Academic Essay Writing, SS2008, lecturer: Linda Paul, home essay
-
Every so-called democracy in the world applies censorship while pretending freedom of speech. Freedom in general is one of the main principles of democracies but its limitation even more so. In contrast to anarchy, which stands for “no rule”, democracy stands for “rule of the people”[1]. And if something is ruled, individual freedom is limited. Censorship is one of many means to assure the rule of one part of the people over another. Therefore there is not only a justification for censorship in a democracy but an essential need for it.
While democracy is generally seen as the ideal form of governing a society, one can also regard it from a critical point of view. Contrarily to what the word democracy implies, it is not the whole of the people that is governing, because in that case there would be nobody left to be governed. Instead, it is the conceptions, the values and the rules of the majority of a nation that are imposed upon the rest of it. Indeed, very often, the intention to protect minorities serves as justification for censorship, but a closer look can reveal that it is actually a threat to the moral system of the majority that is taken care of. A prototypical example for such an action is the censoring of books like Of Mice and Men or The Catcher in the Rye: While certain people argue that these books endanger the rights of minorities[2], no serious harm has so far been reported to have been caused by the reading of them. Nevertheless are they two of the most challenged books of the American Library Association[3]. The language they use and the values they promote belong to a minor, rather liberal part of society and therefore pose a threat to the conservative moral system of the majority of society.
There is a second fact that needs to be taken into consideration when evaluating the democratic system: Since it is an “indirect, representative democracy” one is living in, it is not even the majority of the people that is ruling but only its representatives. Thus, it is actually only a very small minority holding the power to rule and regulate the lives of a whole nation. Once elected into this powerful position, this small elite of people will make quite a great effort to stay there, and censorship can be one of many different means to do so. It is an effective way to control common sense because it takes direct influence on the public discourse. With censorship, undesirable rivals also wanting to gain a powerful position can partly be erased from cultural reality. If the prohibition of political parties - an extreme form of censorship - such as the KPD in 1956 is fortunately not very common in Germany, the limitation of their symbolic expression though is widely accepted, as show the examples of the NPD and other right winged parties. While the main argument for political censoring is the protection of democracy and liberty[4], the fact that one is not allowed to freely inform oneself about parties proposing other political systems than democracy is an indication of the dictatorial character of the present political system.
The given reasons for the use of censorship show that there is need for it in order to maintain democracy as the governing system as well as the position of those who benefit from it. If it was not the main goal of political leaders to conserve the present state of things but to enlarge freedom and responsibility for each individual of a nation one would realize that censorship deletes and hides important manifestations of the wants and needs of the people.
Montag, 29. September 2008
Who is responsible for global warming?
Academic Essay Writing, SS2008, lecturer: Linda Paul, home essay
-
It is scientifically proven that the average global temperature is rising[1] and only very few people still doubt that it is an effect of human action. But while many concentrate on blaming certain governments for not having signed the Kyoto protocol[2] one has to become aware that energy is not consumed by some abstract institutions such as states or nations but by the people themselves. Therefore, the responsible for global warming is the individual consuming a great amount of energy; that is the individual living in a highly developed industrial nation.
One reason for an unnecessarily high amount of consumed energy is the shifting of sleep and wake periods in the average Western life style. It certainly is an element of greater individual freedom to be able to go to sleep at five o’clock in the morning and to get up at three o’clock in the afternoon. But daylight shines anyway; electric light needs to be generated by the burning of fossil fuels. This contributes to global warming through the burning itself and through the emission of carbon dioxide. The freedom to enjoy activities at every moment of the day also includes the freedom to make a choice for the sake of the environment.
Another example is the use of airplanes for public transport. One can obviously not ask the modern people to renounce to the “individual freedom to fly — a freedom […] that has been a part of the American way of life for this past century”[3] but they need to become aware that it is paid with an accelerated global warming. While one could blame the low ticket prices as a consequence of the absurd policy to tax fuel for cars, trains and busses but not kerosene, it is still the consumer who has the choice. A higher investment of time and money on his or her side could contribute much to environmental protection since a flight uses at least twice as much energy per person as a bus ride[4].
