Pragmatism: The Source of Survival

We have reached a point of disaster. Maybe irreparable, yet will fail to recognize that by virtue of destroying our environment we are destroying ourselves. Many place their recklessness on that god gave us “dominion” over the Earth. In other words, through religion people have come to justify the belief that the world is ours to do as we please. But, this is not a logical premise that allows us to destroy the environment. We are failing to make the connection.

The world may very well be for us to do as we please. However, the undeniable fact is that soon it will not exist as our home. That you own something does not mean that you do not have to take care of it. In fact, it is in your best interest to care for it.

Take, for instance, the owner of a mansion. According to the law once a person buys the house it is for them to do whatever they want. Now, do you think whoever buys this house would want to bomb and tare it down? A person who does this is a very foolish. Because why invest in the house if you are later to destroy it.

It might be simple to make the connection with a person who invests in a house. But it is the same for us and our environment. The environment is our collective home. Why would we want to destroy it? Why destroy our investment? The truth is we are in fact destroying our investment, our hard work. That is the connection we are failing to make.

Thus, even if in fact the world is for us to do as we please that does not mean we should completely wreck it. That is stupid and economically speaking unproductive.

Using the old testament’s story of Adam and Eve, as a pretext for destroying Earth, is completely inconsistent with the laws of business, in that we are going to loose our investment, and inconsistent with survival, in that we are virtually self-destructing ourselves.

Somehow people view the environment as something distant and unrelated to us. And that is at the epicenter of our problem. And yes, people hear that destroying the environment is amoral and that we should not do it, but is that really how we should solve the problem?

The fact is that people know that lies are not moral, yet most continue to do it. We don’t seem to be bound by what is moral, at least a lot of us. Thus, we must see the problem in more practical terms. Yes, the problem may be a moral one as Gore puts it, but that is not a problem we are readily able to solve.

The concept of morality has not been part of humans for the vast majority of our existence. Not even with the beginning of cities in 3000 BCE were we moral or even morality recognizing beings. One can say that the concept of morality only appeared in the last 2500 years.

Morality as we know it started to appear in the world around 500 BCE. Hence, historians call it the Axial Age. They call it axial because historians tend to think that we as a species suffered a significant spin in our views and beliefs of the world. This is when the Golden Age of Athens took place, when the Buddha lived, When the Confucius lived and when the Hebrew prophets started to appear.

In Athens, the discipline of philosophy was developed after the Axial Age. Philosophers started acknowledging the concept of justice. The Greeks started thinking about what was right in itself and what was wrong in itself.


In India, the social division of caste started to be questioned by the Buddha. The Buddha, started questioning the idea that people are born in a certain caste and hence, fulfilling the dharma (duty) of their caste was everybody’s obligation. For the Buddha, people had to escape the cycle of birth and rebirth by means of avoiding fallowing ones pleasures and desires. For him the establishment of the caste system was no longer and moral or ethical thing to impose.

In China, Confucius developed his ideas on filial piety, during the Axial Age. Confucius philosophy now placed significant importance in family ties. People owed respect to their elders and ancestors; that is what being a truly virtuous person meant.

In the Middle East, a group of people called the Hebrews started developing the ideas of the Judeo-Christian belief, during the Axial Age. Hebrews started developing a monotheistic belief system, where the sole god of worship must be the omnipotent god Yahweh. Here rests the birth of morality in the Middle East, which later influenced the birth of Christianity. People no longer saw themselves and the supreme beings as egocentric and inconsiderate. Being virtuous and moral now meant people had to do what was right not to expect anything in return but just because it was the moral and right thing to do.

