What are the effect of chaos on human morality? Why do chaotic events change the way we act?

On day three, I had finished my list of categories with involvement. I had Government, Social Economic Class, Scientific Involvement, Music, Religion, Race, and high temperatures. I put these down because I felt like they all played a big roll on the way that the people handled things.

On this post, I want to focus on the idea of chaos changing our sense of judgment. On day two and three of watching the Hurricane Katrina movie, a few things were shown to us. Looting was something that was extremely disturbing to me and that was a huge issue in New Orleans. In a calm environment, or rather said, in normal circumstances, most people do not go around looting and clearing up stores. It’s morally incorrect to many of us to do such things. We also hear about babies being raped in the Superdome, which is an exaggeration but highlights a main and true issue. Children were being raped, not necessarily in the Superdome but elsewhere. I found this to be disgusting not just because it involves rape but because its done to kids who for one probably have a bad life as it is and then for someone to go up to them and ruin it even more it just gross. Something else that is brought up in this movie is killing. People are killing each other for either their own protection or for their needs which is understandable in a way but its still out of character for most people.

It’s hard to take in these events because we live in a society were rules of what is okay to do and what is not okay to do are very clear. It is also hard to think that we the ‘smartest and most advanced’ species, can become so inhuman when placed in a space full of chaos and where we are forced to try and survive and protect those we care about. I guess it can be somehow related to what some mothers say, “I’m like a momma bear, if anyone touches my cub, I don’t know what I’m capable of doing.” Momma bear is each one of us and our cub is all those whom we care about and all those things that we feel are necessary for us. Someone touching our cub is like a stranger coming into our space and in times of chaos, they might not be in our space because they mean harm but we take it that way because we come to expect the worst in people. Why is it that when things are going wrong we tend to expect thinks to continue to go wrong and we forget that even in the worst of time, there are good things?

         I think we come to this type of thinking because all bad events are traumatic in some kind of way. They leave a mark on us that never fully disappear. Chaos is created by a series of negative events or one big event that lead to many smaller problems. So basically, once there is chaos in one place, it is very likely that it will spread. The growing sense of chaos can throw one off track and our priorities will change depending on the devastating event. Our philosophy will probably change from thinking long term and saying we want a better future to thinking short term and wanting to get through the day. I think we become more selfish and act on impulse when we are pushed to and passed our limit, which tends to be when chaos breaks out.

How does the environment and a society's difference in economic level, influence a tragedy?

           In the movie it was said that the city of New Orleans was a city that varied in its kind of people. There were the very wealthy people and the extremely poor people. Race wasn't something that was directly related to the way society was split up but some stereotypes could be said. For example, it could be said that the poor communities were made up mostly of African Americans and some Latinos. But the truth was that while the statement could have some truth to it, it was not all true. In the way I see it, social economic society had nothing to do with race specifically and race had nothing to do with who were those most affected by the effects cased by Hurricane Katrina.  But, I do agree in the belief that those left behind to stay in Katrina were mostly people who lacked the economic resources to have some sort of transportation to get out of New Orleans.

What made it worse for those who either had no way of getting out and those who decided to stay (which were not very many), was the locations of their homes. It’s known that the city of New Orleans itself is about an average of 8 feet below sea level. Some parts of the city are less than eight feet below sea level, while other parts are up to ten feet below sea level. What does the location have to do with the people that live inside of it? Well, from what I have been able to gather, location has very much to do with its people.  The poorest communities are those that are located in places where there is a lack of necessary resources and/or where there are more possibilities of it being affected the most, or that are more susceptible to environmental tragedies.

Why is it that this happens? I don’t really know why it happens. Maybe it’s because, as I mentioned in another blog post, these people tend to not have much say in things because their voice is ether ignored, or it just isn’t loud enough to be heard by those considered to be ‘on top.’ Also, it could be because those ‘on top’, which tend to be those with more of a financial advantage make the decision to prioritize themselves first.

