One of the most fundamental albeit contentious questions in the discipline of anthropology is on the evolution of culture. Through the evolutionary history of hominids there have been biological changes and behavioural changes and these adaptations have developed the capacity for culture and it is therefore important to identity where and what in the evolution led to the capacity of culture. Thus certain definitions and criteria should be established in order to set the parameters for such identification. Culture shall herein be defined as the systemic, non-utilitarian, applied and cognitive process of the acquisition, innovation, sharing and transitioning of common symbolisms, beliefs and physical practices in a group that goes beyond basic survival utility. Thus, symbolic art and tool specialisation are key examples of this definition of culture and will be used as the basis for the study of the capacity of culture. This sense of culture can be seen as similar to the definition of human behavioural modernity with some exceptions and thus the periods of the Palaeolithic will be a primary focus. Moreover, as qualification it is important to make the distinction between non-human primate culture and what this essay will consider culture. Chimpanzees and other non-human primates may indeed possess various characteristics that allow for culture, but this essay argues for a more narrow definition of culture. In order to establish the period in hominid evolution where the capacity of culture was developed this essay will focus on two umbrella aspects of hominid evolution: biological characteristics of bipedalism, larynx position and cranial capacity; and behavioural characteristics of cooking, cooperation and material utilisation. The primary chronological period this essay will focus on is during the late Lower Palaeolithic to the early Upper Palaeolithic where the aforementioned characteristics can be seen to be most prominent. These aspects provide a biosocial and complementary account of hominid evolution and holistically cover the important and relevant characteristics needed to establish the capacity for culture in hominids.
Culture is ultimately constrained by biology and therefore it is important to study the physiological and anatomical aspects of hominids and the evolutionary implications for culture. Biological adaptation is the foundation for cultural adaptation and the cognitive basis for behaviour. Thus from this umbrella aspect of biological characteristics the identification of whence in the hominid evolution the capacity for culture was attained. The fundamental aspects of human anatomy intrinsic in the relation to the capacity of culture can be established as bipedalism, cranial capacity and larynx position and these three criteria will be addressed. Bipedalism is the foundational step in hominid evolution for the capacity for culture. It is a clear exemplification of the morphological difference in humans and non-human primates and has the capability for cultural change. Bipedalism firstly freed the hands of hominids and allowed them to further experiment with tool creation. As Diamonds states, “The upright posture freed our ancestors’ forelimbs to do other things, among which toolmaking proves the most important” (2006: 34). This form of locomotion holds the foundations for cultural adaptation because it allows mobility and flexibility. Since Australopithecus afarensis descended from the trees bipedalism has the foundational defining biological characteristic of hominids. Therefore it is important to study other aspects of hominid biology as to better develop the identification for the capacity for culture. The hominid larynx position is an important biological necessity in the capacity of culture because it is the primary criterion for the capacity of verbal language. Moreover, the capacity for vocal communication is one of the most fundamental and obvious distinctions that separates Homo sapiens and the rest of the primates. Language and communication play central roles in culture and the ability for such is defined by the position and structure of the larynx, tongue and associated muscle physiologies. This “...anatomical basis for spoken complex language... [and] modification of the protohuman vocal tract to give us finer control and permit formation of a much greater variety of sounds” (Diamond 2006: 54-55) and is the tiny change in human genes that allows for culture. The evolution of the larynx position reflected the shape of the flexed basicranium and as cranial capacity increased the anatomy of the larynx began to descend into neck as is seen with Homo erectus. As Diamond posits, “Without language, two protohumans could not brainstorm together about how to devise a better tool, or about what a cave painting might mean.” (2006: 55) Thus the evolution of the position of the larynx can been seen as a survival mechanism to increase complex cooperative foraging, but language also turned into a verbal form of cultural expression. The position of the larynx in human anatomy is the fundamental criteria for complex vocalised language and thus allows for cultural expression and behavioural adaptation. Cranial capacity is one of the most important and relevant characteristics for hominid culture. Cognition and mental ability are directed linked with cranial capacity and brain size and cognition is the foundation for culture. Moreover, throughout the archaeological records are skulls from the evolutionary history of hominids and inferences of cognition and cultural ability can be made through the analysis of brain size. There has been a steady progression in hominid cranium size from the early Australopithecus africanus around three million years ago with the cranial capacity of four hundred to Homo habilis around two million years ago with the cranial capacity of five hundred to Cro-Magnon in the Upper Palaeolithic Age with the cranial capacity of sixteen hundred has coincided with technological change and cultural expressions. Moreover, with the increases in cranial capacity came with basicranial flexion and the change of the shape of the brain. Anatomically modern humanlike brains have parietal and temporal lobes predominating with the convolution of frontal lobes and these are neurologically important for social organisation and information transmission and therefore the maintenance of a cultural capacity. Nonetheless, “the extra brain size of early Homo sapiens had not dramatic immediate effect on their way of life. [Indeed], the whole long tenure of Homo erectus and early Homo sapiens outside of Africa was a period of infinitesimally slow cultural change.” (Diamond 2006: 37) Therefore it is important to look at cognition along with other factors such as behavioural and ecological considerations. Overall, cranial capacity is fundamental in the capacity for culture it is argued that this relationship was not fully established until early Homo sapiens in the Upper Palaeolithic.
The essential and evolutionary precursor to a systemic form of culture is general behaviours and social organisations. Cultural capacity is bio-cognitively based; however it is correlated and in many caused by manifestations in the areas of phylogeny and social organisation, symbolic and non-utilitarian expression and patterns of various activities. Such behavioural characteristics can be established with the criteria of cooking, cooperation and material utilisation in order to identify where in hominid evolution the capacity of culture was formed. Cooperation for any species is fundamental to survival, but it can be seen to play an important role in culture, especially human culture. Because culture requires the sharing and transitioning of beliefs and practices, cooperation and its consequent effects of sociality and altruism are foundational criteria for the identification of a cultural capacity. “Co-operation is also the architect of creativity throughout evolution and without co-operation, there can be neither construction nor complexity nor culture.” (Nowak 2011:1) The generational transmission of information is another fundamental aspect of culture and is largely achieved through grandparenting and can been seen as a branch of cooperation. From the archaeological records it can be established through skeletal analysis that Neanderthals had a life expectancy of around thirty to forty. Unlike the Homo sapiens in the Palaeolithic ages with general life expectancy of sixty, “the ability to accumulate and transmit information suffered” for Neanderthals. Therefore, Neanderthals lacked the effective capability in cultural transmission and therefore lacked in the capacity for culture which Homo sapiens did not. The behavioural characteristics of sociality and mutual aid inevitably accompany cooperation and these are also essential for cultural progression. Such behavioural traits can be considered as life histories and these “Unique life histories late in the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic coincide with modern humanlike brain size” (Macho 2007: 507) The behavioural characteristic of cooking can be associated with the control of fire and the diversification of diet. Cooking is a fundamental act of expression that has both survival utility and symbolism and acts as a cultural practice which is learned and transmitted through generations. A major advance in human evolution was the control of fire. (Diamond 2006) The exploitation of fire is an overtly human trait and evidence for it can be found in the archaeological records for Homo erectus in China. From then, the utilisation of fire has been a defining behaviour which leads onto the diversification of diet. As diet is a foundational factor of evolution it can be seen that “changes in dietary adaptations underline the evolution of large brains” (Macho 2007: 507). With the criteria of cooking alone, it is difficult to pinpoint where in the evolutionary history of hominids the cultural capacity was first developed. However, the period has been narrowed down between Homo erectus to Neanderthals to later with the Upper Palaeolithic. The utilisation of materials is a fundamental behavioural aspect of culture and hominid evolution. An immensity of inferences can be made by the archaeological evidence of various stone tools ranging from the cognitive capacity and age of the maker to the environmental and chronological factors of the tool in question. Tool use is not an uncommon behaviour and the “regular use of stone tools is a hallmark in human culture with clear animal precedents that evolved independently to employ tools in capturing or processing food, though none are as heavily dependent on implements as we now are.” (Diamond 2006: 59) Many other species employ tools for gathering food, such as various birds, and for building habitats, such as various mammals. Moreover, non-human primates are indeed effective tool makers and users. These forms of tool use can be seen as culture. To add to this debate, the dimension of symbolic art will be added to order to better identify what constitutes culture in hominid evolution. As has already been expounded the identification of the capacity of culture in hominid evolution essentially comes down to whether Neanderthals had such a capacity. Through looking at material utilisation, technological change and the symbolism of art, this essay argues that Neanderthals did not have what has been considered the capacity of culture and it was only at the early Homo sapiens of Cro-Magnons did this capacity fully and comprehensively evolve. Moreover, the tools found in the archaeological records for the early Stone Age too lacked the traits required to be called a cultural expression. Diamond argues that the early tools of the Stone Ages did not have “... sufficiently consistent or distinctive shape to suggest any specific function...” (2006: 38) and therefore were not culturally innovative. “Common chimpanzees also use tools, occasionally of stone, but not in numbers sufficient to litter the landscape” (Diamond 2006: 36) and therefore, akin to the Neanderthals uninformed utilisation of technology it can be argued that this does not constitute culture. Although Neanderthals did indeed have large craniums, create tools, bury the dead and perhaps had some symbolic forms of art; their tools remained unchanged and simple and lacked distinct types with unique functions. Neanderthal tools had no variation in either time or space and therefore lacked in innovation which is a key aspect in culture. Moreover, they “left no unequivocal art objects” (Diamond 2006: 43). There is archaeological evidence of some Neanderthal ornamentation, but it is an overtly small and heterogeneous collection of drilled animal teeth, incised bone, ochre with use facets, engraved rock. As this essay’s definition of culture mandates a more standardised and systemic expression of culture, Neanderthals do not conform to such. Comparatively with non-human primates, Neanderthal material culture lacks the innovation and complexity warranted to be defined culture. This argument can also be made against Middle Stone Age humans in Africa because “...they still lacked standardised bone tools, non-utilitarian art and cultural variation in tools from place to place” (Diamond 2006: 45) Diamond proposes that “...human art is non-utilitarian, that it is for aesthetic pleasure, and that it is transmitted by leaning rather than through a genetic basis.” (2006: 170) Progress in Cro-Magnons art is a key example of symbolic and non-utilitarian material culture. Rock paintings, polychrome depictions, bas reliefs, necklaces, ceramics and musical instruments are examples to the Upper Palaeolithic Revolution in which behavioural modernity was fully expressed by Homo sapiens. “These variations of culture in time and space are totally unlike the unchanging monolithic Neanderthal culture. They constitute the most important innovation that came with our rise to humanity: namely, the capacity for innovation itself.” (Diamond 2006: 50) Innovation in material utilisation is a key behavioural aspect in the capacity of culture and it can only been seen to have fully and systematically developed in the Upper Palaeolithic Age with the Cro-Magnons.
