Skip to main content

Hypatia, my new heroine

Written by Juliet Bennett
1 Comment

It was the burgeoning of the Dark Ages – a time where a blog like mine that questioned the “truth” would have me (like my new heroine the philosopher Hypatia was) called a witch, stripped naked, skinned alive, torn into pieces and burned.

Tonight I saw Agora, a movie with Rachel Weisz set in Roman Egypt in the 4th century AD, around the time of the collapse of the Roman Empire. It is based on the book The Rise and Fall of Alexandria (2007) and was a pretty good film that (for better or worse) reminded me of those earlier dark dark periods of human history.

Of course Hypatia wasn’t the only one to experience the wrath of brainwashed barbarians (I need not mention the witch hunts, inquisitions and crusades that followed) but after two hours of admiring this curious and courageous thinker, it wasn’t the most satisfying ending to the epic. Don’t worry, they don’t actually skin her on screen – this was my post-movie research discoveries.

Geez humanity sucks.

“It’s the pyramid,” said my friend as we left the cinema. He’s a touch more cynical than me. “There will always be horrors and injustices, it takes different forms but it’s always there – it’s simply human nature. It’s the way we organise our societies, it’s the way those with power control the masses.”

Not least of the horrors of the movie was the reminder of the oppression of women, when a beloved student of the philosophy teacher is read a bible verse that says a woman is not allowed to have influence over a man.

That being said there are some great quotes, my favourite two:

1. When accused of believing “in nothing,” Hypatia says strongly, “I believe in philosophy”.

2. When her student tries to persuade her to get baptised she explains, “Synesius, you don’t question what you believe, or you cannot… But I must.“

It is worth noting that while the movie is positioned around the burning of the Alexandria Library, my quick googling did reveal a little controversy surrounding the exact historical location of the event. Some blame Caesar 400 years earlier (even though books from the library were recorded to have existed after this date), and others (an anti-Muslim) blame Omar (a Muslim)… I guess everyone wants a scape goat. I definitely wouldn’t want to have the burning of knowledge attached to my name.

Either way the cycle of book burnings, of re-writing history, and of the (ab)use of religion in the name of power, is a story that seems to repeat itself periodically as the next empire rises and falls.

I wonder if next time, now with our growing library of knowledge on the internet, are we more safe or less? Will the fire be replaced with a virus that wipes history from our memory?

What baffles me the most of about such history, is that it happened such a short time ago. 370 AD is less than 18 of my Opa’s lifetimes and the Dark Ages finished only around four of my Opa’s life times ago! So while all this might be classified as “ancient history”, it is really not long ago at all. The deep-seeded collective memories this movie retells reminds us of where we have come from and the psychological issues that have probably been passed onto us and may still be living on today.

I guess the biggest irony of it all is that we stupid humans still allow and go out to fight barbaric wars with guns and bombs and innocent lives being ruined, all of which is convinced to us still under some kind of manipulative fear-driven ideological or religious banner.

All I can say is that I hope my friend’s comments on human nature are wrong. I hope that somehow we humans can smarten up, learn from the past, get over our fears, and reclaim the curious and courageous humanity that Hypatia presents.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTZZHPR5kEo[/youtube]

Truth,

“The surprising truth about what motivates us”

Written by Juliet Bennett
Leave a Comment

Money is a motivator, but only so much as if you don’t pay enough they won’t be motivated. Dan Pink says, in this RSA production, that after this basic benchmark is reached there are three factors that lead to better performance and personal satisfaction:

1. Autonomy – desire to be self directed

2. Mastery – be challenged and grow/learn from it

3. Purpose – make a contribution / be part of some kind of transcendent purpose

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc[/youtube]

I think this sums up my own motivations, and not just for work. At times that I feel my life is lacking in autonomy, mastery and purpose, it doesn’t matter how much money I am earning I do not feel particularly excited about getting up in the morning. A lack of these things in the things I do daily seems to lead me toward procrastination, dissatisfaction, and depression.