For instance, Hebrews adapted the old Mesopotamian flood story to their monotheistic and moral philosophy. Noah’s Ark is almost an identical copy to the flood story in the Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh. But they differed in one important aspect. First in the Epic of Gilgamesh, the gods (notice plural) sent the flood because people were being too noisy, whereas in Noah’s Ark the flood was a consequence of people’s misbehaving. For ancient Mesopotamians, the gods were beings with identical characteristics to humans; they were self-centered, illogical and driven by impulses and desires. The only difference was that the gods were immortal. But for Hebrews, after the appearance of the prophets, the flood was a consequence of peoples immorality and sin.

Thus, of the 160,000 years of human existence, morality has existed for only 2, 500 years. Yet it was not always consistent that people acted in a moral way. In fact, one can merely say that the concept of morality has existed for some 2,500 years, but not that people have been moral beings for 2,500 years. We are yet to be moral. Though we emphasize the importance of being moral and doing the right thing, we do not always act in that way. What makes Gore say that we have to go back to our original state of morality, when we have not ever been moral? In fact for most of our existence we didn’t even recognize what morality was.


Hence, in order to fix the immense problem, which we are facing today we must see it as a practicality. In other words, caring for the environment is in our interest because it is financially beneficial to us. Not only are we killing our investment and hard-work by destroying the environment, but we are jeopardizing our very ability to exist. That, I think is the connection people must envision. We must recognize the importance of the following equation:

Caring for the environment = Financial benefit and protection + survival.

The Audacity of Passion

How will you follow your passion?

How will you use your education to make the world a better place?

Getting people to care for the environment is going to take one important thing: we are going to have to inspire passionate emotions on other people. Humans seem to be fond of passion; often we only move to do anything when we feel an intense emotion. Take, for instance, a person in love. There is nothing or very few things this person wouldn’t do to fulfill their love passion. Thus, in order to get people to move one has to inspire some type of intense emotion in them.

Al Gore I think did a very good job at inspiring strong emotions, at least in me. Instead, of just seeing the facts, I was able to see a humane aspect of Gore’s life. We humans like to relate to other people, and the film encouraged just that.

Two of the things of which I am the most passionate about are Music and History. Somehow, I will have to find a way of connecting all of these together so that I can passionately inspire other people to care for the environment.

Although I am not a musician of popular music, as an artist I have tremendous power over other people. This is a very valuable tool I have in my hands. Maybe transmitting environmentally conscious statements before and during my performances can help inspire other people to care for the environment. In fact, as I am a performer of traditional Afro-Caribbean music, and our music often carries socially and culturally conscious beliefs then maybe adding the environment to the equation would not be a bad idea.

But yet a large part of being able to inspire other people has to do with having the tools to do so. Education is the vehicle that can conduce us to raise awareness and inspire others. We must possess the tools that will allow us to present things in an organized and interesting manner. Gore was particularly successful at this. He was able to present the slide show interestingly clearly and in an ascending way.

Additionally, people are skeptical as to whether we can actually do anything about the environment. Do we as a global community have the ability to make change for the better? Absolutely. But in order to visualize this people must be able to see specific examples in which groups of people have massively organized to achieve something. We must show people that history repeats itself, and not only the bad things. Positive portions of history can also be repeated. And this is how my degree in history will allow me to make the world a better place. I will convey that people do have the power to change for the better.

So, in conclusion, I think that saving our planet will require us to inspire passion in ourselves. Passion is an audacious trait. With passion almost everything can be accomplished; with passion nothing seems unsurmountable.

HYBRID CARS: Check this website out. I think that one of things that is going to cause the most trouble in the "going-green" process is the fact that Americans would have to give up their big SUV's. Therefore, i think it is important that we start to recognize the benefits of using Hybrid Cars. Not only are they cheaper, but also much more economical in terms of gas and repairs.

Obama's Speech on Race: I have also decided to include this speech because I think it is one of the most remarkable speeches I have ever heard in my life. With a touch of eloquence, Obama manages to talk about the sensitive problem that plagues the United States. In his speech he calls for change together as a people, as "Americans" regardless of race. Please if you have the chance listen to this speech; i can guarantee that it will not be a waste of your time.

