Earth and Cybertron: Are We Really That Different?

Mechanical Earth from http://web-roi.org/

Cybertron from http://zoknowsgaming.com/2009/12/17/transformerswarforcybertronmoredetails/

     The modern (mechanistic) view of earth has surprising similarities to that of the fictional planet called Cybertron from the comic book series Transformers. Cybertron was created by Primus, who turned his body into the form of the planet to protect it from his brother and enemy Unicron. Cybertron is a robotic city that can reproduce its mechanical organism. When an organism is at the end of it's cycle or it is destroyed, then their bodies are used to create a new organism or better another one. That process is in line with the mechanistic world-view that believes the human body is made up of interchangeable parts that can be repaired or replaced. Primus and Mother Earth are alike in that they both represent life-giving. In Merchant's "Radical Ecology, she introduces the Chapter on Science and World-views by describing earth "as a nurturing mother with a respiratory, circulatory, reproductive, and elimination systems."(Merchant 41) This view of earth was transformed and changed throughout the centuries to what we now know as the Mechanistic World-view. Like humans on earth, Cybertron has its own inhabitants. These inhabitants were once all the same until a certain few wanted to dominate and control the planet. They were then split into two groups, Autobots and Decepticons. Just like earth, Cybertron's appearance was transformed because of the organisms that lived there. The war between the Autobots and Decepticons weakened the planet's resources. The transformers eventually had to reach out to the universe for other resources to sustain their life force. These two groups represent dualism in human viewpoint on how we are to treat the environment, conserve or dominate. We tend to dominate more than conserve. In this video game trailer of Transformers: War for Cybertron, you can see each's sides viewpoint through their battles and the narration.

     Megatron, the leader of the Decepticons, used his power and knowledge of combat to go on an imperialistic crusade to conquer the planet, then the universe. You could compare his actions to that of Europe in the medieval times and age of imperialism. Megatron also wanted to restore order amongst the transformers. In his mind, order was what he, and only he, could control. His favorite motto was "Peace through tyranny." Megatron also believed in survival of the fittest. Merchant believed that “mechanistic science and capitalism have viewed the earth as dead… exploitable for profits. The death of nature legitimated its domination” (Merchant 44). They saw earth's resources as a means of achieving capitalistic gain and national supremacy. Although Megatron has little to no use for money, he was power hungry and saw that overpowering his enemies would lead to his supremacy over the universe. The problem with the mechanistic world-view is that we cannot directly see the effects of our actions towards the planet. As humans, we need to take the viewpoint of Optimus Prime, leader of the Autobots, and do our best to protect nature and our planet from destruction. If we don't then our planet's resources will continually diminish until we are left to flee in search of a new home.

“This world is older than you can imagine. It has sailed the starscape...tending budding galaxies...forever a buffer to the approaching darkness. And now its fate...is in your hands.”-A voice to Optimus Prime, The War Within #6

In order to find out more about this fictional planet just click the Cybertron link. 

Women are DIRT!

It is my understanding that metaphors and dualism are evident in every part of our lives. Many of these we don’t see because they are subconsciously woven into the fabric of our society. Nonetheless, they are there and our perceptions and opinions of the world are constantly shifted and influenced by these norms and paradigms. In “DIRT! The Movie” one can clearly see just how much this is true. The documentary dives into the issues of dirt conservation and how something that seems so simple plays such a vital role in the lives of every human being all over the world.

As the documentary states, “we depend on dirt to purify and heal the systems that sustain us.” It is a sad reality something most don’t find importance to, much less think about, is the same thing that is a leader in the survival of humans and nature. This is a prime example of backgrounding. As discussed in class, dirt is just one example of how humans won’t notice or abuse its powers up until the very point when we need it the most. In my opinion, we treat most, if not all, environmental and political issues this way. I feel as though there are many reasons as to why our society (at least Western society) has subconsciously fell into this trap, and we need to start re-patterning our ways of thinking to be more proactive- not just reactive. Though we have begun to do this, I feel we have a long way to go.

What I find interesting is how much feminism and dirt have in common. Besides the obvious dualisms involved in this comparison, (i.e. woman=negative=natural=backgrounding) it seems as though a certain metaphor and a certain juxtaposition have emerged between the idea of this documentary and the issues surrounding feminism in the world.

“Man named himself by an act of separation from

and power over nature, animals and women, ensuring

his pre-eminence through ownership of all. The house

(domus) and its holdings (familia) are now his to

protect and defend. He is lord (dominus), he dominates,

he domesticates. This means that nature is no longer

treated as a complex of self-regulated organisms under

a ‘law’ of communal kinship but is brought under the

law of one king, the single ruler of monarchy and

monotheism.” (Collard 26)

Just as Collard states, it seems as though the issues presented in “DIRT! The Movie” run parallel to the issues seen in “Rape of the Wild”. There seems to be an uncanny resemblance in what underlies both issues. Because of that, all the dualisms in our society seem magnified and, in a way, interconnected.