I wonder how the naming of these motivational factors might be useful in future work and life decisions…

For lots of amazing videos check out RSA: http://comment.rsablogs.org.uk/videos/

Truth

A Conversation with Plato on Being and Change

Written by Juliet Bennett
1 Comment

Plato (428-347BC) is known for putting words in other people’s mouths – into dialectical scenarios where each of the characters take turns expressing an opinion, for example in Symposium they speak of love. (See entry: Homoerotic Platonic Eulogies to Love) Following what Heraclitus, Parmenides, and Zeno said about it yesturday, today I wish to explore Plato’s theories on the universe, specifically on the relationship between being and change. And playing with Plato’s style, I will do this through dialogue.

I love Three Minute Philosophy!!! Maybe watch this first:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q34MHpBu0Oo[/youtube]

“So Plato, dear friend, does our world exist in a state of change, or a state of permanence?”

“Well Juliet,” (let’s just assume he miraculously speaks English) “the problem of being and change is essentially the same as the problem of one and many. It’s not a problem – both exist at the same time.”

“But how can two opposites exist at one time?”

“Well, you see, our everyday experience is made up of more than meets the eye.”

“I understand my eyes can’t see everything, and that there are sounds I can’t hear, simply because they haven’t evolved for me to do so. Is that what you are talking about?”

“Well not really, I don’t know much about Darwin – he was born long after I finished my footnotes. But let me tell you about my ideas. I think reality is made up of two parts, Form – which is an idea, or the essence of an object; and Matter – the individuality, or sense-driven manifestation of it.”

“Ah, you kinda lost me there Plato. Can you explain this Form and Matter in a way I might understand?”

“Like the mirror image seen in a pool of water and the object itself – which is real? Men are only men because of other men. They are defined as such because of what it means to contain the essence of a man.”

“Or woman, you should say. These days we respect women too.”

“Ha ha, yes, times have changed. Oh how I miss the boys… I’m getting distracted. Speaking of time. You see, Juliet, the universe can be divided into the temporal and the nontemporal.”

“So there’s forms and matter, temporal and non temporal? I this really is confusing.”

“Well yes, it would be for you my dear.”

“Thanks Plato, arrogant ***. I’m almost there. Keep going.”

“It all depends where you are observing the universe from. Surely you have heard my analogy of the cave. It’s very famous these days, so they say.”

“Who says?”

“Never mind. But it is, isn’t it?”

“Yes. And I get it, I think I do anyway. Some people are stuck in the cave, only observing shadows and thinking the shadows are real. Even when people tell them there’s a whole bigger reality out there, the people in the cave don’t want to know about it.”

“Well, I guess you could use it for that interpretation. There are many ways you can read my work. That was completely intentional, although sometimes people get it very wrong. And in the translation process…. oh well. You get it for the most part. But in terms of the temporality of life, my cave analogy allows you to see how the two parts of the universe, temporal and nontemporal, forms and matter, exist at the same time.

For those who only every view the world from inside the cave, there appears to be only one simple temporal world. For others, who observe from outside the cave, there exists a multiplicity of changing realities as well as one ideological permanent Reality. The reality we experience, or the truth we conceive of, in matter, is but a shadow of the Reality or Truth of Forms.”

“Ok, that makes more sense now. You’re a good teacher.”

“Yes, so they say.”

“Arrogant and chauvinistic, but a good teacher, and a good storyteller.”

“Thanks. I think. So you get it now – there’s a world of forms – of ideas – which is real and permanent; and a world of objects – particular expressions – appear and disappear, and constantly change.”

“But don’t ideas change too?”

“Yes but your ideas might change, but in the abstract form the ideas of beauty and justice are fixed like the laws of the universe.”

“You know about Newton’s laws?”

“We did know some of these things before the birth of the scientific method, you do know that don’t you?”

“Ok. Stop making fun of me. Tell me then, how do we get to Truth? How can I know what is true knowledge and what is not? What is a permanent idea and what is opinion?”

“You can’t really know but you can keep talking – you can keep learning more. You can keep mounting one image of an object on top of another, one opinion on top of another, and eventually you’ll grow closer and closer to what you are looking for.”

“I had an epiphany about this at a photoshoot the other day.”

“Ah yes, but you do know it’s all footnotes in my work.”

“Ha ha. Yes, yes it is. Good for you.”

Ok, maybe I got a bit carried away. It was fun putting words in other people’s mouths. I like the idea that Truth is a dialogue between truths. As Prof Emeritus Stuart Rees told me the other day, even more than one’s study, it is in conversation that we learn. It is through conversation that we can, while trapped in the cave of matter, get closer to an understanding of the forms that exist beyond.

