Sunday, September 13, 2009
How to fix Iphone (3g) Home Button/ Replace Iphone 3g home button/ how to replace iphone 3g home button
My Girl friend decided to "test the durability" of her iphone one day by running it over with her car (don't ask), and effectively shattered the glass. Naturally it was my job to fix it, so after receiving a new touch screen I removed the old one (you can find these videos all over youtube) and heated up the adhesive and slow picked off the glass, piece by piece. Somewhere in the process I pick off the home button, and when I reassembled the phone it did not work. F*ck!. So, I took off the screen again, and noticed how the home button is assembled. Basically beneath the home button there is a little toggle button with a ribbon attached to it with adhesive. on the back side (behind the home button) the ribbon is adhered to the back of the frame and has two gold/copper pins that are sticking out. So I tried to bend the two pins out a little to make sure that there was a good connection to the other side (where the pins communicate with the phone). Bad Idea because I broke one of them F*CK!!
---Now I am faced with a few options. Send it out to get fixed for 60$
---Assume that a new home button and ribbon will work from a random online store, and that I don't have to solder it (maybe that is why it cost $50 to install it?) but I suck at soldering things. $10.00 shipped!
---Or buy a whole new frame with home button preinstalled-- $160
So, I did some research and I could not find instructions on how to do this ANYWHERE on the interwebs! And the interwebs always answers all my questions!
So, f*ck it, if it does not work, I lost ten dollars, but hey I have lost more money and less constructive ways.
So I get the part and I am very anxious to install it, I rip open the package and rip the ribbon (just kidding). Take it out inspect the parts, everything looks good.
I take apart the phone, and I VERY CAREFULLY pry off the new glass (it was easy because it was new, if you glass was not recently installed USE HEAT, be careful. Also you might have to remove the whole glass panel, and there is good chance you MIGHT crack the glass, so be EXTRA CAREFUL )
I attached the ribbon to the button with the adhesive it came with (I got from ebay BTW)
and made it look identical with the old one.
Put it in, threaded the ribbon through to the other side of the phone and put the glass back on the phone and line up the new pins with the adhesive strip it came with. Made sure everything was in place. Reassembled the phone and Voila. Home button works again! It was way easier than I thought, hopefully those companies that charge $50 for a 5 minute job won't come after me lol.
Please note: You should be sure to get some sort of adhesive to re-adhere the glass to the frame.
I received and email from a person who dropped their phone in a beer, I responded and I thought this would help clarify things for others as well.
Hello, thanks for checking out my blog, I made it because I know what it is like to be in that position. If I were you I would try to lightly sand the little pins on the backside of the phone with high grit sand paper or a rough sponge, sand paper will be easier. See if that helps, because what kills phones (from a reasonable inductive standpoint) is mold, which seems to cause unnecessary arcing, and affects the ability of the phone to communicate with parts properly, whenever I dropped my phone (old phones, not Iphone) In the water I would grab them, and if I could spray or pour or dunk if ether/rubbing alcohol (or aether if you have access to it) put it somewhere the phone will be able to heat up (the over on a LOW LOW temp, closely watched), then brush out the charge port of phone with a steel brissle brush. I am not sure if I would recommend this for an Iphone, moreover my recoveries would vary, but the phones would consistently work, albeit not the same.
Things you are going to need.
1)Iphone tool kit is nice to have, a little suction cup is the easiest way to get the screen off
2) A need Home buttom and ribbon with tiny adhesive strip.
3) New adhesive strips for the frame and the screen, I have use double sides tape before, it is not the same.
4) Some time and patients.
5) Blow-dryer heat gun, heat in general
6)Some good music (optional)
It looks like you have a number of questions here, have you watched this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fF0DF-mbn4) ? If so that is a great start to solving some of your issues. The best way to get the screen lifted is with a suction cup ( some of the ebay kits will provide you with one). The worst part of replacing the home button comes after this. The video (at 2:10) will show you how to remove the digitizer and screen from the LCD, you may not have to do this, I might recommend you do this, if you have never replaced the digitizer for a couple of reasons: 1) the adhesive that apple/china uses it very good, and it will require the use of heat some people use hairdryers, if you don't have one use a stove or a heat gun but be VERY CAREFUL, you don't want to melt anything. 2)using heat might cause damage to the LCD, better safe than sorry 3) Less to break, just keep track of the tiny screws. So one you have your digitizer alone from your LCD and phone, you are going to use the heat to separate the screen from the frame this is the hardest part, you have to be patient or else you will crack your screen and will need to buy a new one $30-40, Also I prefer a razor blade, again be careful don't try to pry to much let the heat do the work just slowly start to pry the screen from the frame, this is the ONLY way to access the home button. Once they are separated, you will see the home button and be able to remove it along with the only ribbon and replace it with the new one which should come with a tiny strip of adhesive that attaches to the back of the frame that holds the ribbon in place. Put the button on ( you could probably use the old button, I wouldn't just to be safe) put new adhesive strips on the frame, you are going to need to peel the old stuff off, use some Isop. alcohol to help clean off the adhesive (feel free to drink alcohol too, just not too much). Adhere the screen to the phone, reassemble and test it out. I hope this helps!
