...

As a whole, Mankind believes their pre-eminence is a result of strength and endurance. However, it seems to me that this sense of entitlement and superiority is not grounded in fact. If you consider Man’s historical accomplishments, you will find that he does one of two things: he constantly mimics the natural world or he pillages it (ironic and hypocritical if you ask me). He has no reverence for the species that provide for him; he ignores the kinship between himself and others. Yet he still stands on a pedestal when viewing the world.

Many of the drugs man takes are called antibiotics. By definition an antibiotic is a naturally resistant substance produced by bacteria. Even though man labels the drugs as antibiotics they should actually be referred to as semi-synthetic antibiotics. This is because, in a nut shell, scientist take the substance that bacteria produce, mess around with it a bit, and then market it in a pill. This is an example of how mankind mimics nature.


Most of Mankind has culturally evolved so as not to feel compassion- “the feeling or emotion, when a person is moved by the suffering or distress of another, and by the desire to relieve it” (41)- for any species but their own (and even this can be debated). However, for all of our moral, scientific, and technological development and “superiority” why has it occurred to so few to extend their humanness (being “gentle or kindly in demeanor or action” (43)) and sympathetic imagination to other species? Unfortunately, though Man considers it “immoral and anti-empathetic” to blatantly mistreat animals, he is to consumed with his selfishness to make any revolutionary, behavioral changes (Dick 13).

Not only does Man belong to the same kingdom as the species he suppresses, but he is also unquestionably dependent on them. Just as a child is expected to respect the elders that provide for it, Man should respect the resources and beings that provide for him; yet, even when he is fully aware of the implications of his actions (particularly the suffering and pain he forces on other living beings) he chooses to disregard his life source. Bentham phrases it best when he says, “animals, which, on account of their interests having been neglected by the insensibility of the ancient jurists, stand degraded into the class of things” (46).

(Sorry about the crude picture!) Though we have discussed this before, I feel that, in the case of this DB, it is necessary to reiterate the cruelty man subjects many animals to. I don't believe there is anything wrong with eating meat, but I have strong objects to the way animals are treated in slaughter houses. Moreover, I do not condone using animals for clothing products or entertainment.

Not only does man show limited regard for the natural world, but he also refuses to acknowledge the depth and spirit of it. In the following quote the French philosopher Derrida is referring to a cat: “… Seeing oneself seen naked under a gaze that is vacant to the extent of being bottomless, at the same time innocent and cruel perhaps, perhaps sensitive and impassive, good and bad, uninterpretable, unreadable, undecidable, abyssal and secret… offers to my sight the abyssal limit of the human” (26). There is a complex simplicity to this description that captures, in my opinion, the cat’s complete disregard for the pettiness of humans. Though Derrida is referring to being naked under the cat’s gaze, I think the basic theme of his argument can be extended to any unnecessary luxury Man feels he needs.

Above are just a few examples of the luxury items that many people need to define who they are. I think it is interesting that we are the only animal on the planet that will go to such lengths to developing

Darwin 2: Ethics

The only person to determine an individual’s worth is the individual themselves. They are the ones who must look in the mirror and find contentment in their decisions. Ultimately, the neighbor’s disapproval weighs little on a person’s conscience if that person knows they’ve reached a decision by fairly and thoroughly weighing their options. Which is why, though I desire security and material things, I would chose to be compassionate over being selfish.

Carnegie justifies his industry by arguing that insuring “survival of the fittest in every department” is the reason for our “wonderful material development, which brings improved conditions in its train.” This doesn’t make sense to me. How does our race benefit from a ridiculously wealthy man forcing employees to work in dangerous environment with substandard pay? Sure, a society’s industry may advance, but the people won’t. Their way of life won’t get any better. If one wanted to improve society (and not one’s wealth) then it would seem offering one’s employees fair wages, safe working conditions, and rights would be the way to go. This boils down to Sigmund and May’s idea of reciprocal aid. Reciprocal aid is “more vulnerable to abuse” because “each could gain still more by withholding its contribution”. Gain more at what cost and for what end though?

Though this is a photo of Rockefeller I believe it still applies to this DB. Carnegie and Rockefeller were both big business men who had no qualms with suppressing their workers, polluting the environment, and funneling money to people who were least deserving.

I don’t believe we are wired to manipulate others in order to ensure our own survival.