References:

[1] J. T. Fraser, The Voices of Time: A Cooperative Survey of Man’s Views of Time as Expressed by the Sciences and by the Humanities (London,: Penguin P., 1968). pp. 10-12.

Truth

Mastering Philosophy: Heraclitus, Parmenides & Zeno

Written by Juliet Bennett
Leave a Comment

Is reality undergoing constant change or is change an illusion? Heraclitus, Parmenides and Zeno were pre-socratic early Greek philosophers (before Socrates), living and philosophizing around 500 B.C. These philosophers had very different ideas about metaphysics – the branch of philosophy concerned with the fundamental nature of us and our world.

Heraclitus insisted that reality is flux and change – that without change the universe would not exist. Parmenides and Zeno, on the other hand, believed that there was no such thing as change – that everything is permanent.

Heraclitus used analogies of rivers and fire. He says, “You cannot step twice into the same river; for fresh waters are ever flowing in upon you” (fr. 41).

Similarly fire has a flame which ‘continues steadily and appears to be the same, yet it passes constantly into smoke, and the flame which takes its place must be fed repeatedly by new fuel. Thus fire seems to be a thing, but it is eternally undergoing change. The principle of all change is the law of opposites or of strife (fr. 62); everything tends to become its contrary and in this way change is produced.’ [1]p.6.

Plato attributes the view that “nothing really is, but all things are becoming” and that “all things flow and nothing stands still” to Heraclitus. [1]p.8. The paradox of this idea is that the law of change cannot change…

Parmenides proposed that ‘we can never say of anything that it becomes; for it would have to come from nothing, and this is impossible. If anything is, it is now, all at once.’

Zeno’s ‘paradoxes of motion’ drew the same conclusion, stating that ‘there are an infinite number of points in any given space, and you cannot touch an infinite number one by one in a finite time.’ Hence movement was an appearance because logic proves one cannot move. Diogenes the Cynic rose to his feet and walked away, as the best way to refute Zeno was to move.

Check out this Three Minute Philosophy:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNjmPyHIoOc[/youtube]

In sum, Heraclitus had established all is change and Parmenides and Zeno that nothing changes.

What do YOU think? Is the world in a constant state of change, or is time and change actually an illusion?

What do I think? I think the answer to this question depends on the location from which you view: from the perspective of the individual inside, or imagining you are observing from a perspective that lies outside the whole. Whether you see things as static or moving, in a state of permanency or change, depends purely on this location. From a location within the construct, in my position on this planet as it circumnavigates the sun, it seems to me that the only thing permanent for life on earth is change. The natural cycles of our planet seem to be the source of our mental construction of time. And time, appears (illusion or not) to be the skeleton of the reality faced by life-on-earth. So as long as we are viewing the world from our planet, hence within the construct of time, everything will appear to always be in a constant stage of change – everything is a process, not an entity.

References:

J. T. Fraser, The Voices of Time: A Cooperative Survey of Man’s Views of Time as Expressed by the Sciences and by the Humanities (London,: Penguin P., 1968). pp. 8-10.

Picture:

I took this of a massive bonfire on a weekend down the coast at a friend’s uncle’s country home. It was so awesome.

Truth

Overcoming a Fear of Failure

Written by Juliet Bennett
Leave a Comment

So I’ve been talking about this book for far too long – the travel memoir about South America. I’ve been working on it for too long, editing it for too long, putting my favourite snippets next to my favourite songs in attempt to get back in the head space for too long, and procrastinating the rejection for waaaaay too long. But it’s scary. The idea of friends reading your work is scary enough, let alone professionals whose opinion can make or break you.

After the second draft, about five months ago, I went to a “learn how to get published course”. Then I hired a “professional” editor – in hope that an external opinion would be a more efficient use of time, perspective and skill in the act of cutting out the crap from my 600 page manuscript and making it into a more readable 300 or so pages. Unfortunately things didn’t quite pan out according to the idealistic scenario in my head.

The good news is that, over time, I have lost some attachment to the story. I’m even considering fictionalising it, although not sure if this idea is just another form of procrastination. And the editor did at least help me prepare a professional-looking proposal and about 50 pages that are close to ready to send.