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
PS. My Professors have done a great job scaring the shit out of me about plagiarism, so I go out of my way to cite everything. Plus, I do not possess much authority.
With the change in climate and the increased consumption of resources fueled by capitalism, there will be a revolution that will change the world. I will argue that anthropogenic gases are having adverse effects on the climate, and that our current policies and ways of life are unsustainable and harmful to the environment. Next, I will criticize the notion of climate change and discuss plausible counter arguments to my claims. Then, I will advance ethical perspectives behind being environmentally conscious and argue that people should adopt them. Finally, I will offer a rejoinder to the counterarguments, and I will discuss these competing claims in the framework of a Marxist dialectic to describe the plausible global implications from this, of which, I argue, will be analogous to Karl Marx’s workers’ revolution.
In order in discuss why people should care about the environment, it is first necessary to explain what the problem is. Unless one has been living in a cave for the past fifty years, it is reasonable to assume that the general public has heard the terms ‘global warming’ and ‘ greenhouse effect’. Though it can be argued that any knowledge of environmental issues is a good thing, these terms do not capture the essence of the problem. Moreover, using terms like ‘global warming’ facilitates the creation of a straw man for the anti-environmentalist. Although a straw man argument is fallacious, political pundits often resort to them, and more importantly people are persuaded by them. For instance, on a whim I was watching a particular political pundit, and he was remarking on the unseasonable cold weather in Texas at the time; he went on to exclaim that if global warming was happening it would not be so cold in Texas during a time when it is usually warm. I will not waste my time or the readers’ by showing why this claim is asinine and fallacious; instead I will show that a proper understanding of the problem will enable one to acknowledge, understand, use, and perhaps defend the nuanced terminology.
The term ‘greenhouse effect’ is not very descriptive of the problem that we are facing. The ‘greenhouse effect’ is a naturally occurring effect that happens without human presence (Gardiner, pg574). The ‘greenhouse effect’ is actually a good thing, for without it the Earth’s environment would be much colder and different (Gardiner, pg574). In short, the ‘greenhouse effect’ is solar radiation that is trapped in the atmosphere and unable to leave because gases in the atmosphere trap it, creating a “blanket effect” (Gardiner, pg574). Additionally, human beings are increasing the amount of gases in the atmosphere, and this can be expected to have an amplifying effect (Gardiner, pg574). Another way of understanding this is to think about a car in the summer: the windows act like gases; as the air inside the car warms up, the air is unable to escape, because the windows are closed. This analogy may help us understand how the term ‘global warming’ came about.
While the term ‘global warming’ captures the essence of the potential warming effect that human beings have induced, the term has its problems, as I have illustrated above. There are many factors that contribute to the warming that is occurring. Some warming is due to increasing greenhouse gases: “Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and tropospheric ozone have all increased well above their pre-industrial concentrations.” (Pew, pg 570).Since 1900, carbon dioxide has increased 30%, methane 100%, nitrous oxide 15%. Additionally, there is deforestation and the emissions of aerosols cause cooling effect, while urbanization causes warming known as “Urban Heat Island” (UHI) effect (Pew, pg570-571). Despite the different factors affecting the environment, “human factors account for the majority of the observed increase in globally averaged surface air temperatures over the past 50 years.” (Pew, pg573) Moreover, since 1850 the planet has encountered the ten warmest years within the last eighteen years (Pew, pg570). From the outset the prospects of warmer summers and moderate winters do not sound so bad; and it may be reasonable to infer that these effects will cause the Earth to continue warming. However, not all models predict that warming will continue in the way it has, and more importantly, the warm could cause areas that have traditionally been moderate or warm to become cold (Gardiner, pg576-577). Considering the inadequacies of the terms ‘global warming’ and ‘greenhouse gases’, I shall henceforth use the term ‘climate change,’ as it captures the essence of the problem without any predicting element implicit within the term.