I agree with Kropotkin when he says that compassion, “Mutual Aid and Mutual Support”, are “of the greatest importance for the maintenance of life, the preservation of each species, and its further evolution.” The way Carnegie (and many other CEOs) run their business and control their industry does little for mankind. In fact, they exploit and dominate weaker individuals and businesses. It seems to me that Carnegie justifies his actions as “societal evolution” to make himself feel better; he isn’t talking about the evolution of our society though- he’s talking about his own cultural evolution. Cultural evolution is egocentric for it is “a desire to perpetuate itself by setting up expectations and assigning roles…” (Pinker 470).

What I found Kropotkin's argument convincing because he included actual scientific observation. He is not simply an idealist who hopes that compassion is an aspect of man's nature.

Darwin 3: vs. Tennyson

“Nature, with equal mind,
Sees all her sons at play;
Sees man control the wind,
The wind sweep man away;
Allows the proudly riding and the founder’d bark.”
Matthew Arnold
(Appleman 654)

My views on nature and evolution have gotten me into some heated discussions. I don’t believe animals should be held in captivity for the sake of entertainment, science, or pleasure. Though I love animals, I don’t believe they should by domesticated pets. These beliefs stem from a respect for animals: dogs don’t have pet humans, so humans shouldn’t have pet dogs. This respect transfers to all living organisms- I don’t like roaches, but I understand that they have just as much of a right to survive as I do. In fact, they do more good for the world than mankind ever will.


What would we think if we were the ones sitting trees, watching other animals (dogs, cats, monkeys, etc.) walking around in suites with laptops and cell phones? Would we be impressed? Mildly curious? Indifferent? Resentful?

This respect translates into my philosophy of life: “Nature has no special regard for humankind” (Stevenson 653). By no means do I mean this in a negative way. Rather, instead of viewing the world from an anthropocentric lens, I’d like to understand it as it understands me. I believe if the spirit of nature could verbalize everything it felt, there would not be one ounce of regard for mankind. “It” birthed us, gave us life. Without “it” we would literally not exist. “It” doesn’t need us- “it” doesn’t want us. If one striped us of our language, politics, “knowledge”, morals, technology, and everything else that we believe makes us superior, we’d be just as inconsequential as the house fly.


Without this raging ball of fire we would not exist. Plants and animals would not exist. Along with water, the sun is every living organisms main source of life. If man worships anything, it should be the sun, it should be nature. Nature provides for us, and the sun provides for it. I believe I am a product of evolution, so, when asked about spirituality or worship, I say the sun is my God.

(I’d be much less melodramatic though)

The key word is “instant fix”. It’s the solution that every young Westerner seeks, the solution that they settle for. This mindset represents the deterioration of our society: creating instant fixes is a lucrative business that inspires Big Businesses like McDonalds; instant fixes encourage people to develop solutions/relationships that lack vital infrastructure (consider Health Care and Global Warming); and instant fixes lead to an unrealistic interpretation of the world. This mindset has also played a strong role in raising the “Dumbest Generation” yet, where “reading” has become anathema: “we don’t read pages. We scan them [because] we’re usually in a hurry”; when the author looks “at most Web pages, I’m struck by the fact that most of the words I see are just taking up space, because no one is ever going to read them” (Krug 2006, pp. 22, 48).”


Companies that cater to Americans’ laziness are making millions of dollars annually. Not only are they promoting this “instant fix” mindset, but they are also applying it to their business. This means that unhealthy and dangerous items are being marketed to Americans.

By no means do I think that I am except from this trend. I recognize it, I detest it, but my life is also consumed by it. And my experience creating the portfolio has given me an insight into just how lazy I am. Time management wasn’t an issue for me: I began the project about a week and a half before it was due. My issue was apathy. I cared about the project, I enjoyed learning from it, but I didn’t want to use any program that would require an absurd amount of time (like Dreamweaver), and I definitely did not want to read the directs that would have made it a hell of a lot easier. The effort that a program like Dreamweaver required was too much for me- I had better things to do… sleep, eat, catch up on Dexter episodes, and study for finals. Same thing for the instructions- I just asked David or Andrew, and they told me what the instructions said.

My mindset for this project was simple: use the program that was easiest and quickest! Recognizing how this approach has affected my school work and education has forced my to reconsider why I am here. Even if creating websites isn’t something I enjoy doing in my spare time, I am paying (in some way or another) around four thousand dollars to do it. If I don’t commit to learning as much as I can now (with so many resources and people available to me) then I have no real purpose.


By putting forth the minimal effort in my school work, I’m throwing my money away.

So- I found the project tedious, overwhelming, and difficult. I chose the easy way out (by using Publisher) because I was intimidated, but I also learned that, at this point in my life (or any for that matter!) I can’t afford to take the easy way out.