The capacity of culture is a unique aspect of animal existence and the identification of it in the evolution of hominids has been and is a contentious and complex task in anthropology. By looking at the most important and most relevant characteristics, both biological and behavioural, a more accurate identification can be established. Moreover, the outcome of any such task is dependent on the definition of culture and this essay has set the parameters to allow the most effective process to select where in hominid evolution the capacity of culture was developed. The biological characteristics of bipedalism, larynx position and cranial capacity were looked at and it was established that these were fundamental in allowing culture. Moreover, the behavioural characteristics of cooking, cooperation and material utilisation were examined and it was found the behaviour is the essential precursor to culture. It is important to note that explanations from both the biological and behavioural aspects were needed and they provided complementary identifications. Overall, it can be seen that within the definitions of this essay, the capacity of culture was developed in late Lower Palaeolithic to the early Upper Palaeolithic with the emergence of Cro-Magnon.
References
Diamond, J.
2006 The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal, 2nd Ed. New York: Harper Pernnial.
Hill, K., M. Barton, and A. M. Hurtado
2009 The emergence of human uniqueness: Characters underlying behavioural modernity. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 18: 187-200.
Flinn, M. V., and R. D. Alexander
1989 Culture theory: The developing synthesis from biology. Human Ecology 10(3): 383-400.
Janson, C. H. and E. A. Smith
2003 The evolution of culture: New perspectives and evidence. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 12: 57–60.
Johanson, D.C., and B. Edgar
2006 Lucy: the beginnings of humankind, rev. ed. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Klein, R.G.
1989 The human career: human biological and cultural origins. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Klein, R. G., and B. Edgar
2002 The Dawn of Human Culture. New York: Wiley Publishing.
Rindos, D.
1986 The Evolution of the Capacity for Culture: Sociobiology, Structuralism, and Cultural Selectionism. Current Anthropology 27(4): 315-332.
Mesoudi, A., A. Whiten, and K. N. Laland
2006 Towards a unified science of cultural evolution. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 29: 329-383.
Macho, G.
2007 Human Evolution. BioEssays 29(5): 500-508.
Richerson, P. J. and R. Boyd
2005 The Origin and Evolution of Cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Richerson, P. J. and R. Boyd
2005 Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Straus, L. G.
1989 On early hominid use of fire. Current Anthropology 30(4): 488-491.
Ward, C.
2003 The Evolution of Human Origins. American Anthropologist 105(1): 77-88.
9/02/2011
Australian Nationalism and Refugees as the "Other"
A national government maintains a set of assumptions, especially in immigration and refugee policy, that are primarily based in the nuances of identity. Such responses to refugees and asylum seekers by various governments of nation-states around the world are fundamentally underlined by interactions of national, ethnic and social identities and mentalities (Herzog 2009). From a sociological point of view, Australia is a very interesting case for the interplay of nationalist identity and refugee policy. In Australian national discourse and governmental policy there appears an intrinsic dichotomy of “us”, Australian citizens of Anglo-Western European Christian heritage, and “them”, Immigrants, refugees, Asians, Muslims (Said 2003). In the Australian context of nationalistic discourse those that constitute “them” or the “Other” are expressed as “Un-Australian” (Mummery 2007). This phenomenon of the “Un-Australian” transcends all nominal identities, such as class, gender and politics, except those identities of nationality and ethnicity. Such a sociological phenomenon of national identity discourse is at the forefront of border protection politics and refugee treatment policy and has been rooted in Australia government since the White Australia Policy. Since the termination of the White Australia Policy in the later middle of the twentieth century, nothing has been as contentious as the introduction of the policy of mandatory detention and offshore processing of refugees and asylum seekers in 1992 (Waxmana 2002). This set of policies was formulated by the Labor Government of the time and expanded by the Coalition Government of Prime Minister John Howard as the “Pacific Solution”. Such have coincided with a rise in nationalism, exemplified by conservative former Prime Minister John Howard statement in 2001; the formation of the ultra right wing One Nation Party by Pauline Hanson in 1998; and the excessive and derogative use of the term “boat people” in the media. This essay response will seek to expound the intrinsic dichotomy in national identity by looking at the three aforementioned exemplifications of nationalistic and populist rhetoric in reference to refugee policy as to explain and critique the assumptions and interplay of identity that are founded in the Australia’s policy of the treatment of refugees and reaction to asylum seekers.
The famous statement and piece of nationalist sentiment by Prime Minister John Howard of “we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come” during the Federal Coalition election campaign of 2001 was a hallmark in the discourse of nationalist identity and in government policy towards immigration and refugees (Marr 2005). It epitomises the dichotomy of “us” and “them”, began a phenomenon of populist rhetoric, and coincided with a step up in harsh policymaking for refugee arrivals by boat. Within the backdrop of an already well established system mandatory detention and offshore processing, the “Tampa affair” in 2001 was a stark exemplification of the consequences of Howard’s statement. The Norwegian freight ship MV Tampa rescued a number of Afghani refugees but was refused to enter Australian waters and Australian military forces were ordered to board the ship to prevent such actions. The “children overboard affair”, also of 2001, is another fundamental instance of populist rhetoric and the consequences of exclusive national identity (Piper 2004). Federal ministers made inaccurate statements to mislead the public about how refugees were inhumane enough to throw their children from their boats in order to secure asylum. The primary and underlying assumption that allowed and accepted the harsh, unethical and debatably illegal actions of the Howard government are based in the exclusivist concept of the “Other” and propagated by overt national pride and populist rhetoric. An extreme manifestation of Australian nationalism culminated with the formation of the ultra right wing One Nation Party in 1998. With the election into federal parliament of Pauline Hanson, the leader of the One Nation Party, was a wave of xenophobic and racist rhetoric (Jupp 1999). Hanson saying in her maiden address in parliament: “I and most Australians want our immigration policy radically reviewed and that of multiculturalism abolished. I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians. They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate.” Such rhetoric fundamentally underlies the phenomenon of the “Other” and clearly displays the nationalistic sentiment present in Australian policymaking thought (Waxmana 2002). The term and concept of “boat people” plague Australia’s national discourse on refugees through its continual perpetuation and propagation in the media and in politics. Be it on the airwaves of talk back radio, on the television screens of commercial channel current affairs programs or in the speeches of the federal opposition in parliamentary debates, “boat people” maintains a niche in the discourse of national identity (Mummery 2007). Espoused predominately by the leader of the opposition Tony Abbott as a populist rally call, the rhetorical terminology of “boat people” represents a fundamental response supported by, arguably, the mainstream demographic of Australians to illegal immigration, refugees and asylum seekers (Piper 2004). By labelling legitimate refugees that attempt to seek asylum in Australia that come by means of boat transportation as “boat people”, it becomes much easier and acceptable to dehumanise such refugees and distort Australia’s legal and moral obligations. Moreover, the continual focus on so called “boat people”, who in reality represent a small percentage of refugees, enables an easily identifiable scapegoat for the perceived decrease in the “Australian way of life” due to the increase in foreign migration and multiculturalism.
The effects and implications of the intrinsic dichotomy in Australia national discourse on immigration and refugees are profound. As Said (2003) propounded, the perpetuation of the “Other” in the case of refugees stems from the crux of national identity and, in Australia, has led to inhumane and unethical policies for and portrayals of refugees. The assumptions by the Australian government are underlined by the nuances of nationalism and national identity and these are the causation for the bigoted discourse in society.
References
Herzog, Ben. (2009). Between nationalism and humanitarianism. Nations and Nationalism. 15(2): 185-205.
Jupp, James. (1999). The Politics of Australian Immigration. Carlton: Melbourne University Publishing.
Marr, David and Marian Wilkinson. (2005). Dark Victory, 2nd Ed. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Mummery, Jane and Debbie Rodan. (2007). Discursive Australia: Refugees, Australianness, and the Australian Public Sphere. Journal of Media and Cultural Studies. 21(3): 347-360.
Piper, Margaret. (2004). Australia’s refugee policy. The Sydney Papers. 12(2): 78-88.
Said, Edward. (2003). Orientalism, 3rd Ed. London: Penguin Books.
Waxmana, Peter. (2002). The shaping of Australia’s immigration and refugee policy. Journal of Immigrants and Minorities. 19(1): 53-78.
The famous statement and piece of nationalist sentiment by Prime Minister John Howard of “we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come” during the Federal Coalition election campaign of 2001 was a hallmark in the discourse of nationalist identity and in government policy towards immigration and refugees (Marr 2005). It epitomises the dichotomy of “us” and “them”, began a phenomenon of populist rhetoric, and coincided with a step up in harsh policymaking for refugee arrivals by boat. Within the backdrop of an already well established system mandatory detention and offshore processing, the “Tampa affair” in 2001 was a stark exemplification of the consequences of Howard’s statement. The Norwegian freight ship MV Tampa rescued a number of Afghani refugees but was refused to enter Australian waters and Australian military forces were ordered to board the ship to prevent such actions. The “children overboard affair”, also of 2001, is another fundamental instance of populist rhetoric and the consequences of exclusive national identity (Piper 2004). Federal ministers made inaccurate statements to mislead the public about how refugees were inhumane enough to throw their children from their boats in order to secure asylum. The primary and underlying assumption that allowed and accepted the harsh, unethical and debatably illegal actions of the Howard government are based in the exclusivist concept of the “Other” and propagated by overt national pride and populist rhetoric. An extreme manifestation of Australian nationalism culminated with the formation of the ultra right wing One Nation Party in 1998. With the election into federal parliament of Pauline Hanson, the leader of the One Nation Party, was a wave of xenophobic and racist rhetoric (Jupp 1999). Hanson saying in her maiden address in parliament: “I and most Australians want our immigration policy radically reviewed and that of multiculturalism abolished. I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians. They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate.” Such rhetoric fundamentally underlies the phenomenon of the “Other” and clearly displays the nationalistic sentiment present in Australian policymaking thought (Waxmana 2002). The term and concept of “boat people” plague Australia’s national discourse on refugees through its continual perpetuation and propagation in the media and in politics. Be it on the airwaves of talk back radio, on the television screens of commercial channel current affairs programs or in the speeches of the federal opposition in parliamentary debates, “boat people” maintains a niche in the discourse of national identity (Mummery 2007). Espoused predominately by the leader of the opposition Tony Abbott as a populist rally call, the rhetorical terminology of “boat people” represents a fundamental response supported by, arguably, the mainstream demographic of Australians to illegal immigration, refugees and asylum seekers (Piper 2004). By labelling legitimate refugees that attempt to seek asylum in Australia that come by means of boat transportation as “boat people”, it becomes much easier and acceptable to dehumanise such refugees and distort Australia’s legal and moral obligations. Moreover, the continual focus on so called “boat people”, who in reality represent a small percentage of refugees, enables an easily identifiable scapegoat for the perceived decrease in the “Australian way of life” due to the increase in foreign migration and multiculturalism.