I mentioned predictions about climate change above. I want to elaborate on this so that we have a good understanding of the problems with the predictions. I could spend the rest of this essay explaining the science and the impacts of the anthropogenic gases, but I want to convey the seriousness of the issue whilst doing justice to the predictions. The predictions that I have studied come from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which “was jointly established by the World Meteorological Association and the United Nations Environmental Program to provide member governments with state of the art assessments of “the science, the impacts, and the economics of-and the options for mitigating and/or adapting to-climate change”” (Gardiner, pg575). There are numerous factors that the IPCC has taken into account in order to create some sort of prediction for the change in climate. “Economic growth, world population, and technological change” are some factors that the IPCC creates assumptions about in order to produce a computer model that simulates various scenarios (Gardiner, pg 576)
However, some of these predictions have fallen under scrutiny because they do not account for “potential nonlinear threshold effects” (Gardiner, pg575). In other words, though the IPCC predictions may be disquieting to some; they may potentially be overly optimistic (Gardiner, pg575). The IPCC uses linear based models to predict climate change, what is disconcerting is the idea of a tipping point, or to resort to metaphor, ‘the straw that broke the camel’s back’. The straw in this case would be the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS). In the event that the West Antarctic Ice Sheets collapses the global sea levels would “rise by 4-6 meters”; this would dilute the salt water with freshwater and alter the world’s ocean currents because the diluted water will react differently than saltwater (Gardiner, pg576). The affected system is known as the “Ocean Conveyor”, which distributes heat and life-sustaining water around the world. It is known as climate’s “Achilles Heel” (Gardiner, pg576-577). There is evidence that the conveyor has slowed in the past:
One such event, 12,700 years ago, was a drop in temperature in the North Atlantic region of around 5 degrees Celsius in a single decade. This apparently caused icebergs to spread as far south as the coast of Portugal and has been linked to widespread global drought. (Gardiner, pg577)
Moreover, the general warming that exists now can coexist with ‘dramatic cooling’ in different areas (Gardiner, pg577). This is another reason it is difficult to plan for the effects of climate change. Additionally, Steven Gardiner eloquently remarks that “the major losers from climate change may not be the usual suspects, the less developed countries (LDCs). For it is the rich countries bordering the North Atlantic that are particularly vulnerable to Conveyor shifts.” (Gardiner, pg577)
Though the above argument may seem compelling to some, there exist plenty of skeptics who question the predictions and the empirical evidence that has been presented (Gardiner, pg578). The skeptics pose reasonable argument s that question the empirical evidence that researchers have found (Gardiner, pg579). Part of the problem is that scientists have only been gathering serious empirical data since 1979 (Gardiner, pg578). The ways in which scientists have formulated empirical evidence about the past are not as accurate as they are today due to technological advancements. Steven Gardiner compares the predictions of a scientist to a coach asked to predict whether or not a fifteen-year-old athlete will compete in the highest echelon of the given sport (Gardiner, pg579). This analogy captures what the nature of the problem for the skeptics. However, the coach can only give the best prediction based on the evidence provided. Imagine being the parent of the child the coach was commenting about. Based on the coach’s response, a parent could react by pushing the child to work harder, notwithstanding a dim prognostication by the coach. Now, if the parent proceeded to do nothing, because they were skeptical of the coach’s prediction, the parent could potentially be hindering the development of a prodigy. Thus, it may be reasonable for the skeptic to point out the strength of the induction being made about the predictions of the environment. However the skeptic must also deal with theoretical arguments that support the empirically based claims (Gardiner, pg579). There are two fundamental claims that the skeptic must combat. One, the greenhouse effect is real, and more greenhouse gas emitted into the atmosphere increases warming (Gardiner, pg579). Two, “human activities since the industrial revolution have significantly the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases.” (Gardiner, pg579)
At this point, I am willing to accept that I am dealing with three potential readers: one who agrees, one who disagrees, or one who is indifferent. So, here I will offer ethical reasons why one ought to care about anything I have mentioned thus far. I would like to start by presenting a general argument addressing one’s disposition toward life. I would like to advance Albert Schweitzer’s “reverence for life” ethic. This is an attempt to reason with the reader who does not care thus far, offer support to the one who does, and present a new perspective to the indifferent, and to all.
Schweitzer posits that “True philosophy must commence with the most immediate and comprehensive facts of consciousness.” (Schweitzer, pg132) In other words, Schweitzer wants to start at the beginning and define what is going on existentially before he makes any other claims about the world. Schweitzer was influenced by Arthur Schopenhauer. The following quote will make this obvious for anyone familiar with Schopenhauer. He asserts, “I am life which wills to live, and I exist in the midst of life which wills to live” (Schweitzer, pg132). Schweitzer is illustrating ‘the will’ as an energy that is the essence of life, and anything that can be killed wills to live and is, by this nature, manifesting the will. Schweitzer eloquently describes this: “A living world-and life-view, informing all the facts of life, gushes forth from it continually, as from an eternal spring. A mystically ethical oneness with existence grows forth from it unceasingly” (Schweitzer, pg 132). One’s will can be at odds with other wills and some may think that this is the state of nature, so to speak, but wills can also cohesively dance with each other in harmony.
This idea of the ‘will to live’ can serve as the foundation or “fundamental principal” for morality (Schweitzer, pg132). If one is willing to accept the premise that the will to live exists, it should follow that one can recognize it within sentient beings. Furthermore, Schweitzer asserts that from this we can recognize good as actions that “maintain and cherish life; it is evil to destroy and to check life” (Schweitzer, pg132). This gives us a direction of what is good and evil that is informed by the ‘reverence for life’; but I think that Paul Taylor, who is a proponent of Schweitzer, gives a more concise definition.
Taylor adds on to what Schweitzer was arguing. He posits that we have “prima facie moral obligations that are owed to wild plants and animals themselves as members of the Earth’s biotic community” (Taylor, pg 140). Moreover, we can identify that plants and animals have a well-being, just as human being have a well-being and this is “something to be realized as an end in itself” (Taylor, pg140). If plants and animals have ends, then we can recognize the good that is intrinsic to their ends. Taylor argues that individual animals as well as communities have a ‘good’, which means that the entity can be either benefited or harmed by a moral agent (Taylor, pg140). When one does ‘good’ for a being or community, one is preserving life or improving its well-being (Taylor, pg140). One who is doing evil is acting malevolently toward a life or community, and one is desecrating the well-being of the life or community (Taylor, pg140).
