Das Eigenblog

From the beginning, we were wanderers and nomads.  Travelers plying the lonely surface of our home planet.  Challenged in pitched evolutionary combat to adapt or die.  We kindled the flame of existence for over 200,000 years, keeping the icy-cold grip of extinction at bay.  

Now, after a brief stint with sedentary civilization, it is back to our heritage which we must eventually return.  If we survive our species’ infancy, we will soon begin to colonize the outer planets and the stars.  This will necessitate the fracturing of the human race into independent groups and tribes, who will soon lose all contact with each other.  This future may seem daunting and disheartening, but it is not at all grim.  Perhaps it seems irreconcilably alien to our current way of life, but such is the reality we must face.  

Something deep within our collective subconsciousness stirs at the thought.  We must eventually cast off our bonds to this Earth and sail out into the black, expertly voyaging in the spaces found between the stars, searching for our next cosmic port in the storm, as our ancestors did before us.  Let us sieze the destiny our fore bearers fought for us to have and carry on the next step in the great chain of history.   

Nothing should be holy.  Nothing should be free from criticism, questions, or doubt.  Everything should be challenged and proven or discarded.  Blind acceptance and lack of rigorous questioning leaves us open to the dark, manipulative subconscious of the human mind.  Let every idea face the light of scrutiny, for scrutiny and examination are sieves, tools to be used to separate truth from lies.  Question everything.

It is a timeless American tradition to quote, reference, and even invoke numerous historical figures.  Politicians do this all the time, to both build themselves up as well as attempt to knock opponents down.  This trend seems to have surged recently, and has become especially prevalent in the right-wing side of politics.  Historical favorites seem to include Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson.  This is obviously no coincidence; all three men played pivotal roles in the history of the United States, and to align yourself with one is to compare yourself to trailblazing greatness.

While many of the popular historical figures were great people who did great things, I have trouble when people try to make arguments that posit which view (or candidate) the given figure would support.  We must remember that times have changed drastically over the past 200 years or so, and the problems we face have largely never been faced before.  It is essentially impossible and fruitless to attempt to say what a certain historical figure would have to say or think about a given social issue, since it is highly likely that they never encountered, or even thought about such a thing.

“What would the founding fathers think about abortion?”  I have absolutely no idea, and neither do you.  The question is a somewhat loaded one, since asking their opinion on such an issue, were it possible, would necessitate a crash course in over 200 years of medical advances and breakthroughs.  The whole exercise seems, to me at least, a red herring designed to navigate away from the real issue at hand and instead focus on things like guilt, peer pressure, and patriotic persuasion in order to get someone to agree with your beliefs or opinions.  At the very least, it could easily cause someone to concede a point.  Saying something like: “Abraham Lincoln would disapprove, therefore you should too” is a seemingly powerful argument, but it doesn’t cite or reference any evidence, nor does it even make a logically sound statement.

Furthermore, just because someone is famous or historically important does not mean that their opinions are correct and infallible.  Famous people, no matter how saintly or evil, are still people.  This problem gets even worse when you attempt to place people outside their field of expertise.  Quoting Charles Darwin on taxes or government, or quoting Abraham Lincoln on evolution or the scientific method is a meaningless and a waste of time.  This gets even worse still when people are quoted or placed in situations that lie outside of their time period.  Of course Lord Kelvin was a creationist.  He was a brilliant mathematician and scientist who simply lacked the knowledge to make a decision otherwise.  If he was alive today, it is entirely plausible that he would be an avowed atheist.  But I will stick to the facts and avoid blind speculation.

Quoting or citing historical figures can give the impression that a logically sound argument has been made, when in fact no new valuable information has been presented.  It must therefore be used carefully, only to enrich or accentuate a speech or essay.  Of course, this will never happen in the vicious and cutthroat world of politics; it is therefore imperative that the general constituency be able to recognize and resist the effects of such tactics.  If this is not done, then those who manipulate the best will consistently get elected into office.  Not a good scenario.

I was walking back home from thermal physics a while back when I was suddenly overcome with a desire to teach, specifically in poor and underdeveloped countries.  There, walking across the drillfield, I had an epiphany of sorts: knowledge and education are the saviors of humanity.  If we are to improve our living conditions and way of life globally, education will be the way to do it.

Knowledge is the tool that humanity so desperately needs, and education is the pipeline through which it is received.  Education teaches people, providing them with the tools to survive, flourish and comprehend their environment, but it also inspires and motivates.  It provides the ways, means, and desire for people to make theirs and other lives better.  Education teaches people about themselves, providing them greater pride in their local culture, but it also lifts them onto the global stage, uniting them under common thruths that transcend culture, gender, or religion.

At first glance it may sound imperialistic, but wouldn’t it be great to teach children in Africa that they belong not only to their regional ethnic groups, but also to a global collection of humans?  The fact that we have an obligation to do right by the rest of the world is a lesson which I feel is important to teach.  Furthermore, teaching people that they have the ability to improve their own lives is to provide them with autonomy and make them self-sufficient, which is actually antithetical to the concept of imperialism.

Everyone discusses the causes as to why there exists such a huge gradient on the standard of living in the world.  While I think that the causes can be quite interrelated and complex, I believe the solution is clear.  Provide children with knowledge, but more importantly, provide them with desire.  Fill them with an awe and curiosity for the world around them.  Make them want to go out into their environment and make things better, for them, their peers, and their posterity.

This sounds promising and inspiring, but there is a huge hurdle that needs to be overcome.  Often in the developing world, religious and political powers restrict education to certain genders and ethnic groups.  Indeed, it is not surprising that the countries that lag behind the rest of the world are the ones that restrict the dissemination of knowledge.  Unfortunately in these situations, not much can be done.  While it would be a thrill and and a privilege to go and teach in a place like North Korea, the political powers that be make this a practical impossibility.  Focus instead needs to be first spent on countries with more open and progressive education policies, where the greatest amount of good can reach the greatest amount of people.

The saying about the fisherman is cliché, but very true.  If we are to improve the lives of humans around the globe, we must help them, but also help them help themselves.