The effects and implications of the intrinsic dichotomy in Australia national discourse on immigration and refugees are profound. As Said (2003) propounded, the perpetuation of the “Other” in the case of refugees stems from the crux of national identity and, in Australia, has led to inhumane and unethical policies for and portrayals of refugees. The assumptions by the Australian government are underlined by the nuances of nationalism and national identity and these are the causation for the bigoted discourse in society.
References
Herzog, Ben. (2009). Between nationalism and humanitarianism. Nations and Nationalism. 15(2): 185-205.
Jupp, James. (1999). The Politics of Australian Immigration. Carlton: Melbourne University Publishing.
Marr, David and Marian Wilkinson. (2005). Dark Victory, 2nd Ed. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Mummery, Jane and Debbie Rodan. (2007). Discursive Australia: Refugees, Australianness, and the Australian Public Sphere. Journal of Media and Cultural Studies. 21(3): 347-360.
Piper, Margaret. (2004). Australia’s refugee policy. The Sydney Papers. 12(2): 78-88.
Said, Edward. (2003). Orientalism, 3rd Ed. London: Penguin Books.
Waxmana, Peter. (2002). The shaping of Australia’s immigration and refugee policy. Journal of Immigrants and Minorities. 19(1): 53-78.
Multiculturalism is dead? How about right-wing politics is alive and well?
Australia is a nation of diversity. This diversity covers all aspects of life, from sexuality, to political preference, to disability and to ethnical and national background. Australia has always had a diverse demography, and it inevitably always will.
Australia is not a Western Judaeo-Christian nation-state; it is not a theocratic white country. Indeed, the majority of its citizens are of the Christian European demographic, but this does not make our democratic system or civil society the bastion for this demographic.
Australia is a nation-state based on the ideals that are universal to humanity, and no culture or religion can have a monopoly on them. Our society is based on the ideals of egalitarianism and liberty, of sacrifice and altruism. Our political system is based in the ideals of secularism and the separation of church and state, free speech and human rights. These ideals are the only way of maintaining a just and fair civil society. This is all fact – social, historical and legal fact.
Moreover, multiculturalism is not a policy. It is an undeniable practical fact. Australia is a country in the Asia-pacific, with an Aboriginal peoples and a European majority. Yet the Asia-pacific region is home to the majority of humans on this earth. What do we think should happen? Do we really think that migrants living in poverty and from overcrowding homes would not flock to this nation? Were we thinking that refugees do not see Australia as a safe, tolerant and prosperous place? Is Australia going to be morally degraded by Asians? Were we thinking that we would dodge the issue of immigration and asylum altogether? Do we think that there is a global Islamic conspiracy to take over our homeland? Is Australia going to become the Islamic Asian Republic of Australia by 2050?
No? Then why do we persistent in our narrow nationalist mind frame of fear? Why does Australia still base our government and political policies in unrealistic terms? Why do we not see reality? If you truly see tolerance and acceptance of multiculturalism a bad thing, I ask you to prove it with qualitative and or quantitative data. Make some evidence-based evaluations before you start to sprout bigotry on your local radio or propagate distorted information about Australia’s legal basis for asylum seekers in your newspaper. I ask you, I ask Australia, why is a multicultural society a bad thing?
The conservative commentators and right-wing politicians are fearful. Why are they fearful? Indeed everyone has a mandate to voice their views in a democracy about the future of this nation, but surely fear and the distortion and spin of fact has no place in our contemporary democratic society?
Now, I don’t mind if the Coalition and conservative commentators live with wool over their eyes and sprout archaic nationalism and claim a clash of civilisations in this nation of threatened and helpless White-Western-European-Christian purebloods; but the fact is that this is an untenable view.
What I personally fear is that politicisation and spin of immigration and culture and nationalism is a symptom of the utter degradation of our democratic system. When the few zealots can manipulate the views of a population, we, as a civil society, must realise that something is wrong.
Australia is in two wars and many other military and humanitarian operations. Therefore we have moral and legal obligations for why we must give refuge to asylum seekers, whether or not they come by boat or plane. This is fact. Moreover, what is also fact is that “boat people” has become the buzzword of the fear and smear campaign of modern Australian politics. It is a diversion from the basis of immigration policy and a populist rally for support for right-wing politicians. Tactical policymaking is being based on polling results and nothing of any sort of substance or quality is being formulated. Our politicians are not doing the duties mandated of them.
When our mainstream elected representatives decide that negative and stereotypical images of immigrants and refugees are accurate, we must realise that something is wrong. When populist nationalism and bigotry become part of the normal political business, our democratic and diverse civil society becomes much the lesser. We cannot force people into moulds. Human rights are not a political issue. We must accept our diversity, transcend our differences, realise our similarity and try to live the best we fortunately can in our democratic, free and prosperous Commonwealth.
I ask you all, why is a multicultural endorsed Australia bad?
Australia is not a Western Judaeo-Christian nation-state; it is not a theocratic white country. Indeed, the majority of its citizens are of the Christian European demographic, but this does not make our democratic system or civil society the bastion for this demographic.
Australia is a nation-state based on the ideals that are universal to humanity, and no culture or religion can have a monopoly on them. Our society is based on the ideals of egalitarianism and liberty, of sacrifice and altruism. Our political system is based in the ideals of secularism and the separation of church and state, free speech and human rights. These ideals are the only way of maintaining a just and fair civil society. This is all fact – social, historical and legal fact.
Moreover, multiculturalism is not a policy. It is an undeniable practical fact. Australia is a country in the Asia-pacific, with an Aboriginal peoples and a European majority. Yet the Asia-pacific region is home to the majority of humans on this earth. What do we think should happen? Do we really think that migrants living in poverty and from overcrowding homes would not flock to this nation? Were we thinking that refugees do not see Australia as a safe, tolerant and prosperous place? Is Australia going to be morally degraded by Asians? Were we thinking that we would dodge the issue of immigration and asylum altogether? Do we think that there is a global Islamic conspiracy to take over our homeland? Is Australia going to become the Islamic Asian Republic of Australia by 2050?
No? Then why do we persistent in our narrow nationalist mind frame of fear? Why does Australia still base our government and political policies in unrealistic terms? Why do we not see reality? If you truly see tolerance and acceptance of multiculturalism a bad thing, I ask you to prove it with qualitative and or quantitative data. Make some evidence-based evaluations before you start to sprout bigotry on your local radio or propagate distorted information about Australia’s legal basis for asylum seekers in your newspaper. I ask you, I ask Australia, why is a multicultural society a bad thing?
The conservative commentators and right-wing politicians are fearful. Why are they fearful? Indeed everyone has a mandate to voice their views in a democracy about the future of this nation, but surely fear and the distortion and spin of fact has no place in our contemporary democratic society?
Now, I don’t mind if the Coalition and conservative commentators live with wool over their eyes and sprout archaic nationalism and claim a clash of civilisations in this nation of threatened and helpless White-Western-European-Christian purebloods; but the fact is that this is an untenable view.
What I personally fear is that politicisation and spin of immigration and culture and nationalism is a symptom of the utter degradation of our democratic system. When the few zealots can manipulate the views of a population, we, as a civil society, must realise that something is wrong.
Australia is in two wars and many other military and humanitarian operations. Therefore we have moral and legal obligations for why we must give refuge to asylum seekers, whether or not they come by boat or plane. This is fact. Moreover, what is also fact is that “boat people” has become the buzzword of the fear and smear campaign of modern Australian politics. It is a diversion from the basis of immigration policy and a populist rally for support for right-wing politicians. Tactical policymaking is being based on polling results and nothing of any sort of substance or quality is being formulated. Our politicians are not doing the duties mandated of them.
When our mainstream elected representatives decide that negative and stereotypical images of immigrants and refugees are accurate, we must realise that something is wrong. When populist nationalism and bigotry become part of the normal political business, our democratic and diverse civil society becomes much the lesser. We cannot force people into moulds. Human rights are not a political issue. We must accept our diversity, transcend our differences, realise our similarity and try to live the best we fortunately can in our democratic, free and prosperous Commonwealth.
I ask you all, why is a multicultural endorsed Australia bad?
12/19/2010
essays in progress
Yes, as odd as that may seem, I currently have a few (what I mean is, actually, a lot of) ideas and notes underway, that I would like to (that meaning: if I maintain the discipline and perseverance I will)develop into essays and articles for your consumption and viewing on this online blog publishing site thing. Hoorary for modern technological capabilities (I will, in actuality, be critical and in some cases negative of the impacts of said capabilities in (hopeful) coming pieces). Subjects and topics will range from drugs legislation to human behavioural ecology to theoretical cosmology to various political issues of the day.
That said, good day (or good night, or morning for that matter) to you. Also, watch this space, as the old proverbial saying goes, or some such.
That said, good day (or good night, or morning for that matter) to you. Also, watch this space, as the old proverbial saying goes, or some such.
12/08/2010
Socrates' Unexamined Life
I say that the greatest good of a man is daily to converse about virtue, and all that concerning which you hear me examining myself and others, and that the life which is unexamined is not worth living--that you are still less likely to believe.