So basically I find myself in a situation where I switch daily from wanting to throw the whole thing in the bin, to wanting to turn it into a PhD topic (applying narrative techniques to the travel narrative), to wanting to send something, anything, it to a publisher.

According to Paulo Coelho (The Alchemist, 1992) there are four obstacles to achieving our dreams:

“First we are told from childhood onwards that everything we want to do is impossible.”

“The second obstacle: love. We know what we want to do, but are afraid of hurting those around us by abandoning everything in order to pursue our dream.”

“The third obstacle: fear of defeats we will meet on the path. We who fight for our dream suffer far more when it doesn’t work out, because we cannot fall back on the old excuse, ‘Oh, well, I didn’t really want it anyway.’ … The secret of life, though, is to fall seven times and to get up eight times.”

“The fourth obstacle: the fear of realizing the dream for which we have been fighting all our lives.” This last obstacle, says Coelho, is “the most dangerous of the obstacles because it has a kind of saintly aura about it: renouncing joy and conquest.”

It seems I’m presently stuck at the third obstacle. I think a big part of me (the ego) thinks my book is for sure going to be rejected by publishers and quite simply does not want to hear it. It would rather live in the dream of naive possibility than to feel like a failure. This in turn leads to more procrastinating, a little more editing, more playing around with photos and film, and even come up with more “brilliant” narrative-inquiry-driven approaches (that may actually make it a more interesting book but I’m not sure about any of my ideas anymore).

Coelho says we must “be prepared to have patience in the difficult times and to know that the Universe is conspiring in our favor, even though we may not understand how” …

What does the universe want me to do? I don’t know!!!

“Tell your heart that the fear of suffering is worse than the suffering itself. And that no heart has ever suffered when it goes in search of its dreams, because every second of the search is a second’s encounter with God and with eternity.”

Maybe my fear of rejection is worse than actually getting rejected?

Maybe it is time to face my fears, accept face the fact that my first book probably will be rejected, and somehow find the strength to still take that chance?

My mum told me today that of the authors she has read (which is A LOT), their very first book sucks – at least compared to the ones that follow. Their writing style, confidence, use of words – everything improves. So whether or not this book sucks, my next one will surely be better. I suppose when it comes down to it, if I fall it won’t hurt that much, and then I’ll just have to get up, learn some patience, and continue along the long path to who-knows-where.

Ok, I’m ready, I’ll do it … after just one more edit. 😛

Picture:

My favourite photo from the trip – the majestic Galapagos Eagle that landed behind me at the top of a volcano and posed for this shot. My little reminder that, cliche as it may sound, anything is possible.

Random Life Stuff,

Don’t be so hard on yourself… sometimes its soft

Written by Juliet Bennett
Leave a Comment

“Don’t be so hard on yourself,” said one of my friends over coffee today. “Sometimes it’s hard, sometimes it’s soft,” he laughed.

“It’s important to have goals and dreams and expectations, but it’s more important to have a sense of humour about them.”

I can expect a lot of myself. If I don’t feel I have got enough boxes ticked – be it my short-term or long-term work or study or sporting or social or financial objectives – it is easy to feel frustrated. I don’t think I’m alone in this.

“I just don’t know what I’m doing,” I complained, going on to list some of the random things bouncing around on my mind: “I have about a twenty library books waiting for me to read and haven’t touched any of them this week; I want to send my book proposal to publishers but I’m afraid they won’t like it; I have been walking to work all week and don’t feel I’ve lost a pound off my winter belly; I don’t want to get old; I want to pack my bags and run away; Last night I wore my favourite shorts from Peru even though the fly is basically broken and they are almost falling apart; I don’t think I want to let go of the past… ” The list went on. Oh woe is me.

Lucky for me this particular friend has written books and done presentations with children about self-esteem, and our morning coffee evolved into a little session of psychoanalysis.

“Are you breathing?” he said, “Yes. Well then you are ok. You should feel good that you are breathing, and accept anything more than that as bonus. And everyone gets attached to their favourite clothes…”

I laughed – maybe I was blowing a few things out of proportion.

He went on to tell me how all these goals we make for ourselves – these stories we tell ourselves that we think we should live up to – are not something that we should not connect with a sense of how good or bad we feel about ourselves. From looking tight in our bikinis, to getting good grades on an essay.