Decorporating the World

All throughout our history of existence people have suffered; people have been victims to oppressive governments and kingdoms. Civilization or the beginning of organized power brought tremendous negative effects to people. Nevertheless, after the industrial revolution a new kind of oppression has arisen. “Corporate oppression” is the new source of brutality. This form of oppression is very different from all the preceding ones; it now not only affects people, but also all other living creatures on Earth. It is a universal oppression, which only temporarily benefits a small select group of people.

To some this might be an odd statement but, maybe if we were still living like the ancients did, we might have had a chance of surviving. Immediately, I can envision people saying that the latter statement is outrageous. Because, how can something other than “democracy” and capitalism allow people to survive longer; weren’t these people always under constant threat of being killed and oppressed by the tyrannies of their time? Well, the answer is yes, but today we are experimenting something very different. Corporations (the entities of power of our time) not only affect people or the people in their respective countries but they are also destructing our planet.

However, what I am proposing is not a dilemma. In other words, I am not suggesting that we must either choose to live like the ancients and save the environment, or continue to live as we do and eventually destroy the environment. I must acknowledge that in many ways industrialism and modernity have brought about many good things. Advances in science and medicine have tremendously benefited people. Nevertheless, what we need to realize is that corporations are guided by only one goal: to get the greatest output with the least input. Simply put, they want to make as much money as possible with as little investment as possible. In no way are considerations for the environment and other people part of their equation.

Corporations are the main contributors to the destruction of the world. They are causing, deforestation, pollution and in turn global warming. But, what hurts Americans the most is that they are the major contributors to global warming. Corporate America now utilizes over 30 percent of the world’s resources. And as was said in the “Story of Stuff” film we are using a linear system in a world of finite resources. We are rapidly running out of materials. In other words, we are just extracting resources without putting anything back in the system. As a matter of fact we aren’t even recycling enough so that we can continue to reuse the available resources. Instead, we have chosen to take and take from the environment without considering that we will eventually run-out of resources.

The truth is that it is not only much more profitable for corporations to continue to do this but also much easier for the people. Consider, for instance, recycling. This would mean a much higher cost of production for corporations. Things would need to be recycled from American homes. In turn, this would mean that companies would not have the option of cheap labor as they do in other countries. Instead they would have to opt for “high-wage” working Americans and hence a reduction in profits. Moreover, this would also entail that Americans would have to spend a considerable amount of time recycling; not something many are willing to do.

So what then is the solution to the problem? Well, the solution is simple. We would have to recycle and stop exploiting the natural resources of the environment. We would have to create reconstructing campaigns so that our environment could be restored. Nevertheless, by doing this there is something we would have to give up or at least some people would have to give up: that is wealth and profits. Yes, corporations would have to stop being the blood-sucking vampires that they are today. They would have to stop getting wealthy at the expense of people and the environment.

Check-out the film: "THE CORPORATION."

Will We Survive?

It seems to me that a big deal of what is affecting the world today has to do with people’s egocentrism. As cliché as it might sound, it is a world where the “fittest” survives. I am puzzled as to whether humans are good or bad by nature. Are we the self-centered people about which Thomas Hobbes talks in Leviathan? Or are we the good cooperative people that Rousseau talks about? The answer to whether we would make it or not in this world lays in the latter set of questions. If indeed we are egocentric by nature, the hope for survival falls short. But, if instead we are the good natured people that Rousseau claims then we might have a chance.

History has shown that humans consistently fight for power; essentially for egocentric outcomes. Since the beginning of humanity war has been an ubiquitous event. Now, the question to ask ourselves is whether the rise of civilization or whether humanity’s innate egocentrism has been the cause of these wars. Interestingly enough, we have evidence of massive and atrocious wars only after the beginning of civilization. But then again before civilization people had not been cluttered together. We do however know that both, humans and proto-humans since the beginning of their respective existence have engaged in conflict. Though never to a massive extent.