Socrates as quoted by Platon in section 37E to 38A of the Apology.
Arsenic-based bacteria point to new life forms
Arsenic-based bacteria point to new life forms, an article in New Scientist.
12/06/2010
Life As We Don't Know It
Life As We Don't Know It: NASA's discovery of an 'exotic' DNA changes everythingAn article by Professor of Theoretical Physics Dr. Michio Kaku of the City University of New York in the Wall Street Journal.
When NASA announced last week that it would unveil a new discovery "which would impact the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life," it sparked a firestorm of speculation, with journalists and scientists clamoring to know whether NASA had finally discovered alien life in space. So great was the media stampede that even the White House and members of Congress were calling on NASA to clarify.
As expected, NASA scientists did find alien life—not in space, but in California, in the form of an exotic microbe with DNA never seen before that feeds on arsenic, a poison. After all the hoopla, science-fiction buffs considered this announcement to be a resounding dud. But to the scientific community, this was a spectacular result. It means that every biology textbook now has to be revised. Even the very definition of life may have to be changed.
All DNA on the earth is basically the same. By rearranging the components of DNA, you can convert the DNA of yeast into that of rabbits, elephants and even humans. But for the first time in history, scientists have found a new type of DNA that does not incorporate the usual six elements: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur. These microbes have replaced the phosphorus atom in their DNA with arsenic, a sleight-of-hand once thought to be impossible.
These micro-organisms were found near Yosemite, in Lake Mono. The run-off from the Sierra Nevada mountains gives rise to unusually high concentrations of arsenic in the lake. Scientists first isolated these bacteria and then gradually replaced the phosphorus in their environment with arsenic. Most organisms die when exposed to these toxic levels. But some of these microbes had mutated so that they actually thrived on arsenic. Incredibly, scientists then found that the arsenic was being incorporated directly into their DNA.
The discovery raises the possibility that "shadow" life may exist on earth—and perhaps even on other planets. There might be other microbial life forms out there that have, over billions of years, been forced to modify basic DNA in order to survive in toxic environments. There will now be a surge of scientific interest in finding new variations in the DNA molecule, and also finding new organisms that exploit these mechanisms. Arsenic-based DNA are, one hopes, not the only exotic forms of DNA in the universe.
The real lesson here is that extreme forms of life can sometimes thrive in extreme environments that are usually too toxic or unsuitable for life. When searching the moons of Saturn or extra-solar planets hundreds of light years from earth, scientists cannot assume that life will mimic the chemistry found on earth. We have to be open-minded about what kinds of life can exist in the harshest of environments. (After all, our own DNA may have first originated at the bottom of the oceans, near volcano vents emitting a noxious brew of toxic chemicals.)
When the two Viking probes landed on Mars in 1976, soil samples of the Martian desert were analyzed for the presence of organic compounds, such as hydrocarbons. Disappointingly, none were found. But in light of this discovery, scientists should have broadened their definition of the chemicals of life. This new understanding of DNA may impact directly on NASA's current multibillion-dollar program to find life on Mars. This may also affect the current investigation of the moon of Saturn, Titan, which has a methane-like atmosphere, or the moon of Jupiter, Europa, which has a vast liquid ocean under its icy surface.
Eventually, after much more work, there is also the possibility of commercial and industrial applications. In the past, micro-organisms have played an important role in our understanding of fertilizers, energy production, oil processing, photosynthesis, organic chemistry, etc. Because entirely new domains of biochemistry may open up as new forms of DNA are discovered, this may have a direct impact on industrial and commercial processes in unforeseen ways.
As Shakespeare once said, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
On the Concept of Life: Why it should be no surprise about arsenic based life
If we limit our immigrations for the concept of life – an altogether abstract concept – we risk conforming to our intuitive cognitive constraints. We must realise the immensity of possibilities in our cosmos, all mathematically theoretically more than probable to include the certainties of earth like planets and alien civilisations. To limit life to mainstream formulas is wrong. The history of scientific knowledge has been an exponential history of growth and expansion. Therefore if we extrapolate this historical record we have a future of enlightenment and the realisation that we are not alone in this cosmic sea and that life is more complex than thought.
The newfound discoveries of arsenic based life and synthetic replicating DNA show that life is such a diverse and abstract concept that our outdated definitions are on the brink of major reformation. When we gaze up at the distant stars and galaxies, at their stellar and galactic figures, what we are actually looking at are systems of planets and specs of cosmic dust that maintain a high possibility of life. We, humans, tend to like to believe that we are special and that we hold all the knowlegde about life. Yet, this flaw is special in its self.
Just as the Fermi Equation shows us the likelihood of alien life and civilization, surely the mathematical and theoretical immensity of possibilities and the plethora of chances and diversity, new and interesting and even bizarre concepts and facts are revealed all the time.
The realms of life science and biochemistry, where biological complexity and chemical possibilities converge to formulate immensities of life forms, show us that even the basic biologies are not to be underestimated. We must replace our preconceived parameters for such an abstract concept of life and use innovation inspired by the nature that is all around us.
The newfound discoveries of arsenic based life and synthetic replicating DNA show that life is such a diverse and abstract concept that our outdated definitions are on the brink of major reformation. When we gaze up at the distant stars and galaxies, at their stellar and galactic figures, what we are actually looking at are systems of planets and specs of cosmic dust that maintain a high possibility of life. We, humans, tend to like to believe that we are special and that we hold all the knowlegde about life. Yet, this flaw is special in its self.
Just as the Fermi Equation shows us the likelihood of alien life and civilization, surely the mathematical and theoretical immensity of possibilities and the plethora of chances and diversity, new and interesting and even bizarre concepts and facts are revealed all the time.
The realms of life science and biochemistry, where biological complexity and chemical possibilities converge to formulate immensities of life forms, show us that even the basic biologies are not to be underestimated. We must replace our preconceived parameters for such an abstract concept of life and use innovation inspired by the nature that is all around us.
12/03/2010
The Look-Up-More Society
There are myriad multitudes and diversity in type of clouds; from cirrus to nimbus and stratus to altocumulus. Clouds also maintain the potential for a wide variety of colour: be it a piercing bright white during a crisp winter morning, or the gloomy greyness and perpetual stillness synonymous with industrial backwaters, or be it the mellow orange-yellow-redness in the right circumstances of sunsets and sunrises, or be it the dark and powerful storm clouds of tropical typhoons - clouds are colourful, and also indeed beautiful. Clear blues skies are nice; however clouds give substance and character to their plainness. Clouds intermingle with sunlight, are both solitary and collective entities of the atmosphere, they bequeath the precious resource of rainwater, act as useful indication of weather conditions, and provide us aesthetically pleasing artistic shows as they are blown about by winds. They even offer us shade. So in short, clouds are important to us. Now you may be asking yourselves why I am going on about clouds. Well you see I became privy to the aforementioned and somewhat unknown information whence once I looked up. Something that the majority of people neglect, fail to see or do not do enough of is look up more. A while ago I decided I would begin the task of doing just this, looking up and admiring the liquid objects suspended above our heads, which fill the atmospheres and cover the skies. I had no motives or preconceived outcomes for doing so, but I found myself in a state of serenity, with an enhanced perspective of life after looking up. After a search for meaning I have been exposed to the serenity of clouds.
A wonderful poem that also deals with the eternal search for meaning is Exposure, written by the Irish poet Seamus Heaney. It is the last piece in his collection of poetry north written in 1975, which deals with the Troubles and the problems of Irish society, thus reflecting a time of major change and many tribulations. The poem is centred on the narrator, an ageing man who reflects on his life, asking “how did I end up like this?” Heaney conveys unsatisfactory feelings about his life in the poem and how he has yet to make his life meaningful. He uses the imagery of the comet to portray a substitute, something that would dash into his life and add meaning, which he longs for. Now Heaney was writing at a time during great change of the troubles in Northern Ireland and their aftermath with its profound and unique experiences. Now, I have fortunately never experienced such profoundness or major predicaments, but in a small way I can relate to his experiences of major change, and the search for meaning. We have come to the end of our secondary schooling careers and we are facing the final days of a long engagement with this institution and its individuals, whilst preparing for the induction into adulthood and its associated independence, responsibility and maturity. Now, in this profound change, towards the end of last year I began to feel disillusioned, and began a search for meaning. Also, just as Heaney expresses a lack of satisfaction, I also felt unsatisfactory in relation to the way I am with my father. The nuances of melancholy employed in the poem are similar to my relationship him. Now my lack of meaning and my lack of satisfaction in relation to my father both became resolved when I started to look up more. Now this simple act has had a major impact to the way I view life. Every time I looked up and gazed at the sublimity of the clouds, I was facilitated in realising meaning in my life. Just as Heaney wanted meaning to be exposed to him like the comet, I was exposed to meaning by the clouds. Heaney was and I am ending a phase of life and thus I reflect on the Look-up-more society.
I had found a new energy source of joy and happiness accessed through looking up and appreciating the grandness of the clouds and the serenity of the skies. My daily routine of school, then running training, then chess and then the transit home began to change when one afternoon I suddenly saw something. I was walking to the bus stop in late afternoon, and I looked up at sublime clouds and stopped in my tracks. Above my head was something of serenity and I became capsulated by it. Now suffice to say this single moment is not what has had an everlasting impact on me, but rather the continual action of looking up at the clouds is the ideal that has indeed had a positive effect.
Clouds can be volatile. Another thing that can be volatile is my relationship with my paternal patriarch, namely my dad. Indeed I immensely love and am proud of him, but there are times when storm clouds of animosity begin to show, and somewhat vulgar interactions happen between us. However, one cloudy early morning day, as we were driving into the city, I thought to suggest to him to look up more. To my utter surprise, my father did just that. And so began a series of events that still take place to this day, the activities of the look-up-more society. My father and I never miss a moment to gaze up at the skies and briefly daydream of the meanings of life and ponder the nature of the universe.