Apparently there’s a line of psychological thought that says that self-esteem is self-defeating. The idea of self-esteem separates you from your self, making you stand outside yourself like a judge with a score card.

Instead we need to appreciate the incredible expression of life we are a part of, which has nothing to do with anything we do. We breath and our hearts beat without us thinking or doing anything. It seems so easy, but it’s actually pretty incredible simply to be an expression of life. We should be happy about this, and while we can have goals we shouldn’t let the consequences of our goals make us feel better or worse about ourselves. All we have to do is be.

“It’s about unconditional self-acceptance,” He concluded. “Accept yourself, because you can breath. And whether your goals are attained or not, whether its hard or soft, don’t forget to laugh.”

Photo: In my opinion the best statue at this year’s Bondi Statues by the Sea.

Truth

Mastering Philosophy: A Love of Wisdom

Written by Juliet Bennett
2 Comments

Before I even properly knew what philosophy was, I knew I wanted to study it. I remember being drawn to it and religion when I first finished school, but my UAI and father’s advice lead me to study Business. I know the world in the 21st century is dominated by business… but is that really what life is about???

Well as you know I’ve moved on from a marketing-money dominated paradigm, and eventually to a situation where here I am blogging my “search for truth”. And would you know it, searching for “truth” is exactly what philosophy is all about!!!

“Don’t go killing yourself,” my dad laughed when I told him now I am studying philosophy. “All the philosophers go around and round in circles, and eventually they kill themselves to put themselves out of the misery.”

I wiki’d it and suffice to say the odds aren’t so bad. Only six high profile philosophers have suicide in the last 30 years, and one (Foucault) died of aids. Before that majority of the deaths of philosophers were from treason, murder or the Inquisition. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_of_philosophers)

Anyway I don’t plan to get too deep into the linguistic word plays so hopefully I will deepen my understanding of the meaning of life, and not lose a sense of the worth of it all. The thing is, I have to study philosophy, I mean, how a “search for truth” not include at least a peak at the great minds of the last few thousand years?

The word “philosophy” comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means “love of wisdom”.  Philosophy is ‘the study of general and fundamental problems, such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. [1]

If you have been following the journey you have over the last month caught up on some insights from peace and conflict studies. Now I invite you join me as I try to “master” philosophy – something that’s not exactly going to be so easy for someone who has NEVER studied philosophy…

But heck, throwing oneself in the deep-end and forcing yourself to swim (generally) won’t kill you, so porque no?! (Why not?!)

Today just a very quick overview, so you can have some idea of the journey ahead. I’m not going to study all of these categories, or at least I don’t plan to, but it’s good to know what’s out there.

There seems to be an infinite number of branches and types and schools of philosophical thought. Thanks to the web, summaries are easy to find. These (according to wikipedia) are the main branches:

  • Metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and body, substance and accident, events and causation. Traditional branches are cosmology and ontology.
  • Epistemology is concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge, and whether knowledge is possible. Among its central concerns has been the challenge posed by skepticism and the relationships between truth, belief, and justification.
  • Ethics, or “moral philosophy”, is concerned with questions of how persons ought to act or if such questions are answerable. Ethics is also associated with the idea of morality. Plato’s early dialogues include a search for definitions of virtue.
  • Political philosophy is the study of government and the relationship of individuals and communities to the state. It includes questions about justice, the good, law, property, and the rights and obligations of the citizen.
  • Aesthetics deals with beauty, art, enjoyment, sensory-emotional values, perception, and matters of taste and sentiment.
  • Logic is the study of valid argument forms. Today the subject of logic has two broad divisions: mathematical logic (formal symbolic logic) and what is now called philosophical logic.
  • Philosophy of mind deals with the nature of the mind and its relationship to the body, and is typified by disputes between dualism and materialism. In recent years there has been increasing similarity between this branch of philosophy and cognitive science.
  • Philosophy of language is inquiry into the nature, origins, and usage of language.
  • Philosophy of religion is a branch of philosophy that asks questions about religion.

Also, most academic subjects have a philosophy, for example the philosophy of science, philosophy of mathematics the , the philosophy of logic, the philosophy of law, and the philosophy of history.

Then there’s a range of newer subjects that historically were the subject of philosophy. These include science, anthropology, and psychology.