Less well known than the first two examples is the fact that the production of meat as food requires much more energy than the production of plants. As the Green Guide indicates, a diet heavily based on meat costs twice the energy than a diet based on cereals and vegetables[5]. Furthermore, methane, a gas emitted by animal livestock, "is more than 20 times as strong a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide”[6]. To contribute to a sustainable development, it is not necessary to live the “unnatural lifestyle” of a vegetarian[7] but an excessive consumption of meat neither is healthy nor natural, nor environmentally responsible. If low meat prices, possible through mass animal husbandry, encourage a way of life consuming more energy than necessary, it is again the consumer who has the final choice. Freedom does not only mean to do what one feels like but includes a responsibility towards others and the environment.
Already in 1971, the American physicist and science fiction author Isaac Asimov states, that it is simply not possible for all of the then 3.6 billion human beings of the earth to use as much energy as the average American[8]. Even with new, extremely effective technologies, the American way of life for everybody would have dire consequences for our planet. Therefore it can not be the goal to raise everybody’s living standard. On the contrary, energy consumption needs to be limited not only by legal force or new technologies but by a responsible, sustainable life style of each individual.
-
It is scientifically proven that the average global temperature is rising[1] and only very few people still doubt that it is an effect of human action. But while many concentrate on blaming certain governments for not having signed the Kyoto protocol[2] one has to become aware that energy is not consumed by some abstract institutions such as states or nations but by the people themselves. Therefore, the responsible for global warming is the individual consuming a great amount of energy; that is the individual living in a highly developed industrial nation.
One reason for an unnecessarily high amount of consumed energy is the shifting of sleep and wake periods in the average Western life style. It certainly is an element of greater individual freedom to be able to go to sleep at five o’clock in the morning and to get up at three o’clock in the afternoon. But daylight shines anyway; electric light needs to be generated by the burning of fossil fuels. This contributes to global warming through the burning itself and through the emission of carbon dioxide. The freedom to enjoy activities at every moment of the day also includes the freedom to make a choice for the sake of the environment.
Another example is the use of airplanes for public transport. One can obviously not ask the modern people to renounce to the “individual freedom to fly — a freedom […] that has been a part of the American way of life for this past century”[3] but they need to become aware that it is paid with an accelerated global warming. While one could blame the low ticket prices as a consequence of the absurd policy to tax fuel for cars, trains and busses but not kerosene, it is still the consumer who has the choice. A higher investment of time and money on his or her side could contribute much to environmental protection since a flight uses at least twice as much energy per person as a bus ride[4].
Less well known than the first two examples is the fact that the production of meat as food requires much more energy than the production of plants. As the Green Guide indicates, a diet heavily based on meat costs twice the energy than a diet based on cereals and vegetables[5]. Furthermore, methane, a gas emitted by animal livestock, "is more than 20 times as strong a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide”[6]. To contribute to a sustainable development, it is not necessary to live the “unnatural lifestyle” of a vegetarian[7] but an excessive consumption of meat neither is healthy nor natural, nor environmentally responsible. If low meat prices, possible through mass animal husbandry, encourage a way of life consuming more energy than necessary, it is again the consumer who has the final choice. Freedom does not only mean to do what one feels like but includes a responsibility towards others and the environment.
Already in 1971, the American physicist and science fiction author Isaac Asimov states, that it is simply not possible for all of the then 3.6 billion human beings of the earth to use as much energy as the average American[8]. Even with new, extremely effective technologies, the American way of life for everybody would have dire consequences for our planet. Therefore it can not be the goal to raise everybody’s living standard. On the contrary, energy consumption needs to be limited not only by legal force or new technologies but by a responsible, sustainable life style of each individual.
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)