My father and I decided to diverge from society, and do something different. We started to look up more. We started to look at clouds and sunsets and sunrises with a deep intent. This inclination enabled us to gain perspective and to witness the serenity that is all too often missed. Each day I would wake up to actually looking forward to commuting into school with my dad and his camera phone and my camera. We share this passion of looking up, and we send emails and texts to each other about amazing cloud formations we witness. This takes place much to the amusement of my mother and sister, who sometimes stumbles upon one of us daydreaming with our heads leaning back as we stand idly in the front garden beneath the serenity above us. Sometimes my father goes off into tangents at work about the wonders of clouds and their never-failing-to-inspire beauty. We took photos of clouds and emailed them back and forth, from school to work, and our common activity bonded us and helped mend a diverging relationship. I would post such photos on my online blog and exact some pleasure in doing so. We commented on cloud formations on early morning drives into the city, and we marvelled in their wonder in the afternoons during the setting of the sun on the bus home. Our daily lives became open to the serenity and the sublime nature of the big white puffy things above our heads, and more importantly our lives became closer with this common ideal. I would say my relationship with my dad is perpetually in contention, but there are times, in fact there are wonderful times, when we share a moment and gaze upon the clouds. It may be early morning in our front garden, or late afternoon walking home, we both share this interest which allows us to escape the harm, and attain some sort of happiness. Through this avenue we escaped the monotony and competition of contemporary society and we transcended into a state of content tranquillity, rejecting the consumerist attitudes and hateful prejudices rife in our times.
In a milieu of competition and elitism, I decided to diverge from this and instead of looking down at people, I looked up at clouds. I would notice these sublime clouds above our heads and realise the banality and superfluous reality of our contemporary lives. We ramble through life, trying to be successful, striving for the best, when all we really need to do is to appreciate the wonders around, amongst and above us. As Heaney writes in his final stanza of Exposure:
Every wind that blows;
Who, blowing up these sparks
For their meagre heat, have missed
The once-in-a-lifetime portent,
The comet’s pulsing rose.
I have witnessed this once-in-a-lifetime portent, and I witness it daily, and as Heaney puts forward, I feel every wind the blows, and this enhances my life. Together a father and a son were connected by a common ideal, an ideal that enabled self-realisation, appreciation of the natural world, the bonding of kin, and an insight into the meanings of life. By looking up more my dad and I are happy.
A wonderful poem that also deals with the eternal search for meaning is Exposure, written by the Irish poet Seamus Heaney. It is the last piece in his collection of poetry north written in 1975, which deals with the Troubles and the problems of Irish society, thus reflecting a time of major change and many tribulations. The poem is centred on the narrator, an ageing man who reflects on his life, asking “how did I end up like this?” Heaney conveys unsatisfactory feelings about his life in the poem and how he has yet to make his life meaningful. He uses the imagery of the comet to portray a substitute, something that would dash into his life and add meaning, which he longs for. Now Heaney was writing at a time during great change of the troubles in Northern Ireland and their aftermath with its profound and unique experiences. Now, I have fortunately never experienced such profoundness or major predicaments, but in a small way I can relate to his experiences of major change, and the search for meaning. We have come to the end of our secondary schooling careers and we are facing the final days of a long engagement with this institution and its individuals, whilst preparing for the induction into adulthood and its associated independence, responsibility and maturity. Now, in this profound change, towards the end of last year I began to feel disillusioned, and began a search for meaning. Also, just as Heaney expresses a lack of satisfaction, I also felt unsatisfactory in relation to the way I am with my father. The nuances of melancholy employed in the poem are similar to my relationship him. Now my lack of meaning and my lack of satisfaction in relation to my father both became resolved when I started to look up more. Now this simple act has had a major impact to the way I view life. Every time I looked up and gazed at the sublimity of the clouds, I was facilitated in realising meaning in my life. Just as Heaney wanted meaning to be exposed to him like the comet, I was exposed to meaning by the clouds. Heaney was and I am ending a phase of life and thus I reflect on the Look-up-more society.
I had found a new energy source of joy and happiness accessed through looking up and appreciating the grandness of the clouds and the serenity of the skies. My daily routine of school, then running training, then chess and then the transit home began to change when one afternoon I suddenly saw something. I was walking to the bus stop in late afternoon, and I looked up at sublime clouds and stopped in my tracks. Above my head was something of serenity and I became capsulated by it. Now suffice to say this single moment is not what has had an everlasting impact on me, but rather the continual action of looking up at the clouds is the ideal that has indeed had a positive effect.
Clouds can be volatile. Another thing that can be volatile is my relationship with my paternal patriarch, namely my dad. Indeed I immensely love and am proud of him, but there are times when storm clouds of animosity begin to show, and somewhat vulgar interactions happen between us. However, one cloudy early morning day, as we were driving into the city, I thought to suggest to him to look up more. To my utter surprise, my father did just that. And so began a series of events that still take place to this day, the activities of the look-up-more society. My father and I never miss a moment to gaze up at the skies and briefly daydream of the meanings of life and ponder the nature of the universe.
My father and I decided to diverge from society, and do something different. We started to look up more. We started to look at clouds and sunsets and sunrises with a deep intent. This inclination enabled us to gain perspective and to witness the serenity that is all too often missed. Each day I would wake up to actually looking forward to commuting into school with my dad and his camera phone and my camera. We share this passion of looking up, and we send emails and texts to each other about amazing cloud formations we witness. This takes place much to the amusement of my mother and sister, who sometimes stumbles upon one of us daydreaming with our heads leaning back as we stand idly in the front garden beneath the serenity above us. Sometimes my father goes off into tangents at work about the wonders of clouds and their never-failing-to-inspire beauty. We took photos of clouds and emailed them back and forth, from school to work, and our common activity bonded us and helped mend a diverging relationship. I would post such photos on my online blog and exact some pleasure in doing so. We commented on cloud formations on early morning drives into the city, and we marvelled in their wonder in the afternoons during the setting of the sun on the bus home. Our daily lives became open to the serenity and the sublime nature of the big white puffy things above our heads, and more importantly our lives became closer with this common ideal. I would say my relationship with my dad is perpetually in contention, but there are times, in fact there are wonderful times, when we share a moment and gaze upon the clouds. It may be early morning in our front garden, or late afternoon walking home, we both share this interest which allows us to escape the harm, and attain some sort of happiness. Through this avenue we escaped the monotony and competition of contemporary society and we transcended into a state of content tranquillity, rejecting the consumerist attitudes and hateful prejudices rife in our times.
In a milieu of competition and elitism, I decided to diverge from this and instead of looking down at people, I looked up at clouds. I would notice these sublime clouds above our heads and realise the banality and superfluous reality of our contemporary lives. We ramble through life, trying to be successful, striving for the best, when all we really need to do is to appreciate the wonders around, amongst and above us. As Heaney writes in his final stanza of Exposure:
Every wind that blows;
Who, blowing up these sparks
For their meagre heat, have missed
The once-in-a-lifetime portent,
The comet’s pulsing rose.
I have witnessed this once-in-a-lifetime portent, and I witness it daily, and as Heaney puts forward, I feel every wind the blows, and this enhances my life. Together a father and a son were connected by a common ideal, an ideal that enabled self-realisation, appreciation of the natural world, the bonding of kin, and an insight into the meanings of life. By looking up more my dad and I are happy.
A History and a Critique of Evolved Primates
“Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-two million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive.” That was an extract from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and those ape-descends are in fact us, Homo sapiens. Homo sapiens, as we tend to taxonomically call our collective species, or Humanity, is a very interesting entity of life indeed. We have come rather a long way, from the big bang, through the evolutionary process to end up as bipedal primates with a better cranial capacity than our ancestors the apes, amazingly with the ability to contemplate all the aforementioned, as you all are inevitably doing right now. So, you may be asking yourselves what I am going to give your evolved primate brain to feed on now, well my purpose today or rather my intended aim for today, is twofold: to talk about our history, and I say our history because we are all brothers here, both in the genetic and metaphoric sense of the word; and to give a critique of the humanity of humanity in this 21st century of the Gregorian calendar, that is our western almanac of dates.
But, let us begin the story of humankind. We are an utterly imperfect species, but we are nonetheless a very special species. You and I began with a traumatic ejection from a strange world as a single celled organism. The evolution of a single egg to a foetus to a baby to a child to an adult is one of the most fascinating and amazing processes in nature, and you and me and just today about 250 000 other homo sapiens have gone through this process. We are living this life and sojourning with the other 6.8 billion humans on this earth. Of the 14 billion years of the universe, the 4.5 billion years of the earth, and the 4000 million years of life, anatomically modern humans have only existed for 200 000 years of this, and the behaviourally modern human only for 50 000. If the scale of existence was stretched down to the length of an arm, humanity would be but the top of our middle fingernail. So you see we are somewhat insignificant in the grand scale of existence and the vastness of geologic time.
Now, let us proceed onto the story of our characteristics of our species. Humanity has been brilliant at adapting to and manipulating the environment. From the creation of the first primitive tools, humankind began the divergence from the laws of natural selection and unbound itself from the wildness of the wilderness and formed societies. As soon as environmental and practical factors caused the early humans down from the trees and onto the savannas, our physical and mental physiologies began to adapt. The step to bipedalism (no pun intended) enabled our hands to employ objects, and consequently we experimented and with each new successful and useful piece of technology our brain capacities evolved. As we voyaged out of Africa we encountered an immensity and diversity of environments and situations, and we continued to adapt and manipulate in order to survive. The next advanced step from tools was to agriculture around 10 000 years ago. This technique further enabled the ease of life but also the ability to further advance our brains. Just as bipedalism freed our hands, agriculture, instead of hunting and gathering, freed our time. Further skills and arts were developed, such as the wheel and the sail and the customs and rituals unique to ancient cultures around the world. Agriculture encouraged trade and cooperation too. Moreover, with our time freed we were enabled to contemplate existence, formulate complex linguistics and interact on large social scales with 6000 years ago the formation of the first civilisations. The beginnings of modern morality are based in this step to congregate. The social interactions of early humans were limited to family relatives and those who were tribally close. Thus, it served early humans well to be nice to such persons, as it was more likely for those that were treated nicely to treat you back nicely. And so these behaviours became instinctive and passed down through generations coded in our genes. With this innateness of altruism, societies evolved further and advanced further. In fact, other human beings have been one of the major driving forces of human evolution. It is universally accepted that human beings, or rather their emotions, are complex. Thus, on the basis for survival, it steered us well to have big brains in order to understand and interact with other human beings. We live in constructs and social systems to escape the monotonous and anarchy of selfhood. We necessitate social interaction; it stimulates brain activity and is a means to an end. Humanity comes together and sacrifices some personal freedoms in order to have a better chance of survival and an easy yet fulfilling life.