Nevertheless, the fact that massive wars did not exist from the beginning of humanity does not necessarily mean that we were particularly more compassionate. The fact remains that for most of our history we have been nomadic hunters and gatherers. During these years of our existence, we only assembled together by family. Essentially, people organized in family based clans usually not reaching the double figures. Thus, the possibility of an organized and massive war was impossible. We had not yet accomplished a centralized power composed of very large populations.

It seems pertinent to point out that animals possess instinctive characteristics ,which often entail aggressiveness. And the fact is that we are part of the animal environment. Essentially we are thinking animals (whatever that means). It seems that we possess unique traits not present in other animals. Language, for instance, is the best representation of our capacity for creativeness and for creating abstractions. Though, other animals have communication systems, ours goes beyond mere communication. As opposed to humans other animals have a restricted form of communication. Often they cannot go beyond the present or beyond basic needs, such as food. We on the other hand can talk about the past and future and about things we have never seen or know to exist.

At this point you are probably asking yourself: what does all this garbage have to do with the environment? Nevertheless, I think that before we can understand what drives us to not care for the environment and whether we will wake-up or not, we have to first examine our very nature. Are we innately self-centered? Or do we genuinely care for other people and the environment? These questions are essential. As to whether we will survive or not, I am not sure at all. However, I do know that though we might be egocentric by nature, we possess a very special ability. And that is the ability to reason. Can we overpower our natural inclinations with the ability to reason? Well, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant certainly does believe it. In fact, the foundation for his theory of morality is based on the idea that we must learn to use reason to overpower our natural inclinations and desires. Maybe, the only solution is to use the tool of: reason, which every person has readily available. Only then, will we understand that we need to care for the environment and not only about ourselves. Only then, will governments and wealthy powerful people start realizing that making money should not be their only concern. Maybe I am being too hopeful; maybe we do not have the ability to overcome our natural inclinations, but it is certainly worth a try.

People and the Environment

Things I did today:

Brushed my teeth
Took a shower
Put some clothes on
Ate a sandwich
Grabbed my books and Notebooks
Checked my email
Took garbage out
Washed dishes
Dried my hands with paper towels
Turned-on my car
Drove to school
Bought a coffee
Went into the library
Read the newspaper online

My Thoughts:

One of the major reasons for which we do not apparently care about the environment, is that we are often unaware of the effects certain things have on it. For instance, I am not clear about how letting the water run while brushing my teeth negatively affects the environment. Additionally, we usually associate global warming with big industries, which release toxic waste on the environment; we tend to think that big oil spills and large metal industries are the sole contributors to pollution and global warming. Nevertheless, the truth is that we are connected to the environment in an innumerable amount of ways.

I am confused about what the environment is. Is it only all living things in the world like, plants and animals? Does it include other things? Are man made structures such as buildings and bridges part of the environment? I don’t know but I like to think of the environment as anything that affects us and anything that we affect.

It is complicated to understand the effects that individual things have on the environment. Our world is a complex chain of intermingling events, which as whole affect the environment. Therefore, understanding the effects on the environment caused by an individual event is a mere presumption. We have no real way of isolating any particular event and determining its effects.

I woke up this morning, brushed my teeth, took a shower, put on some clothes and ate something. Maybe, brushing my teeth negatively affected the environment because I left the water running for a little while and that, wasted some water others could use. Maybe, the clothe I am wearing was made out of cotton, and that cotton was grown on a field, which was initially a forest. Perhaps, deforestation affects the environment negatively by reducing the amount of carbon consumption. Nevertheless, the truth is that we cannot directly relate any of the former events to an effect on the environment.