When one comes to understand and adopts this ‘reverence for life’ one will come to see the world in a different way. When one adopts this ethic, one will be guided by the notion to do what is good, or at the very least, one will be able to discern what is good and evil, right and wrong. This enlightened view will compel one to rescue the frog that is stuck in the pool, or pick up the turtle attempting to cross a highway. It may seem that Schweitzer is trying to convince us to be compassionate, but he is doing much more than that. Schweitzer is showing us a different life perspective that will provide the impetus to willfully make sacrifices, based on the reverence for life (Schweitzer, pg136-138). This perspective enables us to view our will and how it is at odds with others and what sacrifices these other wills are making for our own (Schweitzer, pg137). When one is able to realize the sacrifice of other wills, one will become mindful of their actions. Sometimes it is necessary to infringe on the will of other lives, but this is done with a reoccurring thought in mind: “Whenever I injure life of any kind I must be quite clear as to whether this is necessary or not” (Schweitzer, pg137). It is this type of disposition that is necessary for the well-being and sustainability of the global community.
I do not expect these notions that I have presented thus far to be adopted based on the arguments I have delineated. So, it seems necessary to acknowledge and address plausible counterarguments to my case so far. One point of contention may be the adoption of these ethical perspectives and the practicality of doing so. When we conceive of a person who manifests a reverence for life we may envisage one who helps the worm that will dry up after the rain or dreads stepping on an insect or cutting down a tree; this person seems to be absurd and asinine. One with this ethic can only expect ridicule: “It is indeed the fate of every truth to be an object of ridicule when it is first acclaimed. It was once considered foolish to suppose that coloured men were really human beings and ought to be treated as such” (Schweitzer, pg133). Moreover, people have a tendency to think of things as light switches: one is either a vegetarian or not. This seems like an unnecessary bifurcation. A wise man shared with me this idea of thinking of these ethics as volume knobs instead of light switches, this way one can slowly turn up the volume . For instance, if I eat meat every day for at least two meals a day, I can start with not eating meat once or twice a week; or using alternative transportation once a week to go places one would normally drive.
Again, I will concede that there will be a reader who is not persuaded by this perspective on life. Moreover, this is probably the same reader who was not convinced by the arguments that I have presented on climate change. However, I would like the obstinate reader to cogitate on one last ethical consideration. Thomas Hill summarized the point I am trying to make perfectly, as he asserts, “Rather than argue directly with destroyers of the environment who say “Show me why what I am doing is immoral,” I want to ask, “What sort of person would want to do what they propose?”” (Hill, pg 215) Hill is not trying to pick on people or their professions. What he is trying to do is recognize what traits one is manifesting when one is engaging destructive actions to the environment (Hill, pg 215). Hill brings up examples of things that people could do that are not necessarily wrong, but would make one concerned with what type of person doing these things. For instance, he mentions a person who laughs to themselves as they read about a plane crash report in the news paper; or a grandson who waits for his grandmother to die for the inheritance, only to spit on her grave (Hill, pg215). In these cases there is nothing intrinsically wrong with these actions, though instead of asking oneself “What reason do I have for not doing these things?” they should ask “What type of person would do this sort of thing?” (Hill, pg215) Hill argues throughout the paper with a hypothetical anti-environmentalist, and what it comes down to is that the anti-environmentalist lacks a specific gratitude toward the environment (Hill, pg224). This gratitude is one in which the agent manifests gratitude toward something because one cherishes it, and when one cherishes something one should care for the well-being of that thing or community (Hill, pg224). This is definitely true when we cogitate on the how much the environment has enriched our lives (Hill, pg224).
As I have shown, one may be able to dispute whether or not climate change is real, or what kinds of effects it will have. So, I would like to change the direction of the essay to address resource depletion and the potential implications of it. Before moving into any particulars there are general concerns that should be addressed here. The perspective that seems applicable here, is Garret Hardin’s perspective “The Tragedy of the Commons”.