As the basic but fundamental foundations for life we necessitate: food and water for energy; shelter for protection; kinship for social interactions; leisure and work for fulfilment. However too much of one can be harmful and too little of one can be harmful, as can a combination of a few be harmful. We, humanity, have designed many and diverse systems and tools to make living easier: from the bridge to the telephone to the jet, from letters to literature to photography. It is a universal observation that when anarchy or chaos or disorder of any degree is introduced, established systems and structures crumble apart. Also, the assumptions we have used to establish our systems are continually being questioned and modified. Moral philosophy is just as evolutionary as biological physiology. It is progressive and change take place continually. We need to work and play, eat and sleep. We try to coexist with other complex beings, sharing and living every day. Sometimes we disagree, sometimes we fight, and sometimes we call each other names and even destroy entire communes. Yet sometimes we cooperate on immense scales, and achieve global goals and exist with empathy that encompasses the entirety of the earth. Overall, we are bound to the basic social and biological constraints of our humanity. We are, after all, evolved primates trying to live with each other the best we can. We are just primates, with primitive needs of any animals, with some evolved needs such as customs and meaning, due to our mental capacity; however also the need for understanding and curiosity. We create systems to help our lives, such as laws, and so on. We establish classifications and orders to facilitate the navigation through chaos and disorder. These actions extend from social interactions to tool utilization to cooking to chemistry. We have evolved through necessity of survival, and the brain’s power evolved hand in hand with the body, but also the brain evolved in order to better relate and understand fellow human brain holding animals.
Indeed we have achieved the zeniths of many objectives, and so on; however I fear that now in the 21st century on the Gregorian calendar, in the midst of modernity, we are losing or changing for the worse the very concept of human nature, human condition, and human behaviour. I fear we have become distracted and detached from our integrity, complacent about reality, and diverging from what makes us so special: our humanity. As Albert Einstein wrote in 1931, “How strange is the lot of us mortals! Each of us is here for a brief sojourn; for what purpose he knows not, though he sometimes thinks he senses it. But without deeper reflection one knows from daily life that one exists for other people — first of all for those upon whose smiles and well-being our own happiness is wholly dependent, and then for the many, unknown to us, to whose destinies we are bound by the ties of sympathy.” I believe we need to reflect, and I believe these ties of sympathy are in danger of becoming relegated to the end of humanity’s list of priorities.
We are travelling through modernity, in a century already infamous for hedonism and hate, consumerism and conflict and materialism and mistrust, and we have come so far that I believe we are losing or changing for the worse our humanity. In a short moment in geologic time, we have achieved immensely and gone through immense change. But in this current time, I believe we have forgotten our basic needs and replaced them with superfluous and wasteful wants. We have turned to self-interest and this is the point on which I believe we are fundamentally diverging from our human nature. We are losing our civility. We are moving further and further apart from our brothers, that voids are being created, and we are trying to fill these voids with things other than each other. As we lose our civility which is the basis of civilisation, society begins to rumble and even crumble. We have witnessed this with the global financial crisis and are witnessing it with climate change. These are perhaps warning signs of further societal dysfunction and depredation.
We are just evolved primates with better mental and emotional capacities than the other animals we share this biosphere with. We are adaptable and pragmatic and we make life easy for ourselves. The annals of human history contain innovation, experimentation and experience; we have gone through renaissance and revolution and we have made our lives more comfortable, whilst enabling us the time, resources and capabilities for further renaissances and revolutions. From the industrial revolution, to the atomic revolution to the space revolution to the information revolution, Humanity has continually been expanding the frontiers of knowledge, manipulating the world for benefits and forging new and bold ideas and ideals. It is also interesting to note that in the period of modernity we are now in we are somewhat paradoxically making our lives harder, more stressful and more harmful to our communities and our Earth. Through prevalent pollution and pillaging for economic prosperity and ease of communication, transport and energy, we are harming our Earth. The modern ideology of materialistic consumerism is causing an immensity of both physical and mental waste. From non-recyclable technological waste, to superficial fashions and socio-cultural customs based on unethical positions, Humanity is facing unprecedented issues. Climate Change, a growing population and flawed economies are all contributing to detrimental and fundamental issues that we must correct, as an entire collective of people. We have come a long way, we have some unique qualities, yet we are not as special as we should consider ourselves. Yes, we have dominated our Earth and we are at the top of the food chain, but in the grand scope of existence we represent one of the tiniest proportions, and we really do not know anything at all. We came out of Africa and spread around the globe. We have a strange biological and physiological structure. We are unconscious for one third of our lives. We can contemplate our existence. We can somewhat understand how we got here. We are innovative and compassionate, and sometimes headstrong and steadfast, and we maintain an array of powerful emotions, that sometimes take control of us and lead us to be manipulated or manipulate. We have created ideas and ideals that are powerful tools, which helped to explain or preach ethical views. As we have evolved we have gained knowledge and skills, we have created the amazing and have understood the amazing. However, we are just, after all, evolved and godless primates, with quite a few beneficial qualities, quite a few detrimental qualities. But, overall we have come this far, and thus we must aspire to inspire each other for a better future.
We are grounded to our small pale blue green dot, and we are connected to each other by our biology and cultures. Through societal cooperation, collective power and the progressive passion of the people, humanity has ascended to the peaks of life. There is grandeur in our existence. We are special, living on this small pale blue green drop in the grand cosmic oceans, with a remarkable beauty and brilliance of diversity. Yet, we should not and cannot lose sight of our story, or mislay the meaning of being a member of the human family. In this age we live in, division and hate, coupled by self-interest and excess has led humanity into dark days. From environmental damage, to flawed economies, and from perpetual poverty and political prejudices, we face unprecedented issues, all centred on our human nature and behaviour. We must not lose sight and descend farther. As the Roman philosopher Lucretius stated “Thus the sum of things is ever being renewed, and mortals live dependent one upon another. Some nations increase, others diminish, and in a short space the generations of living creatures are changed, and like runners, pass on the torch of life.” I say we must experience and appreciate the amazing nature of our world we call home and moreover, appreciate life and our way of life. We must continue our cooperation; maintain the integrity of human nature, and coexist the best we can whilst ever after that pursuit of happiness whilst in the constraints of our humanity.
© T.J.S.B. 2010
But, let us begin the story of humankind. We are an utterly imperfect species, but we are nonetheless a very special species. You and I began with a traumatic ejection from a strange world as a single celled organism. The evolution of a single egg to a foetus to a baby to a child to an adult is one of the most fascinating and amazing processes in nature, and you and me and just today about 250 000 other homo sapiens have gone through this process. We are living this life and sojourning with the other 6.8 billion humans on this earth. Of the 14 billion years of the universe, the 4.5 billion years of the earth, and the 4000 million years of life, anatomically modern humans have only existed for 200 000 years of this, and the behaviourally modern human only for 50 000. If the scale of existence was stretched down to the length of an arm, humanity would be but the top of our middle fingernail. So you see we are somewhat insignificant in the grand scale of existence and the vastness of geologic time.
Now, let us proceed onto the story of our characteristics of our species. Humanity has been brilliant at adapting to and manipulating the environment. From the creation of the first primitive tools, humankind began the divergence from the laws of natural selection and unbound itself from the wildness of the wilderness and formed societies. As soon as environmental and practical factors caused the early humans down from the trees and onto the savannas, our physical and mental physiologies began to adapt. The step to bipedalism (no pun intended) enabled our hands to employ objects, and consequently we experimented and with each new successful and useful piece of technology our brain capacities evolved. As we voyaged out of Africa we encountered an immensity and diversity of environments and situations, and we continued to adapt and manipulate in order to survive. The next advanced step from tools was to agriculture around 10 000 years ago. This technique further enabled the ease of life but also the ability to further advance our brains. Just as bipedalism freed our hands, agriculture, instead of hunting and gathering, freed our time. Further skills and arts were developed, such as the wheel and the sail and the customs and rituals unique to ancient cultures around the world. Agriculture encouraged trade and cooperation too. Moreover, with our time freed we were enabled to contemplate existence, formulate complex linguistics and interact on large social scales with 6000 years ago the formation of the first civilisations. The beginnings of modern morality are based in this step to congregate. The social interactions of early humans were limited to family relatives and those who were tribally close. Thus, it served early humans well to be nice to such persons, as it was more likely for those that were treated nicely to treat you back nicely. And so these behaviours became instinctive and passed down through generations coded in our genes. With this innateness of altruism, societies evolved further and advanced further. In fact, other human beings have been one of the major driving forces of human evolution. It is universally accepted that human beings, or rather their emotions, are complex. Thus, on the basis for survival, it steered us well to have big brains in order to understand and interact with other human beings. We live in constructs and social systems to escape the monotonous and anarchy of selfhood. We necessitate social interaction; it stimulates brain activity and is a means to an end. Humanity comes together and sacrifices some personal freedoms in order to have a better chance of survival and an easy yet fulfilling life.
As the basic but fundamental foundations for life we necessitate: food and water for energy; shelter for protection; kinship for social interactions; leisure and work for fulfilment. However too much of one can be harmful and too little of one can be harmful, as can a combination of a few be harmful. We, humanity, have designed many and diverse systems and tools to make living easier: from the bridge to the telephone to the jet, from letters to literature to photography. It is a universal observation that when anarchy or chaos or disorder of any degree is introduced, established systems and structures crumble apart. Also, the assumptions we have used to establish our systems are continually being questioned and modified. Moral philosophy is just as evolutionary as biological physiology. It is progressive and change take place continually. We need to work and play, eat and sleep. We try to coexist with other complex beings, sharing and living every day. Sometimes we disagree, sometimes we fight, and sometimes we call each other names and even destroy entire communes. Yet sometimes we cooperate on immense scales, and achieve global goals and exist with empathy that encompasses the entirety of the earth. Overall, we are bound to the basic social and biological constraints of our humanity. We are, after all, evolved primates trying to live with each other the best we can. We are just primates, with primitive needs of any animals, with some evolved needs such as customs and meaning, due to our mental capacity; however also the need for understanding and curiosity. We create systems to help our lives, such as laws, and so on. We establish classifications and orders to facilitate the navigation through chaos and disorder. These actions extend from social interactions to tool utilization to cooking to chemistry. We have evolved through necessity of survival, and the brain’s power evolved hand in hand with the body, but also the brain evolved in order to better relate and understand fellow human brain holding animals.