I do not do much to care for the environment; part of it has to do with me being ignorant about the things, which affect the environment and about what I can do to care for it. Nevertheless, I generally try to be considerate about littering in the streets. Additionally, I also try to recycle as much as I can. For instance, I usually throw plastic bottles in the recycling bin around the LaGuardia campus. Although, I do not do much to care for the environment, I do have serious concerns about it. I am constantly thinking about the melting glaciers in the north and south poles. I constantly think about the deteriorating atmosphere. I think about the damages we are causing, which could be irreversible. But more importantly I am concerned about what the ultimate consequence of the deteriorating world could be: the end of humanity.

ABOUT ME

My name is Fidel Tavarez and I am currently working towards my Social Sciences and Humanities degree at LaGuardia. I am originally from the Dominican Republic, but have been residing in the United States since 2001. Oddly enough, 9/11 took place just a week after I arrived in New York; my first week of high school in the United States. An interesting aspect of my story is the fact that I have already been to four colleges and am currently planning to transfer once again. Private liberal arts colleges, Jesuit Colleges, public colleges, community colleges, you name it, I’ve been there. Nevertheless, to say the least, it has been an eye-opening experience; most importantly it has exposed me to the discrepancies that exist in the American educational system. For instance, I recall my first week at a private liberal arts institution. Sitting, in my introductory English class I found myself perhaps just looking at the professor. How was I to understand when 50% of the words coming out of his mouth were unknown to me? I simply sat and occasionally listened to the replying students whose vocabulary I could sometimes make out. An American Childhood by Annie Dillard, was one of the books assigned to us. I was Happy. Maybe through the books at least I would get something out of the class. “It can’t be so bad,” I thought to my self. After all, it was just an autobiography; who would use the word “cantankerous” in an autobiography as the professor had in the class. And besides, presumably college was a little harder than high school and considering the fact that Catcher in the Rye was one of the toughest books I read in high school, An American Childhood couldn’t be so terrible. Maybe the professor’s ego was the cause of his pedantic vocabulary. However, to my disappointment An American Childhood was probably worse. I found myself merely pronouncing or rather trying to pronounce words and sentences that meant nothing to me. I was confused. I had always done everything well in high school, everything I was asked for. Why couldn’t I understand? That is when I decided that maybe that school was not for me. Maybe “I am not smart enough” I thought.

As I reminisce, I realize that there was nothing wrong with me. Mediocrity of the New York public school system was responsible for my failure. How was I ever to compete with these boarding school students, when over the course of a semester in my high school we read maybe one book, if we were lucky, while those other students read four or five? How was I ever to compete with them, if my limited vocabulary was considered outstanding by my teachers? How was I ever to compete with them if they wrote two or three essays a week when we only wrote two a semester? I must say, it is not impossible but tremendously difficult. We like to think that people who work hard enough can succeed regardless. However, we never consider the fact that working hard is relative. Under the standards of my high school I was a hard worker. I pushed myself even beyond the school curriculum. Yet, my hard-working trait fell short to the standards of others. Therefore, if the public school system is to prepare students for attending rigorous colleges, they must raise their standards; they must expose students to what attending these schools entails. Not to say, that I am placing the blame entirely on the education system, because the students self-motivation is also huge aspect of it. But, we the victims of the New York public high school system need to see what is out there.

That is who I am. A struggling student who has encountered many obstacles but has; nevertheless, continued pushing himself. Here I am after four years of high school graduation, and still to complete my Associates degree. But I do not regret it. I have grown tremendously and expect to keep on growing. I am a student and musician who values learning for its own sake. I no longer care to compete with the “other America”; the elitist academia. I now care to grow at my own pace and to the best of my ability. That is the essence of me. I wish that some day the public school system be up to par with affluent schools of America. Until then I encourage the public school student to do his or her best. Yes, if given the opportunity to attend these snobby schools do so. But, also realize that our background is different from theirs; I urge my fellow students not to compare themselves with the others, because otherwise your experience will be very bad just as mine was. Realize, that years of inequality cannot be made up in a short-time; realize that it is a process well worth pursuing.