Tag: The Pyramid

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]

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?