The 9^th ward in New Orleans was the most affected not because it was were the levis breached/broke but because it was the lowest place, making all the water that flowed into the city, fill in the 9^th ward and then move onto other neighborhoods. So to prove my point, who were those that lived in the 9^th ward? They were people of low income. I’m not sure if I really know how the environment and a society's difference in economic level, influences a tragedy but by putting together the bits of things that I do know, I can generate a pretty good idea for myself. 

Why does society tend to give those with the most need, the least attention and care?

In class today we began to watch a documentary on Hurricane Katrina and it's impact on people's lives and the factors that lead to the grand damage of the city of New Orleans. I thought it was really interesting to hear the testimony of those who were present during the hit of Katrina. I learned a few things I hadn't known before such as the fact that Hurricane Katrina didn't actually HIT the city of New Orleans, meaning the center of the storm, where it was actually category five missed the city and moved towards the east. As I heard this, I asked myself how much more devastating the storm would have been to the city of New Orleans, which in my opinion was not prepared to face a natural disaster as was the one that actually hit it.

So that brings me to the question that I want to explore in this post. Why is it that not just necessarily in society, but in general, those groups that are the least well off are the ones that must endure and suffer the toughest parts while those with the most opportunities are the first ones to get resources and help and are prioritized? This is what is though by many to have happened in New Orleans during the storm of Hurricane Katrina. There are many that believe that the levy was purposely brought down so that the more expensive side of New Orleans could avoid being hit hard. So basically, they think that they chose the wealthier people over the poor because it was in their interest to protect their properties and since, I’m taking this from my opinions, no one really listens to the less fortunate because they lack a strong voice, the government could get away with it. I don’t think that it was actually done in this case of Katrina, but I do understand where these people are coming from because they have gone through many similar situations where they are chosen to be the ones to suffer in the place of others. For example, the 1965 Betsy Hurricane, the levy was blown up then to avoid wealthier parts from getting damaged. So because these people have in the past been picked on, it’s understandable that they assume they were picked at again.

I don’t really have an answer to why it is that these sorts of things occur because every case is different in its own way and in my opinion can’t really be generalized. But I guess finding out why it happens is completely different from trying to understand why such things occur. SO, basically, I think that there are some prime factors to why this group/groups of people are picked on and why those in power decide to give them the worst option if any at all. I think the most important one is the fact that they don’t have a strong voice to represent them and speak their needs loud enough so that it can be heard so just about any injustice can happen to them, and most wouldn’t even turn to try and understand what went wrong. Two, society is based on prioritizing the ones that give the most. By this its’ referred to those who have the money to spend as much as they want and haven’t experienced true need. They are the ones that are most liked by the government because they give the most while the ones that don’t have enough for themselves require the government to use some of that precious money given to them, for programs (which usually don’t work) targeted to help. Three, through generations, we have all become accustomed to assuming that the worst happens to those below us, which in my opinion, are only below us because we grow-up with that mentality, therefore creating a class that’s almost impossible to get out of. 

Reflecting on the Future..

Thinking once again of those three biggest questions that impacted an epoch.. I think I should first summarize quickly what it was that happened in this epoch since I hadn’t done any previous entries on this one.

We are living in the fifth epoch. We’ve had technological advancements in communication unlike any other thing experience in all of the four previous epochs. We have also come to realize that the effects and resentments that were left after World Wars One and Two are still very much present and that they were intensified by the fall of the Soviet Union. But while the political leaders of the world were working hard on dealing with the problems brought by the collapse of the Soviet Union and also working on the genocide in Rwanda, technological leaders around the world, introduced us to the internet. Although at first, it was primarily for college students, by 1995 it had become part of thousands of homes trough out the world. Through the internet, our world became more united and closer together as it had never been before. It helped thrive all, from small businesses to big corporations. Another thing that helped was the laying of thousands of miles of fiber optic cables at the bottom of the ocean, this made international calls cheaper and more possible. But of course, all of this technology wasn’t only used for positive and constructive reasons, it was also used for negative and contra-constructive reasons by those attempting to destroy things. An example of that was the events that took place September 11, 2001. This devastating attack was one of the reasons why we became aware the growing instability in the world that had been growing since the fourth epoch and that was intensified after the collapse of the USSR.