Then philosophy divides into Western and Eastern, each with their own periodic and geographical categories, and then some main theories including:

  • Realism is the doctrine that abstract entities corresponding to universal terms like “man” or “table” or “red” actually exist outside the mind.
  • Rationalism is any view emphasizing the role or importance of human reason. Extreme rationalism tries to base all knowledge on reason alone. Rationalism typically starts from premises that cannot coherently be denied, then attempts by logical steps to deduce every possible object of knowledge.
  • Empiricism downplays or dismisses the ability of reason alone to yield knowledge of the world, preferring to base any knowledge we have on our senses.
  • Skepticism is a philosophical attitude that, in its most extreme form, questions the possibility of obtaining any sort of knowledge.
  • Idealism is the epistemological doctrine that nothing can be directly known outside of the minds of thinking beings. Or in an alternative stronger form, it is the metaphysical doctrine that nothing exists apart from minds and the “contents” of minds.
  • Pragmatism was founded in the spirit of finding a scientific concept of truth that does not depend on personal insight (revelation) or reference to some metaphysical realm. The truth of a statement should be judged by the effect it has on our actions, and truth should be seen as what the whole of scientific enquiry ultimately agrees on
  • Phenomenology was Edmund Husserl’s ambitious attempt to lay the foundations for an account of the structure of conscious experience in general. An important part of Husserl’s phenomenological project was to show that all conscious acts are directed at or about objective content, a feature that Husserl called intentionality.
  • Existentialism is a term applied to the work of a number of late 19th- and 20th-century philosophers who, despite profound doctrinal differences, shared the belief that philosophical thinking begins with the acting, feeling, living human individual.
  • Structuralism sought to clarify systems of signs through analyzing the discourses they both limit and make possible. Saussure conceived of the sign as being delimited by all the other signs in the system, and ideas as being incapable of existence prior to linguistic structure, which articulates thought – that language is no longer spoken by man to express a true inner self, but language speaks man. Structuralists believed they could analyze systems from an external, objective standing.
  • Poststructuralists argued that this is incorrect, that one cannot transcend structures and thus analysis is itself determined by what it examines – hence every attempt to grasp the signified results in more signifiers, so meaning is always in a state of being deferred, making an ultimate interpretation impossible.

Then there’s key philosophers to which the list is endless and debatable… a few can be seen on the map above. This map comes from www.philosophybasics.com which also has details on all of these theories and philosophers and more. Also an amazing resource for comparing similarities and differences and time lines of thought I discovered this one: http://www.wadsworth.com/philosophy_d/special_features/timeline/timeline.html# And of course there’s youtube!

I’m going to leave it there for today. If you are at my level of philosophical training most of these category titles won’t mean so much, but it’s nice to know they are there.

The lines of philosophical thought I will research will be far more narrow than this – my main interests seem to be basics of metaphysics, epistemology, aesthetics, philosophy of mind, history and science; and then in more detail something called Process Philosophy and the intersections between Modernism and Post-modernism.

While all this jargon can seem scary (at least it is for me), please don’t let this turn you off – I plan to keep it as practical as possible, applying the lines of thought to everyday life, and (hopefully) avoid a lot of those (almost unavoidable) word games 🙂

Note:

For anyone who is interested in academic formalities, I should tell you that a MPhil or “Master of Philosophy” is pretty much half of a PhD or “Doctor of Philosophy” which is not restricted to the discipline of philosophy but is a philosophical argument based on research. So, the MPhil I will write will still be in the discipline of Peace and Conflict Studies. It is for my own personal integrity, if I am going to carry the label “master of philosophy”, I want to know the basics.

References:

[1] Wikipedia – “Philosophy” (Apologies to academics)

Picture credit:

www.philosophybasics.com

Academic, Truth

Population Growth and Climate Change – A Debate

Written by Juliet Bennett
2 Comments

Last night I went to Population Growth and Climate Change – A Debate at Politics in the Pub at the Gaelic Club in Surry Hills. I had had a long day at a Post-Graduate Law Conference where I presented my paper A Breach of Child Rights? Fundamentalist Christian Schools in Australia (preparation for which has deferred my recent attention from this blog).

Although I was exhausted I pushed through to have a beer and check out this great debate staring:

Ben Spies Butcher, Sociology Macquarie University, argued that Australia should not limit its population growth and intake of immigrants as this will not help slow down climate change and might even be detrimental to that cause.