“The Tragedy of the Commons” was inspired by William Forester Lloyd’s pamphlet on population control in response to Adam Smith (Hardin, Pg392). Though Smith was not necessarily a proponent of the position, the concept of an “invisible hand” promoting the social good of society and thus, individuals would make decisions that would be best for society (Hardin, Pg392). So, the construction of a hypothetical scenario will demonstrate what exactly the problem is. A group of herdsmen share a common area that cattle graze on; if a herdsman sells one of the cows they receive all of the profit (Hardin, Pg392). On the other hand if the amount of cows causes overgrazing the negative effects will be distributed amongst all the herdsmen (Hardin, Pg392). Thus, the herdsman who is aware of the overall benefit in comparison to the cost will conclude that they ought to add more cattle (Hardin, Pg392). However, all herdsmen become aware of this opportunity and “Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his heard without limit-in a world that is limited” (Hardin, Pg392). Hardin in his exposition is actually trying to confront population growth, though I do think this scenario is applicable to resource depletion in general. There are numerable resources that I could mention here, but amongst them oil seems to be of the utmost importance. I particularly want to discuss peak oil theory and the implications of it. Michael Byron gives an eloquent introduction for discussing peak oil:
The world is positioned on the brink of a historical chasm. Everything familiar is about to vanish — beginning with where and how most of us live. The physical and proximate cause of this wrenching change is the imminence of what is called peak oil — the point at which half of all of the oil the world holds will have been taken from the ground. From that point onwards, every year less oil will be produced, at ever greater cost. Civilization is almost completely reliant upon growing supplies of cheap oil. But oil is a non-renewable resource, at least within the human timescale. For the planet as a whole, the amount of oil discovered each year reached a peak about forty years ago and has been declining ever since. (Byron, pg36)
The concept of peak oil was formulated in 1956 by a petroleum geologist named M. King Hubbert (Byron, pg36). Hubbert used a “mathematical modeling technique called the logistic decline model.” (Byron, pg36) With this model he was able to predict that US oil would peak in 1970, and the world’s oil supply would peak in 2000 (Byron, pg36). As it turns out, Hubbert’s prediction was astonishingly close as “in 1971 and many geologists, petroleum scientists, and industry analysts have come to accept that Hubbert got it right” (Byron, pg36). His latter prediction is not far off; somewhere between 2005 and 2012 the world will reach its peak oil production (Byron, pg36). There are some who appeal to the argument of new technology and that these advancements will lead to the sustainment of oil reservoirs (Byron, pg38). In fact, this is not the case. Matt Simmons, “an oil industry investment banker and a member of the 2001 Bush-Cheney Energy task force,” remarks:
None of these technical breakthroughs created an “oilfield fountain of youth,” which is what would be required for the [optimistic] forecaster’s scenarios [of endless future production] to unfold. Instead, these advances combined to extract the easily recoverable oil from giant fields even faster, and led to decline curves, once high reservoir pressures depleted, steeper than the industry had ever experienced before. (Byron, pg38-39)
We also have to consider increasing population and increased industrialization of countries like China and India. Eventually demand will outweigh the supply, and the effects of the decline of oil could potentially be disastrous (Byron, pg40). Inevitably, oil will become very expensive and this will change our society:
The former energy advisor of US President George W. Bush, Matthew Simmons, predicts oil prices could reach as much as 250 US dollars per barrel over the coming years. “We have to expect an oil price between 200 and 250 dollars per barrel,” Simmons was quoted as saying in the January issue of the German-based Capital economic magazine. He cited an imminent shortage of oil supply and a growing global demand, especially in China and India, for the sharp rise in oil prices. (Byron, pg40)
From the evidence presented, the U.S. interest in the Persian Gulf should become clear: more than 60% of the Earth’s remains in the Persian Gulf (Bryon, pg47). Ostensibly, the US has become increasingly dependent on a cheap supply of oil (Bryon, pg46). More important than the well-being of the US economy is the fact that whoever controls the Persian Gulf controls the oil supply to the world; this state, in turn, becomes the gatekeeper of industry (Bryon, pg46). The “Carter Doctrine” overtly acknowledged this; meanwhile the Bush administration denies it (Bryon, pg46). Cal Tech physicist David Goldstein, who has studied this issue extensively, concludes:
So, technically, scientifically, the means exist to build a civilization that has everything
we think we need, without fossil fuels. The future exists. The remaining question is, can
we get there? Scientists are supposed to make predictions. Experiment or observation tests the
prediction, and the fate of the scientist’s theory, acceptance or rejection rides on the
outcome. That’s how science works. I have a prediction to make. Here it is:
Civilization as we know it will come to an end some time in this century, when the fuel
runs out. This is different from normal scientific predictions in a crucial way. Usually, the
scientist hopes that the prediction will prove to be correct, and merely making the prediction does not change the phenomenon in question. In this case I do hope the prediction will be
wrong, and I hope that merely making the prediction will help make it become wrong. (Goldstein, pg12).
At this point I hope I have set the stage, so to speak, for the reader. The next step to be taken here is to discuss the implications of peak oil and climate change. However, before I do, it is necessary to mention how, and why, I will describe these implications in the conclusion.
In the midst of trying to defend against the accusations that Judeo-Christianity has played a causal role in the degradation of the environment, Lewis Moncrief asserts that environmental degradation is caused by capitalism and democratization has led to urbanization, increased wealth, increased population, and individual ownership (Moncrief, pg27). Karl Marx also observes the negative effects capitalism has one the environment, though it is best to recall the “Tragedy of the Commons” and then proceed:
Capitalist production collects the population together in great centres, and causes the urban population to achieve an ever-growing preponderance. This has two results. On the one hand it concentrates the historical motive power of society; on the other hand, it disturbs the metabolic interaction between man and the earth, i.e., it prevents the return to the soil of its constituent elements by man in the form of food and clothing; hence it hinders the operation of the eternal conditions for the lasting fertility of the soil. Thus it destroys at the same time the physical health of the urban worker, and the intellectual life of the rural worker. But by destroying the circumstances surrounding that metabolism, which originated in a merely natural and spontaneous fashion, it compels its systematic restoration as a regulative law of social production, and in a form adequate to the full development of the human race. . . . In modern agriculture, as in urban industry, the increase in the productivity and mobility of labour power is purchased at the cost of laying waste and debilitating labour power itself. Moreover, all progress in capitalist agriculture is a progress towards ruining the more long-lasting sources of that fertility. The more a country proceeds from largescale industry as the background of its development, as in the case of the United States, the more rapid is this process of destruction. Capitalist production, therefore, only develops the techniques and the degree of combining of the social process of production by simultaneously undermining the original sources of all wealth -- the soil and the worker (Marx, Capital, 1:636-638; Marx, Capital, 3:301)(Perelman, pg69).
