Society: a Man-Made Darwinistic Construct.

Prompt: Why do individuals band together into society?

  Darwin once stated the facts of evolution, and the means of natural selection. Similar systems to natural selection can be seen in many human constructs such as capitalism, in where the weaker business dies and the stronger ones move on until taken by a better, more efficient company. 

       I believe that the ability to form communities is a way that us, as homo sapiens found to improve our chances at survival. The creation of groups, weather it be a pack for hunting, a flock for travel, or a herd for safety. Humans formed communities because it helped us accomplish goals together that would have been impossible separately. It created a more efficient, and stronger "organism" made from multiple independent individuals.

       With a community comes issues that result from differences between individuals, but these differences create strength, the variation gives a wide spread of ideas and ideals to the community and a form of "natural selection" happens once more. Ideas that do not make sense get exchanged for ones that do, the longer an idea lasts, and the more changes that are made to it the more refined it can become. The same goes for beliefs and ideals. 

       The faith in Zeus and the greek gods is gone. The thought of slavery being a good thing is dead. That is because ridiculous ideas get thrown to the road side, while the good ones survive.

       Our entire existence depends on communities, they developed our current technology from rocks to computers, because with out a group of people any improvements made by a single person would only be for that one person, and only for one lifetime.       

Individualism vs. Community, A timed essay by Peter Kamin

A balance between being an individual and being part of a community is a hard thing to decide, and a balance must be found, However the decision of weather or not community or individualism is the right choice, should be made on an individual basis, and by that person.

I believe that it not better to be an individual, and that being in a society is also not better. I believe that it is best to let the individual decide and do what they wish, or need to do, and that avoiding the creation, or participation in any community is a horrible idea. However, it can not be argued that joining in a society does not come with down sides.

Communities are groups of people gathered for a reason, often this reason is a goal, and many goals require more than one person to accomplish. For instance, in Throeau's "Walden" he uses a steel axe to chop dow trees for his house. Without a community to mine the iron, and a blacksmith to turn it into steel then make it into an axe, then he could not have used the axe. However, the cost of the community is freedom, the miner can't just leave, the blacksmith can't stop working. Because the community needs them to do their jobs, with out them other tasks could not be completed, like the farmer could not plow his fields, because there would be no blacksmith to repair his plow. The rewards from having a community are worth the cost though. The blacksmith can get bread from the baker, and the miner can get his clothes from the tailor. Commerce is the reward for being included in a society.

Communities can take freedoms, and the ability to be absolutely what ever you want is one of them. But being an individual does take more time and energy to even survive, much less to take time to do what you want to do, many survivalists and studies have shown that in a survival situation you are far more likely to survive if you work in a group, in where there are allocated tasks, such as foraging/hunting for food, collecting fuel for, and tending to the fire. building shelter. ect... Rather than trying to do all those tasks on your own. However, who are we to decide if another wishes to maintain their complete individuality by not joining a community, and instead decides that it would be better to live on their own? Isn't making the decision for them taking even more freedom away from them than joining a community?

In conclusion, I believe that it is not our decision on weather Community, or Individualism is better for someone, but a decision to be made by the person themselves.    

Thoreau's definition of freedom, and an American's comparison.

Acording to Thoreau, are Americian's free? This is an intriguing question with an even mor interestion answer. 

Americans we value our "freedom". It's one of the cornerstones of our nation, Its in our constisution. It's one of the spots of rediculus arumentation in congress, and it's somrthing we all share a love for. 

But are we actully free by Thoeau's definition? 

No, by 

Thoeau's Definition of freedom we are not free. Freedom is the absence of conformity, comforming to a norm, no matter what kind, if you can be catagorized and filed, then you are not free.

Us Americians love our ability to match social circles and to file others into steriotypes. because of this we are in chains, chains that we are not willing to let go of. We as Americians are not fee, not untill we let go of our dependince on steriotypes, get out from our "clicks" and find a world to learn from.

My Fahrenheit 451 Creative Project

I made a video with a friend of mine for our creative project. 

We posted it on my youtube, you can see it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U1K6WBsKDo

Sinners in the hands of an angry god: a review

Edwards makes the point that only by the grace of "god" do we have any hope in the after life. Comming from a puritian perspective, this could be true. However the widely accepted truth for the modern era is quite different. 

With a much higer emphasis on salvation through acts than in the past, many modern christians would see this "no way to save yourself" approach rather strict and hopless. The modern opinion of "god is my friend, and so is jesus" does not support the thought that god is angry with us, and although the bible preaches of gods love for us, and jesus' as well, it can also be used to prove that god can be an angry and fearful god that's grace and approval are the only way into a happy afterlife. 

Now because the bible can be used to prove not only both sides of this argument, as well as other irrelevant opinions. I can conclude that it is not a reasonable source of proof for a posistion or opinion.

When Edwards wrote "Sinners in the hands of an angry god", he wrote to the puritan traditionalist majority of his audence and for that belief system his statements were completely acceptable.

Although edwards claims of god may seem to be heinous and unproven, his statement were fitting to that time. Our belief system now is acceptable to us, but is it proven, or just the latest interpretation?

Has technology improved or diminished human communication and interaction?

Does technology have a positive or negative effect on human interaction? There aren two sides we need to think about for this argument, the first is if technology helps us communicate to each other. the secon is about a single word in the prompt, "Human". Human communication is different that just communication,  communication is simply a transfer of data, human communication is the transfer of emotion, feelings, and soul. that is somthing that our current technology does not accel at and in fact henders us when the time comes to use it. 

So once you really think about it despite technology's ability to communicate with more people faster, more effenient, and over longer distances. It has crippled our ability to actully talk with one another.

Should the government spy on the online activity of it's citizens?

No! The government has rules that it needs to follow, rules put in place to prevent it from gaining too much power. One of these rules is called The Fourth Ammendment, it states: "The right of the people to be secure... against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause..." (an abrviated version of the fourth ammendmant of the constitution) Filtering through it's entire citizens web history is not in line with respecting our right to be secure against serches with out probable cause and a specific warrent for what there looking for. When the government posseses the ability to search through our personal lives and our data we hold on the internet, that is an infringement on our personal privacy and on the constitution.

The government has no right to infringe upon the constitution and especially not upon the liberties of its citizens.

How would your world be different without verbal language?

Without verbal communication life would still go on, just differently. We could still see how people feel, almost better than when we could talk. Language berriers would be non-existant which would make international relations far eaisier. However communication when it came to details, analysis, and technical materials would become vastly more difficult. Picture trying to read an instruction manual for a lawn mower, it could show a diagram of wht happens if you get you foot chopped up by the blades, but it couldn't tell you how to replace the oil. On the subject of reading, books would not exist, atleast not how when know them today. Books would have to consist of pictures, diagrams, and gists of emotion, that would make great complicated works of fiction useless and confusing.

The world in order to function in a modern, man to machine format would not exist, however when dealing with each other on a basic feelings level much more effecient and personal.