Mark Diesendorf – Professor, institute for Environmental Studies, author of Climate Action – A Campaign Manual for Greenhouse Solutions argued that population growth is completely related to climate change and Australia must put down some number restrictions.

Both put through incredibly convincing arguments.

Ben’s concern was global population – to which limiting Australian populations he argued would be counter productive given that when people move to Australia they have less children than they would in their own country. (Given a higher education and the higher costs related to a higher standard of living reduces population growth.)

He said we need to engage in a collective global process. The political implications of restricting Australia’s population would be to negate our credibility when it comes to global cooperation and negotiations. Not wanting more people to come to Australia is like saying you don’t want to increase people’s standard of living.

It’s our consuming lifestyles that increase carbon omissions – dealing with what we omit, not preventing more people from having better lives. Hence, we should NOT restrict Australia’s population growth.

I was convinced. But then Mark took to the podium…

He provided a formula for climate change levels:

“Number of people” X “Energy per person” x “CO2 per unit of Energy”

Great formula hey!!! So there are three issues that need to be addressed:

1. Population

2. Consumption

3. Technology

And he later said in response to an audience member’s question, that underlying this equation comes the influence of issues like our values, culture, greed, and education.

Let me pause for a moment and consider this formula with some examples:

Australia = 20m x LOTS x LOTS                                 = LOTS

Africa = LOTS x ZERO x LOTS                                    = ZERO

So if we decrease populations, we decrease climate change.

If we decrease consumption (energy per person), we decrease climate change.

If we find technologies that allow us to consume energy at zero CO2, we decrease climate change.

If a population is in massive but the people live in the jungle or in poverty with an energy per person at 0, their impact on climate change = 0. Does this mean we should all move to Sub-Saharan Africa?

I understand why the most appealing solution is the technology one – but if we don’t find such solutions are we be doomed?

Back to Mark.

Mark said Australia’s population has doubled in 30 years – one of the highest in the OECD. Most of the increase is due to immigration of skilled middle class or rich people from other countries – which in turn impoverishes their own countries both materially and intellectually.

A tiny fraction of the world’s population Australia can go unnoticed in graphs of carbon omission, but Australia is the biggest per capita emitter – so we have to take the lead. China has said they are watching us, and as they suffer the poisons that result from our demand for Plasma TVs all they see is that we are doing fuck all about our consumption and omission levels (he didn’t use that language, but I’m pretty sure he wanted to).

Given I was going to buy a plasma last month, and instead I chose a massive new iMac, I definitely don’t separate myself from this enjoyment-through-consumption society. I don’t particularly want to think about the consequences of this lifestyle – and give the consequences are easy to close one’s eyes to it’s easy to do. But is that right?

Mark addressed some of what he saw to be fallacies and myths surrounding population restrictions in Australia:

a.     That it makes you racist

b.     No it doesn’t – we talking NUMBERS NOT RACE

a.     That it’s anti-multicultural

b.     No it’s not – for the same reason as above

a.     Aging population (that we need more immigrants to support the high numbers of retirement)

b.     This is a Ponzi scheme driven by greed, not a good argument

a.     We have lots of land, the population of Taiwan could fit in Tasmania

b.     Would you really want to take the moist lands that are left and turn them into a concrete suburban jungle? Most of our land is inhabitable now anyway – thanks to the European invasion and the desert.

Regarding global population, what is better: to help people in over-crowded countries come here, or to help them where they are?

I agree with Mark’s argument – it does seems far better to help people to live higher quality lives in their own country, rather than over-crowding our own. This can be done, as one of the later questioners suggested, through family planning and abortion law reform – both of which could be (and should be) provided to over-crowded countries as a form of aid.

But then, is it fair to not let the skilled people of other countries who want to come to Australia into our country, and let refugees in instead?

Another questioner from the audience mentioned that any over-population is bad for the planet. Planetary issues are not only about carbon emissions, but the diversity and continuance of all our planetary resources, and the lives of over species. As means of survival for the poor can often cause other animals to become extinct, eg if they burn the only wood available to keep them warm through the winter, a forest and all the life it enfolds may be gone forever.

Another questioner asked when it comes to the three elements of Mark’s equation, where our priorities should lie? What will make population stabilize?

If we are all entitled to the same living standard then what will happen when the poor start consume more?