So two of the biggest questions that I can come up with for Epoch Five are, What are some effective ways that terrorism and the usage of technology for negative purposes can be controlled or eliminated? And, What is the next step in the technological advancement of communication?

I’m not really sure which ways would necessarily be effective for eliminating terrorism and the use of technology for negative purposes because it isn’t something that is really in OUR hands. Its more of something that was caused by our previous generations and resentments that were passed down into our new generations. What I think would be good way of dealing with it would be to try and make a treaty with the terrorists or some kind of binding promise on both sides and to try and understand what it is that they want and why. It’s probably not this simple but that’s why I thought this would be a good question. It really forces one to think.

And then on what is the next step in the technological advancements of communication for future generations. It’s difficult to predict the future, but there are many possibilities. I mean, the invention of the internet is right at the level of impact that the invention of the printing press was at. I think that we are too early into this epoch to really expect something big to happen soon. Just think of how much time went by between the invention of the printing press to the creation of the Internet. I think that first we have to expand more as a civilization with help of the Internet and focus on also advancing ourselves in more than just weaponry and communicative technology. I think that there is still a while left to go before we experience something as big again.

Contra Productivity and Our Advancements...

Connected to Epoch 4: The epoch of conflict (1920-1990)

Its amazing to know that Epoch Four wasn't so long ago. It ended about 20 years ago yet it's effects are very much present in our lives today. I think it can honestly be said that epoch four went through many quick and impacting changes. Its advancements occurred at such a rapid rate, it's difficult to believe they actually happened at the time that they happened and in the conditions that they happened. Those living in Early epoch four experienced two world wars that changed the way of viewing things for the upcoming generations such as those before us, our generation, and possibily the generations after us. But at the same time they lost many chances of advancement and technology. Because of the wars and constant state of suspicion after the wars, the ability to be completely dedicated to the creation of new and advanced technology was withheld and much potential was lost during this time.

If I would have been given Epoch Four to come up with the three biggest questions with which they were faced, one that I would’ve came up with would have been about why wars kept them from moving forward. In other words, What impact do wars have on society, economy, and the progress of humanity as a whole?

I think that wars and any kind of conflict that a country has at a certain point deeply influence not only the way in which things are done inside the country such as the economic level of production but also has a huge impact on the productivity of it’s people because their priorities change. Usually it changes from moving forward and advancing and improving their lives step by step to trying to live without getting too involved in their country’s conflict or if they are for the conflict, they change to being productive for the needs of the country.

I can imagine how hard it must be to try to not get involved and to not change your ways when there is a war going on because its all that is talked about. Its really what the government usually cares most about during times like those. Its why I think wars should be avoided because that way, we can all prioritize the advancement of ourselves and not the development of weapons, which in the case of World War Two was contra productive yet its considered a huge advancement in weapon technology for all of us.

What does religion have to do with Human Advancement??

In class today, I was assigned epoch one and was asked to come up with the 3 BIGGEST questions that appeared or that the civilizations living during this epoch were faced with. My groups discussed many different subjects but stayed mostly around the ideas of government, the need for law, and the difference between church and state. Then we finally came up with three that we all agreed on, until a statement came to my head... "In order to advance and move forward, one must first look back." What it basically means to me, is that religion was created by us so that it could fill-in the gaps we then had in history.

So in order to advance one must first look back or know what they're coming from to know in which direction to go and strategies to use. In the first epoch, such thing did not exist because as you might know, 'The First Epoch got the Ball Rolling.' But with the creation of religion, people then had a way to deal with things. They'd turn to the biblical scripts of their religion, which in turn became guidelines on things to follow and things to avoid when faced with certain decisions. They used religion, as we now use history, as something to refer to when making tough decisions because back then, to them, and to some of us still, religion is history. It’s the history of mankind and god or gods. Religion told a story its version of how we came to be. Although nowadays religious passages teach morals instead of history, it played a big part in what we say is history now.

Desperate times should call for Well Thought Out Decisions not drastic measures.

