Al Gore. A name popularly associated with the much needed efforts to protect the Earth. He was an environmental activist who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. His documentary- An Inconvenient Truth, won appraisals and even an Academy Award. The Live Earth Concert in 2007 also aimed to spread the message of saving the Earth with the aid of celebrities performing and spreading the message. Much controversies and debates had rose from the two significant events. Many had pointed out that the rubbish and litter that was left behind by the spectators of the concert and the massive use of energy to support the concert are both ironic to Al Gore’s message of saving the Earth. The New York Times also reported on concerns among some scientists about the tone and the accuracy of the film. They argued that some of Al Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. Conflicting viewpoints included the climate changes, effects on the melting of ice sheets and the relationship between temperatures and carbon dioxide which led to global warming. These, inevitably undermined the activist’s reputation and more significantly, his aims. Whatever the case, Al Gore’s attempts should be applauded. He managed to cause an impact on the global community and set them thinking about their ways of life-exactly what a sociologist wanted!
Sernau’s reading on “How much can a planet take” and “Promotheus’ fire or Pandora’s Box” already emphasized how capitalism created an ever growing demand of production and the ever going on search for efficient or new ways and new resources to satisfy that demand. The process had led to huge wastage of resources such as plastic and electronic materials which cannot be easily recycled, leading to the destruction of our ecology, and thus, the Earth. Hence, it can be seen that the sociologist’s concerns and aims matched that of Al Gore’s. Thus, we should be grateful that the former vice-president of US managed to convey our concerns to the global population. However, there is a subtle difference between the concerns of the sociologist and Al Gore. The sociologist would believe that the destruction of our habitat would be due to the capitalist belief that the nature is like a resource (an object) which they could exploit, just like what they did to humans too. A sociologist would argue that the poorer nations tended to be the ones contributing to the most destruction as they have no other resources to depend on. Both points were not presented by Al Gore.
However, looking back on Al Gore’s background, he came from a fairly well-to-do family. He had reputable parents and holds a degree from Harvard University. He must be fairly rich to run electorate campaigns. Furthermore, he was born in the US-a country that has long passed the age of the Industrial Revolution where industries contributed most to massive pollution of waters and the air, as seen presently in China. Al Gore and those from developed countries, all thus had the privilege to be concerned about the ecology. The developing nations or those engaging in industrialization do not have this privilege as their path to economic development or even survival would be threatened. They’ll never be able to catch up with the West, which they looked upon with envy and jealousy. So why would they compromise development with environment? This is what Marx termed as the greed of capitalism.
The greed of one to wealth accumulation blinded him from the problems of the ecology which he derives his basic resources from. The painful awareness of the difference between the poor nations and the rich compelled the poor to catch up, using whatever means, to satisfy their greed and is seen as the end to their misery. In this case, how would The Earth Summit and similar programmes be effective when the focus is only on reducing the process of destruction without detailed look into the context of the developing nations? How would preservation of the ecology be effective without eradicating capitalism? To ask the developing nations to stop exploiting the ecology is equivalent to asking the super rich in the developed countries to stop using cars, plastics, electronics materials etc. The rich had found it difficult to compromise their ways of living, so why is it that the poor must do so? To just simply point out the devastating impacts we had done to the Earth, like in the case of Al Gore, and getting people to stop their ways of life which contributed to destruction is not enough. We need to change the mindset of the people on what is deemed as their ideal standards of living and getting them to reflect what is really necessary for them so that they minimizes exploitation of the nature. For the developing nations, we have to help them find better means of production that minimizes destruction of the nature and provide them with the resources and knowledge to acquire and use such means of production. With technology came greater means to destroy the nature, yet as technology is created by the needs of humans, technology can be used to save the Earth too. It only depends on the individuals’ purpose and willingness to achieve the aim. Saving the Earth needs global concerted efforts, but it cannot be achieved if exploitation of the poor is still largely ignored.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Technology & Global Society: When Technology & Globalization meets Terrorism…
Terrorism has been around for centuries. Feudal lords used it as a means to put off opponents and gain resources. Hitler and Stalin used terrorism to wipe out opponents and control the people. However, terrorism first shocked the whole world when the Twin Towers collapsed in New York City in 2001. The formidable America was undermined. The horror and fear gripped people from different nations as the media from all over the world rushed to report, and perhaps exaggerate their own views, on the incident. People believed, or have been politically and socially engineered to believe, that it was the act of the notorious Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda. With that, the US justified itself into an invasion of Afghanistan, where they believed Osama is hiding and to remove the Taliban regime of Afghanistan too.
Osama had led terrorist attacks too in Tanzania, Kenya and more, prior to the September 11 attack. He didn’t like the ideologies of capitalism and globalization which had allowed the West to rise as the powerful and rich. He believed that a Sharia ruled state like that of the Taliban’s should be the model for the Muslim countries.
Osama was born in Saudi Arabia, which was not colonalized by the West (unlike Afghanistan), but was also caught in the capitalist system which was so often associated to the West. As seen widely, the capitalist system led to pursue of personal gains and wealth. Individualism was also part of what the system spreads. All these are opposed in the Islamic-ruling state. All these threatened the very rule of the Muslim States and the very teachings of the Quran, as Osama, a firm believer of Sharia thought.