Indeed we have achieved the zeniths of many objectives, and so on; however I fear that now in the 21st century on the Gregorian calendar, in the midst of modernity, we are losing or changing for the worse the very concept of human nature, human condition, and human behaviour. I fear we have become distracted and detached from our integrity, complacent about reality, and diverging from what makes us so special: our humanity. As Albert Einstein wrote in 1931, “How strange is the lot of us mortals! Each of us is here for a brief sojourn; for what purpose he knows not, though he sometimes thinks he senses it. But without deeper reflection one knows from daily life that one exists for other people — first of all for those upon whose smiles and well-being our own happiness is wholly dependent, and then for the many, unknown to us, to whose destinies we are bound by the ties of sympathy.” I believe we need to reflect, and I believe these ties of sympathy are in danger of becoming relegated to the end of humanity’s list of priorities.
We are travelling through modernity, in a century already infamous for hedonism and hate, consumerism and conflict and materialism and mistrust, and we have come so far that I believe we are losing or changing for the worse our humanity. In a short moment in geologic time, we have achieved immensely and gone through immense change. But in this current time, I believe we have forgotten our basic needs and replaced them with superfluous and wasteful wants. We have turned to self-interest and this is the point on which I believe we are fundamentally diverging from our human nature. We are losing our civility. We are moving further and further apart from our brothers, that voids are being created, and we are trying to fill these voids with things other than each other. As we lose our civility which is the basis of civilisation, society begins to rumble and even crumble. We have witnessed this with the global financial crisis and are witnessing it with climate change. These are perhaps warning signs of further societal dysfunction and depredation.
We are just evolved primates with better mental and emotional capacities than the other animals we share this biosphere with. We are adaptable and pragmatic and we make life easy for ourselves. The annals of human history contain innovation, experimentation and experience; we have gone through renaissance and revolution and we have made our lives more comfortable, whilst enabling us the time, resources and capabilities for further renaissances and revolutions. From the industrial revolution, to the atomic revolution to the space revolution to the information revolution, Humanity has continually been expanding the frontiers of knowledge, manipulating the world for benefits and forging new and bold ideas and ideals. It is also interesting to note that in the period of modernity we are now in we are somewhat paradoxically making our lives harder, more stressful and more harmful to our communities and our Earth. Through prevalent pollution and pillaging for economic prosperity and ease of communication, transport and energy, we are harming our Earth. The modern ideology of materialistic consumerism is causing an immensity of both physical and mental waste. From non-recyclable technological waste, to superficial fashions and socio-cultural customs based on unethical positions, Humanity is facing unprecedented issues. Climate Change, a growing population and flawed economies are all contributing to detrimental and fundamental issues that we must correct, as an entire collective of people. We have come a long way, we have some unique qualities, yet we are not as special as we should consider ourselves. Yes, we have dominated our Earth and we are at the top of the food chain, but in the grand scope of existence we represent one of the tiniest proportions, and we really do not know anything at all. We came out of Africa and spread around the globe. We have a strange biological and physiological structure. We are unconscious for one third of our lives. We can contemplate our existence. We can somewhat understand how we got here. We are innovative and compassionate, and sometimes headstrong and steadfast, and we maintain an array of powerful emotions, that sometimes take control of us and lead us to be manipulated or manipulate. We have created ideas and ideals that are powerful tools, which helped to explain or preach ethical views. As we have evolved we have gained knowledge and skills, we have created the amazing and have understood the amazing. However, we are just, after all, evolved and godless primates, with quite a few beneficial qualities, quite a few detrimental qualities. But, overall we have come this far, and thus we must aspire to inspire each other for a better future.
We are grounded to our small pale blue green dot, and we are connected to each other by our biology and cultures. Through societal cooperation, collective power and the progressive passion of the people, humanity has ascended to the peaks of life. There is grandeur in our existence. We are special, living on this small pale blue green drop in the grand cosmic oceans, with a remarkable beauty and brilliance of diversity. Yet, we should not and cannot lose sight of our story, or mislay the meaning of being a member of the human family. In this age we live in, division and hate, coupled by self-interest and excess has led humanity into dark days. From environmental damage, to flawed economies, and from perpetual poverty and political prejudices, we face unprecedented issues, all centred on our human nature and behaviour. We must not lose sight and descend farther. As the Roman philosopher Lucretius stated “Thus the sum of things is ever being renewed, and mortals live dependent one upon another. Some nations increase, others diminish, and in a short space the generations of living creatures are changed, and like runners, pass on the torch of life.” I say we must experience and appreciate the amazing nature of our world we call home and moreover, appreciate life and our way of life. We must continue our cooperation; maintain the integrity of human nature, and coexist the best we can whilst ever after that pursuit of happiness whilst in the constraints of our humanity.
© T.J.S.B. 2010
7/09/2010
a photo from the trip to school one morning"I still call Australia...?" Development Sustainability and the Fundamental and Unprecedented Tipping Point for the Commonwealth
The Commonwealth of Australia at the dawn of this 21st century is currently facing unprecedented and fundamental issues that run deep into the very concept of the nation state. The ability of efficient governance, the capacity for population growth, and economic and environmental sustainability are all issues of a fundamental nature that are indeed reshaping and affecting the very way the individual will face up to the coming years of an ambiguous future marked by rapid change and unprecedented issues.
In the dismay of the global economic crisis, entangled in wars on many fronts, and with climate change gaining prevalence, the Commonwealth of Australian is indeed looming on serious challenges of complexity and uniqueness. Immigration has become an overtly politicised topic whereby populist policy has been adopted, fear tactics been waged and the cards of cultural clash been laded out. Refugees and asylum seekers have become victims of the politics of the Australian party system, with both sides trying to maintain their bases and influence others with unethical and impractical policy formulated by polling results and the ability to gain positive news headlines. With the ever expanding power of the influence of cyber relations and technologies clearly marking the future way of life with facebook and twitter for example having most of the world’s population signed on, censorship of the internet and online privacy have too emerged as policy the Commonwealth is trying to tackle. However, the most fundamental issue at the basis of all these aforementioned issues and problems and political policies, that is intermingled and affects all, is the necessity for development sustainability. This paradigm of development sustainability is the capability for the Commonwealth of Australia to maintain a developing and prosperous economy with rural and regional expansion whilst sustaining its natural and water resources and adopting an efficient and practical urban planning strategy.
Moreover, this development sustainability paradigm must address and appraise the ethical and practical issues and implications of the current culture and way of life the Commonwealth possess. The impacts of excessive consumerism and materialism, producing massive amounts of unrecyclable waste and creating shallow societal expectations, leading to a rise in artificial and superficial judgments of people, with an ignorance of important issues; the health and mental welfare implications of over usage of digital technologies, causing neurological shifts in mental capacities, emotional intelligence decline with the lack of personal face to face relationships; the integrity of the nation’s political figures and corporate powerbrokers, leading to an apparent failure of the democratic system of governance and the spin doctoring of real and important news to suit specific ideals, the superficiality of needed promises; these are all the issues needed to be addressed if the future of the Commonwealth of Australia is to be a solid, successful and sustainable one. Practical, efficient and ethically sound policy must be adopted, regardless of political polling, preferences and prejudices for the sake of the future and generations to come. Fundamentally, development sustainability must not just be an economic strategy, albeit this is a crux of it, but it must too be a strategy for reform in order for a better future.
Fundamentally, it is important to understand that population growth is natural and inevitable. Therefore, the necessity of a very practical and serious strategy to effectively manage the growth of Australia must be realized and political party line division must be torn away and bipartisanship must be formed. This issue of development is serious. Population growth is one of the most powerful and prevalent issues that a government and a society, and even a civilization faces. If we cast our eyes to the populations of India or China, where populations are the highest in the world, development strategy has been very poor to manage growth and consequently all aspects of life has suffered in these nations. Infrastructure, industry, health, critical and basic services and community and cultural development all are affected by this population growth. Australia now faces this in unprecedented times and in an unprecedented nature. It really is fundamental that this Commonwealth of Australia engages in this issue in effective and pragmatic ways to ensure the future to be stable. The economy’s and society’s sustainability must be an issue of an unprecedented and fundamental nature.
The basic functions of rural communities will become prominent issues, the over development of urban areas will become prevalent, the management of natural and water resources will require effectiveness on an unprecedented extent, the education and health of our children will become preeminent and the necessity of economic stability and prosperity in order to achieve the aforementioned and moreover the sustainability of all areas of socioeconomic, industrial, infrastructural and regional development must be a fundamental issue for the very future of the Commonwealth of Australia.
In the dismay of the global economic crisis, entangled in wars on many fronts, and with climate change gaining prevalence, the Commonwealth of Australian is indeed looming on serious challenges of complexity and uniqueness. Immigration has become an overtly politicised topic whereby populist policy has been adopted, fear tactics been waged and the cards of cultural clash been laded out. Refugees and asylum seekers have become victims of the politics of the Australian party system, with both sides trying to maintain their bases and influence others with unethical and impractical policy formulated by polling results and the ability to gain positive news headlines. With the ever expanding power of the influence of cyber relations and technologies clearly marking the future way of life with facebook and twitter for example having most of the world’s population signed on, censorship of the internet and online privacy have too emerged as policy the Commonwealth is trying to tackle. However, the most fundamental issue at the basis of all these aforementioned issues and problems and political policies, that is intermingled and affects all, is the necessity for development sustainability. This paradigm of development sustainability is the capability for the Commonwealth of Australia to maintain a developing and prosperous economy with rural and regional expansion whilst sustaining its natural and water resources and adopting an efficient and practical urban planning strategy.