*4th Epoch* The Epoch of Conflict (1920-1990)

It's said that this epoch had two major conflicts, a "cold" one and a "hot" one. The Hot conflict was the happening and events involved with World War Two. The Cold conflict was the tension and constant competing of the two leading powers, the Soviet Union versus the United States. I think that this epoch was titled correctly. It really was an epoch of conflict and so many wrong decisions were made. It's not possible or correct for us to try to blame all of the events that took place during this time on a certain person or country because they were events that affected the whole world population. In order for it to have affected the whole world, every place must've had in one way or another gotten themselves involved or gotten involved by others.

After the First World War (1914-1918), there was a worldwide depression that hit many populations, some harder than others. Because of this depression, the European economies were destabilized and soon afterwards, the USA’s economy was also destabilized. Germany was one of the countries that were the least well off. Much damage had been done to the country that its potential growth was destroyed. Then Fascism emerged in Italy when Dictator Mussolini rose to power. And of course, Hitler began climbing the political ladder.

So clearly, there was much chaos going on at this time. I mean, the world literally sunk in economic chaos. I think that this could have been avoided if WWI could have been avoided, which is truly something hard to say since there were so many factors involved with it. Almost about as much as there were involved in WWII. But that’s what I don’t get, Could it had been possible to avoid it if maybe one of the events leading up to it wouldn’t have happened?

There really isn’t a way to know for sure because so many tragic things were happening at the same time at different levels of intensity and in different places. Maybe its all of these things combined that affected people so much and made them desperate to get out of it and improve their lives. Desperate times call for drastic measures. But is that really the truth? I believe that in any case, people who are suffering shouldn’t take the first way out. They should evaluate their options and think about the long-term effects so that the possibility of going back into tragedy is eliminated. But over and over again, with gladly, a few exceptions, history proves us that that’s not the way things work. People grab onto the first sign of improvement and follow it till they’re out of what the were in, but later fall into something completely different. Think about Hitler and Germany’s population. He promised them to end the devastating depression they were going through, so they followed him, not thinking about the way in which he would do it. The same happened in Japan, through usage of their newly improved military, they escaped out of the depression and then used it to gain power over other countries. But what most mattered to them was to get out of the depression and they did. And all those that chose the easy way out were later faced with the events of WW2 and the aftermath of it.

USSR vs. USA, after the dropping of the atomic bomb, there would be a possibility of war breaking out again. The world was traumatized as the USSR and USA stayed in a limbo-ish relationship free of military force against one another. I get that the political ideologies of these two were complete opposites but their goals, if looked in a certain way, along with their actions and decisions made them very alike.  So why was it that they felt the need to get rid of one another? I think the answer to that is that they both wanted the rest of the world to be mini thems.

From what I understood, that’s why they aided opposite sides (ex: Vietnam), it’s why they had proxy wars. But if this was really the case, why did they decide to end Nazi Germany? I mean, (taking away the genocide they caused), they too were just trying to get the world for themselves, were they not? The United States and the Soviet Union both saw the consequences of Nazi Germany, Japan, and Italy’s greed, were they not afraid of what their competing to be the best could do to the rest of the world? Or was it just that greed took over during this epoch and the powers wanted all for themselves only??

Meeting the "high" and "low" moments of our history..

*2nd epoch:The Epoch of Advancements (500BCE - 1492CE)*

It was during this epoch that some of the most important and powerful empires came to rule massive amounts of land and provide our world with many great achievements and failures. It was also during this epoch that the fundamental concepts that form the base of democratic governments were formed. I find this weird. Why did it take so long for this way of thinking to develop? Was it because the empires/ civilizations previous to this epoch and also some during this epoch, had just grown so accustomed to not having a strong and influential voice and having monarchies rule over them?? If this kind of thinking didn't exist before, how was it that it sprung up? Why was it that philosophy and science were such a big hit in Greek society? How come, if Greece got to be so big, their ideals on philosophy and science didn't spread to the nearby empires and become as big as it was in Greece?

I mean, clearly, the Roman's tried to do something similar to what the Greek's ideas on democracy were but failed at it. I wonder what it was that made it fail. Was it that even though it was based on the Greek's democracy, it was more guided toward the wealthy in society and that was what unbalanced it and caused it to fail or were there other factors involved. If so, what kind?

