas one with presents and material gifts? I am not criticizing the poster; it might actually be more accurate than we think. I am merely alarmed at us and at the course our existence is taking. Did we choose the right path by depending so much on money? Could we be following the wrong path and, like Raquel, come to forget the true meaning and importance of life? 

Is it possible to have a completely etic perspective of a foreign culture? One can have two perspectives when collecting data concerning culture or social group. An etic perspective is that perspective that is objective, influenced by the least number of variables. A perspective that is neutral when observing the foreign culture. This contrast with the emic perspective which is that which is influenced by the observer´s own circumstance, his or her culture, society and believes. Those of you who take anthropology might already know this. So, is it possible to have a completely etic perspective when observing a foreign culture? Is it possible to observe and collect data being, in no way influenced by your upbringing, culture or experiences?

Being and faking

Baldomero Lillo´s story “Era él solo”, which we read in our Spanish class, is about the life and suffering of a small child. Being an orphan, he is adopted by a woman named Benigna (“Benigna” means harmless in English), who took him in not as her son but as her slave. She treats him horribly, stripping him of all human rights and treating him as her personal servant. Even though Benigna made this child´s life unbearable, to the point that he decides to kill himself, outside her house she is known for her religiousness and good heart. She becomes a different person outside her house, or when people came to visit. She hid her terrible self when in public, becoming a religious, righteous and good hearted saint in the eyes of others. She continuously boasts about the sacrifice she made by saving a child in need and taking him in her care hiding her dark side at all costs. Thusly, she creates a different self when in public, a personality that exemplified her society´s standards. She lived for what others thought of her, to the point that; when her foster son finally kills himself depressed and desperate to end his suffering, she decides to end her life as well avoiding public judgment for her actions. This story is an ideal example to illustrate how people are not always how they appear and how many of us hide aspects of ourselves in order to fit better the standards dictated by our society. Even though we might not realize this at a first glance, we are like Benigna in many ways, hiding aspects of our true selves and shaping our life in order to fit what is expected of us.

In our current western society, liberal as it may be compared to other cultures, our lives are very much framed by a series of regulations we are expected to respect. Our actions, reactions and thoughts are all outlined by these regulations. “You shouldn’t eat with your mouth open… you should tie your shoes and wear matching socks…” Every day, since the day we are born we are constantly bombarded by unspoken rules that dictate how we should behave. We are expected to act and think in a specific way, even though we might not have similar ideas or would wish to behave differently. And, even though other people might know we feel this way, we are expected to fake. For example, in a society that in many ways revolves around sex, we are expected to avoid discussing sexual matters publicly apart from many other taboo subjects that are classified as lewd. And, even though we are all human beings, we are supposed to hide our naked bodies and natural body functions. Why are we so desperate to hide our real selves through appearances? Why do we hide some of our thoughts and ideas even though we might know others think in the same way? Why are we so desperate to turn into someone we are not? We fake and hide so many aspects of our lives and selves in order to satisfy what society dictates, yet, together we form and shape society. So, why exactly are we faking and reflecting to be someone we are not if we are fooling no one but ourselves?

Well, it is not so simple. We do shape society and, we do hide many aspects of ourselves to please the public and our standards. Yet, this behavior did not appear spontaneously consequence of human hypocrisy or simple randomness, in many ways we may have adopted this behavior as a form of adaption. Couldn’t we have adopted this behavior in order to protect ourselves and relate better with others? If Benigna would stop pretending and reveal her true actions, wouldn’t everyone (with good reason) loath her and punish her for her actions? In a similar yet not so drastic way, when we fake we too are doing it for a reason. If we were to be our true selves always, saying openly what we thought and behave with no standards to follow, we would probably find life more satisfying. Yet, we would soon find ourselves in great quarrels with others. We would openly point out everyone´s mistakes and defects making many people angry and belittling many others. Given that we wouldn’t be able to deceive or lie, we would quickly make very close friends with people we are compatible with, but, we would quickly make dire enemies as well. Thus, this faking we perform is present for good reasons, if we were completely true to ourselves and others, we would simply be unable to live in a society like ours.

Personally I think there is for this issue, a simple solution. A final conclusion, that applies to thousands of other issues. We need a balance. We need to exist somewhere in the middle, pretending and faking when necessary but not to the point where we are hiding who we are entirely. But, how do we establish this balance? Where do we draw the line? Once again, it is up to each one of us and our personal circumstances.