Moreover, this development sustainability paradigm must address and appraise the ethical and practical issues and implications of the current culture and way of life the Commonwealth possess. The impacts of excessive consumerism and materialism, producing massive amounts of unrecyclable waste and creating shallow societal expectations, leading to a rise in artificial and superficial judgments of people, with an ignorance of important issues; the health and mental welfare implications of over usage of digital technologies, causing neurological shifts in mental capacities, emotional intelligence decline with the lack of personal face to face relationships; the integrity of the nation’s political figures and corporate powerbrokers, leading to an apparent failure of the democratic system of governance and the spin doctoring of real and important news to suit specific ideals, the superficiality of needed promises; these are all the issues needed to be addressed if the future of the Commonwealth of Australia is to be a solid, successful and sustainable one. Practical, efficient and ethically sound policy must be adopted, regardless of political polling, preferences and prejudices for the sake of the future and generations to come. Fundamentally, development sustainability must not just be an economic strategy, albeit this is a crux of it, but it must too be a strategy for reform in order for a better future.
Fundamentally, it is important to understand that population growth is natural and inevitable. Therefore, the necessity of a very practical and serious strategy to effectively manage the growth of Australia must be realized and political party line division must be torn away and bipartisanship must be formed. This issue of development is serious. Population growth is one of the most powerful and prevalent issues that a government and a society, and even a civilization faces. If we cast our eyes to the populations of India or China, where populations are the highest in the world, development strategy has been very poor to manage growth and consequently all aspects of life has suffered in these nations. Infrastructure, industry, health, critical and basic services and community and cultural development all are affected by this population growth. Australia now faces this in unprecedented times and in an unprecedented nature. It really is fundamental that this Commonwealth of Australia engages in this issue in effective and pragmatic ways to ensure the future to be stable. The economy’s and society’s sustainability must be an issue of an unprecedented and fundamental nature.
The basic functions of rural communities will become prominent issues, the over development of urban areas will become prevalent, the management of natural and water resources will require effectiveness on an unprecedented extent, the education and health of our children will become preeminent and the necessity of economic stability and prosperity in order to achieve the aforementioned and moreover the sustainability of all areas of socioeconomic, industrial, infrastructural and regional development must be a fundamental issue for the very future of the Commonwealth of Australia.
6/08/2010
African Sanctus and David Fanshawe: Cultural Imperialism, Christian Evangelism, White Ethnocentrism
An analysis and critique of David Fanshawe's musical composition African Sanctus.
6/07/2010
A Brief Study of Philip II’s Structures and Macedonian Dominance
During King Philip II’s reign, Macedon achieved great political, economic and military dominance in its region and spheres of influence due to vital and innovative structures of power Philip II implemented and reformed, in: the military, domestic affairs and international relations. However, the overall key to Macedonian dominance in the Greek region was unity. Philip II unified the so called ‘land of impossible contrasts’ into a cohesive and powerful kingdom with his astute and perceptive political and diplomatic skills. Such an example of Philip II’s discerning diplomacy and practical politics can be seen with the affairs of the lowlands’ and the highlands’ inhabitants. Philip II skilfully managed to unify the contrasting regions diplomatically and as a result a pivotal and tactical military structure, the Campion Cavalry, tough highlander aristocratic horseman, was formed. Furthermore, Philip II reformed the military and established Macedon’s and for that matter Greece’s (aside from Sparta) first professional and permanent national standing army. This landmark and significant structure was tactically advanced and technologically sophisticated. Philip II introduced, utilised and combined effective specialist army divisions of light cavalry and shock cavalry (cavalry had never been used as shock troops before), as well as archers and slingers, in concert with the fundamental basis of the Macedonian military, the infantry. The infantry corps was enhanced greatly with the implementation of the Phalanx, an important and tactical infantry formation, which was the core of the infantry structure, and therefore the military overall. Furthermore, the infantry was equipped with light armour and the new weapon, the Sarissas, a 6m long spear. Moreover, Philip II’s army was supported by a superior and sophisticated system of logistics, another innovative structure, further ensuring vital mobility and supply, key to military dominance. What is more, the army was fully and regularly salaried, and it did not comprise of or rely on expensive mercenaries (unlike other Greek city states at the time). Overall, the national standing and professional army created unity and fostered patriotism with a common goal for Macedonian dominance, and the effective tactical and innovative structures employed ensured this. Therefore overall, fundamentally King Philip II’s implementation and reform of critical and significant structures matched with his astute and intelligent abilities as a Statesman in politics and diplomacy established unity in Macedon and did indeed ensure Macedonian dominance.
6/06/2010
An Early Morn Wander and Sojourn to Mount Coo-tha
Foreword: it appears I am back to this pursuit of online blogging I took up around one year ago. I have thoroughly neglected this and perhaps this is a pointless, tedious purist mandated by procrastination, and - akin to much else - perhaps a chore I will never do. But, such is life. I should be doing many things - english, music, maths, ancient history, earth science, sleeping - but I find myself here. So may I present to you something I wrote a few months ago. It is a account of my experience when after a night of no sleep I decided to go for a long long distance run at 4:00am. I ran to Mount Coo-tha, a local mountain that extends 287 metres above sea level where snow was once recorded making it the most northern part of Australia to know snow. The original inhabitants of the Mount were the Turrbal Aboriginal people and they were known to collect ku-ta or honey that was produced by the native stingless bee. Also, interesting of note if I may say, I am the Chief Editor of my school's cross country squad newsletter, where I also have a philosophy section. Goodo...
At four thirty ante meridiem on the morning of a Sunday some time ago - or thereabouts - I decided that I was inclined and had inkling to go for a run - into the wild, up a Mount. So, I crept out of my home, opening the door then garden gate and entered and began what would prove to be a timeless undertaking – running. Travelling on foot through inner city suburbia whilst it is very early morning, when the air is full of mist and fog, and the streetlamps shine their yellowy like glaze and that intermingles with the mist and form something akin to solid like dust, is an experience and activity of a unique and serene nature. Along I went, up hills, across grass, along the road - the asphalt subjected to the countless beatings by petrol eating vehicles which would also bear the weight of my body for time to come. The silence that is present is interesting, some distant noises and echoes of aforementioned machines and possible other noise making objects are heard and along with myself – my own breathes, heart beatings and pattering of my steps. At the top of a certain hill, I peer back and witness the lightshow before me - a static exemplification of a collective dependent on electrical power, a polluting built-up and dominating way of life. I continue, slowly at pace of jog; limbs, bones, muscles and skin aching. Fortunately with fortitude I reach my ultimate preliminary destination - the base of the mountain, the entry to the laborious task and the psychological commencement hand in hand with the physicality; what waits is darkness, the unknown, the wet, foggy road going only one way - up. Whence, run I go, legs moving, arms moving and head juggling both mind and sight are focused - direction. Measured and pensive, in the morning blackness, solitude and silence, I push and push. I finally and wholly reach and prevail to the paramount point - the summit, lookout and resting ground. In contemplation I suggest – ‘actually’, I think to myself ‘that was not that bad, I feel quite alright really’. Here at this point, at the top of the mount, I stand still, think and look, all before the coming sunrise as it is called. I stand on the brick, staring up into the sky of darkness and mist and thinking how life exists. The sun begins to show, the dark fog still present all around, and Birdsong starts – like an orchestral primitive piece of nature - of serenity, composure and rawness. I consider life on earth - its complexities and wonder, its awe and mystery. I imagine; I could be anyway. The view is amazing - the fog and dark surrounds. I note: the sun is vital. I look at a tree. How bizarre is it? Quite I think. I take a neutral and unsullied - alien and detached - perspective if you will. The feelings arouse and thoughts come about. Life is beauty, nature in its grand simplicity and complexity constitute the brilliance and the darkness of everything. Perhaps I am ambling in a verbose manner and perhaps you have become indifferent to what I have written, nonetheless. The planetary motions and cosmic activity, the subatomic actions and quantum mechanics - operating on and in the smallest, tiniest scale and world - that cooperatively and rather confusing form us - is happenstance of awe yet is a calculated systemic conduction.
At four thirty ante meridiem on the morning of a Sunday some time ago - or thereabouts - I decided that I was inclined and had inkling to go for a run - into the wild, up a Mount. So, I crept out of my home, opening the door then garden gate and entered and began what would prove to be a timeless undertaking – running. Travelling on foot through inner city suburbia whilst it is very early morning, when the air is full of mist and fog, and the streetlamps shine their yellowy like glaze and that intermingles with the mist and form something akin to solid like dust, is an experience and activity of a unique and serene nature. Along I went, up hills, across grass, along the road - the asphalt subjected to the countless beatings by petrol eating vehicles which would also bear the weight of my body for time to come. The silence that is present is interesting, some distant noises and echoes of aforementioned machines and possible other noise making objects are heard and along with myself – my own breathes, heart beatings and pattering of my steps. At the top of a certain hill, I peer back and witness the lightshow before me - a static exemplification of a collective dependent on electrical power, a polluting built-up and dominating way of life. I continue, slowly at pace of jog; limbs, bones, muscles and skin aching. Fortunately with fortitude I reach my ultimate preliminary destination - the base of the mountain, the entry to the laborious task and the psychological commencement hand in hand with the physicality; what waits is darkness, the unknown, the wet, foggy road going only one way - up. Whence, run I go, legs moving, arms moving and head juggling both mind and sight are focused - direction. Measured and pensive, in the morning blackness, solitude and silence, I push and push. I finally and wholly reach and prevail to the paramount point - the summit, lookout and resting ground. In contemplation I suggest – ‘actually’, I think to myself ‘that was not that bad, I feel quite alright really’. Here at this point, at the top of the mount, I stand still, think and look, all before the coming sunrise as it is called. I stand on the brick, staring up into the sky of darkness and mist and thinking how life exists. The sun begins to show, the dark fog still present all around, and Birdsong starts – like an orchestral primitive piece of nature - of serenity, composure and rawness. I consider life on earth - its complexities and wonder, its awe and mystery. I imagine; I could be anyway. The view is amazing - the fog and dark surrounds. I note: the sun is vital. I look at a tree. How bizarre is it? Quite I think. I take a neutral and unsullied - alien and detached - perspective if you will. The feelings arouse and thoughts come about. Life is beauty, nature in its grand simplicity and complexity constitute the brilliance and the darkness of everything. Perhaps I am ambling in a verbose manner and perhaps you have become indifferent to what I have written, nonetheless. The planetary motions and cosmic activity, the subatomic actions and quantum mechanics - operating on and in the smallest, tiniest scale and world - that cooperatively and rather confusing form us - is happenstance of awe yet is a calculated systemic conduction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