After the Industrial Revolution, there was an increased emphasis on the use of machines for mass production. To drive the machines which were created to suit human needs (or maybe the people in the West’s needs), energy, particularly, oil, was in high demand. With technology, humans knew how to extract oil and were able to find places where oil could be tapped- the Middle East countries, including Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. With the capitalist mindsets, the Middle East countries turned into countries specializing in tapping and selling oil. That meant importing of western technologies to extract the oil and the entrance of the western MNCs into the Middle East. This further affirms the mindset that capitalism is the best way to seek profits and better living standards. Globalization is setting its foot in Middle East too.
However, the capitalist system created economic and social gaps between the people in the Middle East. As only the political elites have control of the oil reserves, not everyone can benefit on the oil trade. Worse, with the advent of technology, people can see that the West is better off than they were, despite the profitable oil trade. Satellites, cables, television programmes, radio broadcasts or even just the presence of the Western traders in the Middle East made it more convincing that capitalism was the best, the Western ways of living were the best. All these threatened the Islamic religion which most of the Middle East countries embraced for centuries. Some, like Osama, saw the trend of losing the Islamic traditions and spread of globalization as undesirable.
Eventually, to revive Islam and throw out the “Western invaders”, Osama believed in Jihad and justified the use of violence and human suicide bombers for the “greater good of the future”. That had led to the September 11 and him being termed as a terrorist. But like what Prof mentioned, the irony is that if Osama rejected the ideals of the West, he certainly did not reject the use of weapons created by the West to achieve his means.
As said, terrorism has a long history. What caused terrorism to take a new face today is due to the advent of technology. Till today, we still can’t track down Osama and other terrorist leaders. Terrorist ideals can be spread on the Internet, reaching to anyone in the world, and the website would be closed after a day or so, leading checks to be ineffective. Funds can be channeled for terrorism purposes without even needing to state that it is specifically for a terrorist group, again, rendering checks useless. All the security checks embraced by countries against terrorism had led to high levels of unhappiness among people too-wasting of time, invasion of privacy and prejudices against all Muslims.
Capitalism had lead to search for more profits globally. With technology came the increased mobility of people yet also the painful awareness that some of us are excluded in the capitalist system, and thus at a disadvantage and in misery. The spread and exchange of culture that came along when people interact more led to discomfort about others’ culture, leading to fundamentalism which terrorism founded on. Terrorism, armed with technology, is getting more difficult to contain and control. In this trapped cycle, whose fault would it be? Capitalism, technology, globalization or just humans’ need to feel superior?
Osama had led terrorist attacks too in Tanzania, Kenya and more, prior to the September 11 attack. He didn’t like the ideologies of capitalism and globalization which had allowed the West to rise as the powerful and rich. He believed that a Sharia ruled state like that of the Taliban’s should be the model for the Muslim countries.
Osama was born in Saudi Arabia, which was not colonalized by the West (unlike Afghanistan), but was also caught in the capitalist system which was so often associated to the West. As seen widely, the capitalist system led to pursue of personal gains and wealth. Individualism was also part of what the system spreads. All these are opposed in the Islamic-ruling state. All these threatened the very rule of the Muslim States and the very teachings of the Quran, as Osama, a firm believer of Sharia thought.
After the Industrial Revolution, there was an increased emphasis on the use of machines for mass production. To drive the machines which were created to suit human needs (or maybe the people in the West’s needs), energy, particularly, oil, was in high demand. With technology, humans knew how to extract oil and were able to find places where oil could be tapped- the Middle East countries, including Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. With the capitalist mindsets, the Middle East countries turned into countries specializing in tapping and selling oil. That meant importing of western technologies to extract the oil and the entrance of the western MNCs into the Middle East. This further affirms the mindset that capitalism is the best way to seek profits and better living standards. Globalization is setting its foot in Middle East too.
However, the capitalist system created economic and social gaps between the people in the Middle East. As only the political elites have control of the oil reserves, not everyone can benefit on the oil trade. Worse, with the advent of technology, people can see that the West is better off than they were, despite the profitable oil trade. Satellites, cables, television programmes, radio broadcasts or even just the presence of the Western traders in the Middle East made it more convincing that capitalism was the best, the Western ways of living were the best. All these threatened the Islamic religion which most of the Middle East countries embraced for centuries. Some, like Osama, saw the trend of losing the Islamic traditions and spread of globalization as undesirable.
Eventually, to revive Islam and throw out the “Western invaders”, Osama believed in Jihad and justified the use of violence and human suicide bombers for the “greater good of the future”. That had led to the September 11 and him being termed as a terrorist. But like what Prof mentioned, the irony is that if Osama rejected the ideals of the West, he certainly did not reject the use of weapons created by the West to achieve his means.
As said, terrorism has a long history. What caused terrorism to take a new face today is due to the advent of technology. Till today, we still can’t track down Osama and other terrorist leaders. Terrorist ideals can be spread on the Internet, reaching to anyone in the world, and the website would be closed after a day or so, leading checks to be ineffective. Funds can be channeled for terrorism purposes without even needing to state that it is specifically for a terrorist group, again, rendering checks useless. All the security checks embraced by countries against terrorism had led to high levels of unhappiness among people too-wasting of time, invasion of privacy and prejudices against all Muslims.
Capitalism had lead to search for more profits globally. With technology came the increased mobility of people yet also the painful awareness that some of us are excluded in the capitalist system, and thus at a disadvantage and in misery. The spread and exchange of culture that came along when people interact more led to discomfort about others’ culture, leading to fundamentalism which terrorism founded on. Terrorism, armed with technology, is getting more difficult to contain and control. In this trapped cycle, whose fault would it be? Capitalism, technology, globalization or just humans’ need to feel superior?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)