If the reader has been persuaded to agree with my arguments because of the evidence I have presented then my goal is complete. However, I consider any skepticism up to this point to be a good thing. If the arguments I have made have not convinced a particular reader I could not be any happier; my thesis is dependent on the skeptical person. I do not find it to be presumptuous to assume that a reader exists who has not been persuaded by my arguments. In fact, the skeptical anti-environmentalist position is a necessary condition for the conclusion of this work. If we compare this entire argument to a redwood tree that has been hacked and sawed from different angles, we see it swaying but we are not sure which way it will fall. I am not going to predict which way the tree will fall based on intuition of specious reasoning. I will attempt a critical analysis of that information which I can acquire: the tree as a whole, its relation to other things, the cuts that are made, and the conditions of the environment around it; hopefully critical analysis of these factors will help us move to a safe area.
I am alluding to using a Marxist dialectic to explain an environmental revolution.
Dialectics is not a rock-ribbed triad of thesis-antithesis-synthesis that serves an all-purpose explanation; nor is it the motor force of history. The dialectic, as such explains nothing, proves nothing, predicts nothing, and causes nothing to happen. Rather, dialectics is a way of thinking that brings into focus the full range of changes and interactions that occur in the world. As part of this, it includes how to organize a reality viewed in the manner for purposes of study and how to present the results of what one finds to others, most of whom do not think dialectically. (Ollman, pg12)
Additionally, Marx claims that people base their conclusion on their ‘immediate surroundings’, and that in most cases the truth is the exact opposite of their conclusion (Ollman, pg13). This is why and how I arrived at the conclusion that I did.
As this essay progressed, I argued from the perspective of an environmentally conscious agent. The reader will either agree with me or disagree, and even if the reader agrees with me, I am sure they could imagine a person who would disagree with all of the claims I have put forth. What this all comes down to is the clash of values and ideas. Climate change, resource depletion, pollution, overpopulation, and many other factors play a role in the type of world we will soon live in. One difference between the workers revolution and the environmental revolution is that the environmental revolution is not dependant on human beings. We are at the threshold of cataclysmic disaster, or a small universal lifestyle change. If the world is to err on the side of caution and become environmentally conscious, we can mitigate death and suffering. On the other hand, if the people of the world stick our heads in the sand and retain the current lavish life style because of a belief that God or technology will save us, the environmental revolution will be one of death and destruction. To elaborate on this, think about the things that we do that depend on oil. Without a doubt we are heavily dependent on oil, we have observed rising gas prices, we see how welcomed we are in the Persian Gulf, and on top of all of this, the prospects of sustaining the US’s fixation on oil are dim. We live in a society which is ill-prepared for climate change or oil depletion. When gas reaches ten or fifteen dollars a gallon, our economy will come to a screeching halt. The current city infrastructure layout, public transportation, etc., will not be sufficient to compensate for the demand. If we are doing nothing now, by the time this seemly prognostication becomes reality it will be too late to sustain anything close to the lifestyle we currently enjoy. Essentially, we will either acknowledge the threats that we face and mitigate their impacts, or we will suffer from our ignorance; either way, environmental change will affect us.
Benton, Ted, ed. The Greening of Marxism. New York: Guilford Publications, 1996. Questia. 24 Apr. 2008
Byron, Michael P., and Inc NetLibrary. Infinity's Rainbow [Electronic Resource] : The Politics of Energy, Climate, and Globalization. New York: Algora Pub., 2006.
Cafaro, Philip, and Ronald D. Sandler. Environmental Virtue Ethics. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005.
Ollman, Bertell. Dance of the Dialectic : Steps in Marx's Method. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2003.
Pojman, Louis P., and Paul Pojman. Environmental Ethics. Ed. Worth Hawes and Bob Kauser. 5th ed. Vol. 5th edition. Belmont CA: Thomson and Wadsworth, 2001.
The wise man I mention is Martin Schönfeld.
- I did not remember because you are not important
- I don't know your name because you are an asshole/idiot
- Your name is so lame (something like Mike) that I must have got you confused with Steve, Nick, or Larry
-I am sorry you are ugly
- I am sorry, you smell
- I am sorry, but you were previously unimportant.
Or most likely
- I am sorry, at the of you telling me your name I was subjected to other sense stimuli that what said for the past our went in one ear and in to the black hole that seems to be my brain (Hawkings black hole, because their is a difference)
Thursday, April 2, 2009
This is why....
I know this quote is in a religious context, so just replace the trinity with conservativism
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Monday, March 9, 2009
Friday, March 6, 2009
It may seem that I am making this argument because the current president is not the best public speaker, and maybe I want to expose his disability to be polemical. This however, is not the case, though I admit that George W. Bush’s presidency has provided me with impetus to advance this argument insofar as the future of the United States is concerned. The US is at a very volatile time right now, and every decision should be a deliberate, and justifiable. Moreover, my argument is not solely directed at the executive branch alone. I am advocating a policy that would have a profound effect on future presidents, congressmen/congresswomen, senators, and the American people.