Shouldn’t we therefore focus on technology and decreasing consumption, rather than restricting population?

I personally think we need to focus on all three elements, on quality of lives not the quantity of lives lived, and on creating a life style that is sustainable and desirable for all.

The question that wasn’t raised was in regards to the “pyramid” structure society and civilisation is based on. But I might leave that for another day.

Photo:

I recently took pile of cool close-up fire shots of a massive bonfire – they’re pretty psychedelic. Any one have an opinion on whether should I should blow some up and display in an exhibition somewhere?

Truth,

The day everything went wrong

Written by Juliet Bennett
1 Comment

Today I got my first rejection from an academic journal I submitted a paper too.

Today I was reminded of my lack of knowledge and lack of experience.

Today I stressed about whether I would have to do jury duty.

Today I worried about a presentation I haven’t yet practiced.

Today I felt like I was stuck in a war zone inside my own head.

Today I was reminded that nothing comes easy.

Today I was reminded that I will never have all the answers.

And today I was reminded that while it may take a few tries, and involve going around in circles, eventually you realise that the circles are actually spirals and that you have arrived at your destination.

Let me tell you about my day…

At midday, before I started work, a Jewish American author and activist lectured about her experiences in Palestine and Israel. It left me confused and depressed. There are just so many issues intertwined: identity battles, discrimination against race or religion, about land and resources, weapons and violence, and cycles of oppressor and oppressed. Anna Baltzer spoke about the horror stories of the Palestinians, and thought about the horror stories I have also heard from the other side.

Anna’s stories made me think not only about Israel, but of the colonialisation of the rest of the world. There are two (or more) sides to every story. And each version of the story is passionate, emotional, and fully true in the eyes of the beholder.

I know from deep in the eyes of my Israeli friends the hurt they carry from the Holocaust, and the connection between the harm others have caused them and their desire to have their own nation state. And I, a white Australian, am the last person in the world who can point a finger and judge the occupation of land that is not rightfully theirs. Of course there are always stories within stories. There are stories that go back thousands of years and there are stories that go back millions. Depending on how you choose to frame your story will change the implications of the story you tell.

“Jews are rightful owners of the land – God promised it to them,” some say, quoting the Bible.

“No they’re not,” others say, “God banished them from it.”

Some extreme Fundamentalist Christian groups want the Jews to reclaim the land, hoping it will fasten the coming of the Armageddon.

Other Christians are Palestinians who suffer in poverty and oppression no thanks to their brothers.

Religion is (ab)used by humans to justify one thing or another, and an important point Anna made was distinguishing between:

–         an Israeli (someone who lives in Israel, which includes Palestinians – Jew, Christian, and Muslim),

–         a Zionist (someone who wants Israel to be a Jewish state which can include Christians),

–         a Jew (which might be by bloodline or/and by religious belief – noting that many Jews are secular).

These can all meet together in one person, but can also be separate, as seen in Anna who was an American-Jew who is not a Zionist or an Israeli.

This map above is a tough reality. What would a map of Australia before 1700, then 1800, 1900, 2000 – look like? Probably pretty much the same. At the end of the day, the horrors that the Palestinians live through every day appear, to me, as unacceptable. Yet so do the conditions that Aboriginal Australians live in – although this is not intentional – but does that mean it’s ok?

These are horrible predicaments. I was born in Australia and this is my beloved country. Am I an occupier or indigenous to this land? Where do I belong?

My Israeli friends born in Israel, who are forced to spend two or three years of their youth in the army, who stand at borders and follow orders and put their lives on the line for their people and their beloved country… where do they belong?

The world sucks in so many ways.

The world is a living hell for so many people. And for those who appear to be living in heaven, our minds are still tormented by the gross disparity and by the fear caught up in protection measures required to maintain our luxuries. No wonder I was depressed by the end of today. The events in the world seemed utterly hopeless.

It left me thinking that maybe I should give up on searching for truth. Maybe I don’t even want to know the truth – it’s too horrible and seems to be situations that are impossible to solve. Maybe I should give up on writing and academia, and go get a paper job that earns good money – close my eyes and ears, and pretend the world doesn’t happen like this? Luckily my day didn’t end on this nihilistic note. But this entry is long enough so I’ll tell you more about that tomorrow.

Truth