I think that the Roman Republic should have tried a little harder to hold power instead of giving up and becoming the Roman Empire and being ruled by a dictator. I also think its strange how Christianity began as a cult and later became the official religion of the Roman's if, correct me if I'm wrong, their first official religion had been polytheistic...?

I think that Europe had so many chances to continue advancing but the fact that such huge empires developed made it hard because once one of those big empires began to fail, so did everyone else who was a part of that empire. (Think Roman). I think that this is the major reason on which why Europe had a downturn in technological, political, philosophical, and social advancements was because a big part of Europe was the Roman Empire so once it fell, every one was left dazed and confused while Asia was just starting to come up with advancements. SO while Europe tried to get itself together, Asia was developing new things one after another. Which is why it was a good thing that the Mongol Empire started the Silk Road all over again because through trade, Asia developed and shared their advancements and Europe got a burst of energy and after the Black Death, began working on further developing themselves again. But why did it have to take a tragedy such as was the disease of the Black Death for Europe to get back into action? I mean it was great that they did get back on their feet and had the renaissance because it was thanks to the renaissance that mostly literature among other things became important and open to the public. I just think that it should have happened earlier.

~The First Epoch Got The Ball Rolling!~

*Epoch of Origins (4,000BCE - 500BCE)*

I find it hard to believe that things just happened and all of a sudden people decided to start settling down and building communities. I wonder what it was that caused them to want a change and to begin a different way of life. As hunter-gather societies, I suppose they must have traveled a lot and must have gained a lot of knowledge on good hunting grounds and such things as fertile grounds too. If so, how come they chose to settle down on such an arable land as was the area of Mesopotamia? I mean, they could have chosen a better place for agriculture. But then again, if they would've done so, they wouldn't have had the need to develop methods for agriculture and so the 1st significant step in the historical process of man's interaction with the environment would have never occurred, or it would have taken longer to occur, therefore, slowing down the whole process that followed such as the creation of governmental structures and city-states.

In the Babylonian empire, Hammurabi came up with the idea to give the judges a set of rules to follow. I think it was great he came up with the idea but I don't think that his "Code" is synonymous w/ the beginnings of civilization based on distinct and specific legal codes. I'm sure that even back when people traveled in hunter-gather societies, there was someone who was in charge of the "society" and that they had rules to keep order and that they were distinct and specific legal codes, not necessarily written down but that they were set in a way so that everyone was aware of them, otherwise it would have been chaotic. I think that if anything, Hammurabi's Code was just a more sophisticated way of setting laws/codes. But i could just be understanding wrong what it means for something to be 'synonymous with the beginnings of a civilization based on distinct and specific legal codes.'

What I don't seem to be able to understand is exactly how it was that other societies sprung up in other geographic regions. I mean, what made people want to move further out and expand into different spaces and begin building empires? I suppose that those that went into those spaces migrated from the Mesopotamian region, but why? Were they not happy? Were they just very ambitious? Or were they just curious to learn what was out there??? And okay, say it was for all three reasons and some more, but how did so many more people get to places like Egypt, China, and Europe? Was it through the need to communicate with nearby societies that they learned of other ones and decided to go or was it just through population increase? And then once the societies began to expand and grow more, I suppose they were good for a while, expanding into unclaimed land. Once they began to reach limit with other's how was it that some empires decided to go onto another's land and CONQUER it?

I think that for us, its hard to understand how these things came to be because all the things that we do now are modeled after things that happened before us such as the things these empires/communities/societies did during this epoch. For example, philosophical and political thinking is something ordinary and normal for us but back in ancient Greece, when it first emerged it must have been something unique and original. I'm sure that philosophical and political ways of thinking existed long before the Greeks. It just wasn't something that people began to work on and try to further understand and expand on.

I agree. It must have been very hard to deal with things for all the people in this epoch. They didn't have any other stories to look at and think, hey, maybe we should try that and see if it works for us too. They began on a blank page and they really did get the ball rolling.

Very First Post!

Testing...........Testing...........Testing.........
So, this is my very first post and I had a lot of fun in class while creating my account. Gladly I didn't have any complications so it was created very quickly :)