To put my argument in a parable, it would be like people getting on a bus to go to a selected destination and the driver going where he or she pleased. Some of the people on the bus know that the driver is going the wrong way or a bad way, and instead of asking the driver what he or she is doing, they try to indirectly pressure the driver to go the correct direction. All the while the rest of the ignorant passengers are being left out of the process, and are being marginalized by their ignorance and the lack of transparency of the situation. If we could imagine a vigilant passenger standing up and questioning the driver, the ignorant passengers would become knowledgeable of the situation and want to fix it.
As it stands the president is held, somewhat, publically accountable through the media, which in theory would be a good idea if: one, the media did not have their own agenda, which may or may not be the public’s best interest and two, if the president was required to answer their questions. The State of The Union Address may seem to be a sort of political mechanism that bestows a sense of accountability onto the president. However, the president gives the State of The Union annually (though it is not required) and within the address the president can use vague language and present a façade where problems are acknowledged and solutions are disingenuously suggested. The reason the president gives the State of the Union is because he or she is required to do something of the sort in the Constitution as it states: “He shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." (Constitution, Article II, Section 3) During the address the president typically speaks down to the audience that is apt to agree and respond with applause. The difference between questioning session and the State of the Union is that, the former questions policy the latter is a declaration of intentionality. Thus, I argue the United States should implement a question time session every week to hold the president accountable.
I will not present every particular about this mechanism; instead I will give a general sketch of what this may be like. The session would have about 100 people there, 75 would be from congress and 25 from senate. Like the British system sessions would last for a half-hour. The majority of the politicians would be selected at random, whilst each party would be able to nominate two or three spokespeople to go. The politicians selected at random will have the opportunity to continue going to the session if they were not selected to ask a question. Unlike the Britain, politicians would have the option of submitting their questions ahead of time unless their question requires information that the president would not have on hand. Questions will have to be under a certain length, and should not be irrelevant. The politicians will be chosen at random and each party will be given equal distribution of questions, independents will be factored in as well, and politicians can defer their opportunity to another politician.
Now that we have a general sketch of what the questioning session would be like, I will explain what type of impact it will have. First off, if one has been in a situation where they were being evaluated on their ability of public speaking and answer questions, it is clear that one must be knowledgeable of the subject(s) and be a skilled orator. I do not think I am demanding too much of a person that is, not only representing me, but the most power nation in the world. We, therefore, would see the essence of the person that was elected, a true statesperson would be able to rise to this task, and it would not be a major burden on him or her. When a president gives a speech he is able to speak about what he pleases, and address questions in the manner he sees fit. Moreover, the people who are willing to listen to these speeches usually agree with that the president is saying anyway. If the president is questioned they will not long be able to make bad decisions or indecisions and get away with it without an intuitive feeling of culpability. For example, if there was an emergency situation, and the president was slow at responding to the situation, he or she would have to answer for their irresponsiveness. Sometimes the media does a mediocre job questioning the president when he has been negligent, albeit the questioning is usually long after the incident and few reporters will press the president to answer. Additionally, during interviews presidents can dismiss important questions with dogmatic ideology and or catch phrases like “we have to stay the course” or “if we don’t defeat terror over there, we will have to fight them here”. The ostensible question evasion would work only so many times if the president was being questioned every week by congressmen/congresswomen and senators, who would be required to ask important questions until they received a reasonable answer.
The other side to this process increases the amount accountability and responsibility that is bestowed onto congressmen/congresswomen and senators. The questioning time would be televised and the politicians would be held accountable if their questions were irrelevant or unimportant. If a politician failed to ask appropriate questions, or the politician deferred their opportunity they would be held publically accountable. A politician would have face accusations of being a sycophant for not asking questions pertaining to the public’s interest in order to please their party. Moreover the questioning session would enable the constituency to contact their representative to pressure him or her to ask a specific question. This would also create a new dimension for interest groups and lobbyist, as they would be able to pressure politicians to ask certain questions.
One of the British Prime Minister’s imperatives is “Exhibiting Strong Parliamentary Performances” during question time, because this performance dictates the level of confidence that is bestowed in the Prime Minister (Almond, p167). The US does not have an official confidence vote, but surveys are usually an indication of confidence or approval. A questioning session will facilitate the public’s evaluation of the president and provide the president with an opportunity to defend or justify his or her agenda to the public. More importantly the public will become more vigilant of implemented policies and will be able to identify the implications of the political ideologies. As the president is questioned he or she will have to explain their policy and why they believe that it will be effective. Through this, I argue, the citizenry of the US will become knowledgeable and less apathetic with politics.
I could construct the best argument on why politicians ought to have increased accountability, but if people will not take the time to listen or watch the executive questioning it becomes a superfluous process. Not many Americans are avid C-SPAN views for a number of reasons, and it may seem idealistic to claim that people will miraculously change their minds about what they watch and listen to. However, I think this would be beneficial and appealing to the public for three reasons: One, there would be the appeal of novelty, if the process was implemented it would attract new and different people to politics. Two, it would be easy for most people to follow and understand. Three, media outlets would propagate the sessions and emphasize the parts they feel are most important, this is relative due to network bias. I am not claiming that people will opt for presidential questioning over reality television, but the process would captivate a new audience.