To see reviews, screenings, learn about the movie, or find out how to get involved visit Dirt! The Movie

The Economics of Happiness

The society in which we live today is causing great distress to not only ourselves, but to humanity. As globalization becomes a key factor in our foreign business relations, foreign cultures are being influenced by western beliefs and social constructions. By using our concepts of truth as "an exercise of power" we impress these beliefs on other societies. The globalization/localization issue is discussed in the documentary "The Economics of Happiness". Catherine Ingram, of The Huffington Post, on January 19, 2011, reviewed this radical documentary in her article "Localization: The Film!" (see link below).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/catherine-ingram/localization-the-film_b_810155.html

The film discusses the crisis' in our society: our influences on cultures, our wastefulness towards the planet due to the importance we have put on economics and trade, and our general decreasing happiness ever since 1956 (see trailer below).

To quote the trailer "Local knowledge is knowledge that tells of your own life". Local knowledge should never disappear. Many of these concepts can even be connected to our loss of smaller cultural languages and dialects. The environment is impacted by even these linguistic changes as cultures are assimilating from their beliefs, towards western or simply even more broader and accepted views. Nature and culture are interrelated in this way. However this is causing people to adjust to a belief that is causing their spirits harm. Just as Rozzi believes that everything is influencing each other, and all disciplines share metaphors, even the concept portrayed in the film: "Economics is Happiness" is comparing two staggeringly different concepts, that are now seemingly directly influencing each other in our culture. Plumwood tells us that the stories we tell about our lives give us our own meaning and purpose. This has become a problem because the media has imposed itself upon our lives giving us a general standard to try to live up to. Localization would solve many of these problems because people would be living to a much more reachable standard (adjusted to their local economy and culture) and would not feel as impoverished. Our society has instrumentalized nature to uphold our economy to bring political power. However, this causes the environment and many cultures to struggle. It is a selfishness based off of power and "survival of the fittest" that is causing us to exclude the act of coexisting peacefully with nature from our conceptual system. "Truths are illusions, we have forgotten are illusions- they are metaphors that have been worn out and have been drained of sensuous force, coins which have lost their embossing and are now considered as metal and no longer as coins"(Pg 5, On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense; Nieztzsche). The truth that good economics leads to happiness is not only denying historical evidence that clearly defends the opposite side, however it is excluding the happiness that can be found from other means and assuming that only one way of living is the truth. However, there are many ways to be happy, and changing our current society's view on happiness would be beneficial because the demands on us today to be successful in so many areas of life, are being imposed on even the most vulnerable people who have no access to the same opportunity. The distress on the spirit is great. Localization is a great consideration to solve this problem because it causes a specific area to generate its own politics, economy, and spirit to live by. This generates a happiness that is not found in the competition of imposed power in today's society.

Are we natural?

From http://www.techvenkat.com/rainforest/

When i first answered this question my first reaction was of course we are natural, humans are mammals, mammals are animals, so therefore humans have to be natural. Although i answered the question something still didn't seem right to me, why is it that if we are natural we as humans take the other parts of nature such as the rain forests or the beaches to make things that we as humans don't need to survive. Humans have taken the things that where on the earth that inspired them and made them profitable, the greed that some people have has changed what we as a people see as nature.

        In John Stuart Mill article Nature he explains that humans have to be natural because when we eat the act and everything to do with it is part of the laws of nature. my understanding is that in order to survive we must eat, our body takes in what it needs and that everything about our bodies processing the food is natural. with this train of thought that means that humans have to be natural once again. yet as human culture has developed instead of taking in food in the "natural" form, humans are eating already processed food that has nutrients that the food might not have had before, yet because humans have modified it to make it "healthier" or to make it so the food that we eat has a better profit value. so then although our body's are doing whats natural yet what we are eating is unnatural, is this what we are doing by eating actually natural in the day and age.

the video above is a music video made by the band Rise Against, the video itself shows all the things humans have done to nature, and how we as humans are not much different from nature however we take things from what is the animals or planets natural habitat and change it to our liking so that we as humans control everything that is natural. the video shows the amount of animal cruelty that is done in the world and how we as humans are slowly killing the earth and all the things on it but ourselves. I believe that people have instead of adapting to the land have made the land adapt to us instead, destroying the concept of natural. Since humans refuse to live off the land everything is shifting from natural to man made.

  So are we as humans natural anymore or have we changed the concept of natural to our liking in order to not feel as bad that we are destroying the environment.
 - Zach Wingfield