In conclusion, implementing this policy into the US government would be beneficial to everyone in, and served by it. People are often quick to exonerate presidents or politicians because of their high social status, but they are in fact public servants, they are supposed to be looking out for our best interests, and we should make sure they are. Oddly enough Republican Senator John McCain has claimed that he will institute a questioning policy if he becomes president (citation). But, implementation of this policy should not wait for the next president or opportune time, because American cannot wait. Voter turnout is the lowest among industrialized nations with an average of 52% Australia has the highest with 95% (Almond, p727). I would assume that politicians would want to rectify this ostensible apathy, and the questioning session would be a way to start. If my proposal is not sought out, I might assume that politicians either desire an ignorant populace or have become complacent with government and the lack of participation.
Almond Gabriel A., et al. Comparative Politics Today. 9th ed. New York: Pearson Longman, 2008.
If Presidents Faced Question Time ." New York Times2008, sec. Editorial: 7/6/08
Jonathan Bradbury "parliamentary question" The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Ed. Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan. Oxford University Press, 2003. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of South Florida. 10 July 2008 http://www.oxfordreference.com.proxy.usf.edu/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t86.e975
United States Constitution, Article II, Section 3
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
I see the causation of this disposition in society and in culture. We live in a society that idolizes people who make a lot of money. If we are going to do something it must be fruitful, or else it is worthless- if one has an idea that will yield money it is worthwhile, if the idea cannot be turned into a capitalistic pursuit it is worthless. This may not be true in every dimension of society, but I would argue that it is true for most.....
I am not sure where I was originally going with this.... oh yea, capitalism destroys the ineffable qualities of life, and we are forever stuck in this battle with those who will feed us just enough to keep us crawling back for more.
So, I look for utility in everything, not because it is a necessary condition, but because society has made it into a necessary condition. And thus, experience is not fruitful, neither is memory, those things are fruitless and a waste of time. So, next time plant a tree that will make you rich, not a tree that will make you happy
Friday, February 27, 2009
- Main Entry:
- or geo·met·ri·cal \-ˈme-tri-kəl\
- 14th century
Now Exponential, it's your turn:
Hmm, something seems to be amiss here, well let's do the most obvious thing, consult the epistemic paragon, the only entity that makes Edmund Gettier squirm....yes wikipedia, the leader in finding things that best describe your disposition. So, let's see what wikipeida has to say:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Exponential growth (including exponential decay) occurs when the growth rate of a mathematical function is proportional to the function's current value. In the case of a discrete domain of definition with equal intervals it is also called geometric growth or geometric decay (the function values form a geometric progression).
OK, So if one was to say "my tree is growing at an geometric rate" they would be saying something different than "my tree is growing at an exponential rate" Right? Here's why....
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In mathematics, a geometric progression, also known as a geometric sequence, is a sequence of numbers where each term after the first is found by multiplying the previous one by a fixed non-zero number called the common ratio. For example, the sequence 2, 6, 18, 54, ... is a geometric progression with common ratio 3. Similarly 10, 5, 2.5, 1.25, ... is a geometric sequence with common ratio 1/2. The sum of the terms of a geometric progression is known as a geometric series.
Thus, the general form of a geometric sequence is
- ar,\ ar^2,\ ar^3,\ ar^4,\ \ldots" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/1/5/b/15b1e5bc8f8e8c5e7d46fd177eb625d6.png">
and that of a geometric series is
- ar + ar^2 + ar^3 + ar^4 + \ldots" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/4/5/c/45c5fc422b6c7b23ac159bcb6f52bf47.png">
WOW, this truly is mind-bottling; So, the only people who know, or care about the difference are those who care about using concise language, scientist, philosophers, statisticians, a-holes, and me.
So, for the sake of language can we just agree on saying " Like, really, really fast", or at least refrain from using the world geometric, unless one is deliberately using the term.
So, you must be wondering by now, Mike why are you getting your panties in a wad over this distinction? Well, I could not decide whether or not to report that the amount of followers to my blog is growing exponentially or geometrically ( if geometrically, it would be on accident) let me see how many followers I have.... oh 0. Let me check again just to make sure, I could be approaching the exponential curve.... no, still zero. I guess if I am going to stick to using concise language, I will never have any followers if I have 0.....This sucks, well I hope my following increases really, really, fast
OK, So next week- what is better tool for expressing your feelings, wikipedia or Merriam websters dictionary, and the difference between sentiment and disposition.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
I like commas, I feel like I can just put them anywhere, maybe I am a fat, heavy, chain smoker who needs to take breaths between couple of words?
So, I caught Hannity last night, (not that I have ever tried to catch him before, I would like to catch him in real life so I could tell him he is a biggot) and I have to tell you, I am a pretty passive guy but Hannity, some how, is able to piss me off in five seconds, even if I agree with him. For the love of god, could these neo-cons try to not use fallacious arguments, I know the general public is not versed in logic, henceforth why there are still so many neo-cons, I thought they would give up after GWB ruined the country.