Review of "Are we all capable of violence"

The author has mentioned that we are born to be violent and have the capability to do so due to our human nature ability and our liking for it. I agree that all humans can be violent if they choose to be so and that we have our nature traits to thank for attributing to the violent state we can be at. There was never doubt that anyone can be violent as mentioned in the article. However, we have controlled our actions and emotions to prevent us from being aggressive and turn to violence. There are various factors that make us less violent and more forgiving in the sense that we do not always resort to violence to solve everything.


The author mentioned that aggression or being violent is a type of characteristics we always have as humans. This is true that in fact almost all living organisms can turn to violence when needed. This is a natural trait or feature that has helped evolved us, humans, to be more superior than the others on Earth. We are able to control it within us. That is what makes us special. But we are still potentially able to unleash it if we become emotionally unstable or not in the right state of mind. All this will then come to the issue of how to develop humans and to inculcate them the right set of moral values and senses. It is the environment that we live in and the influence we get from the people around us that define our characters. Imagine born in a culture where killing others and using violence to resolve conflicts are the norms, then you will definitely be violent and abusive. Hence, environment plays an important part in curbing or promoting violence to the humans.


Also, humans can turn to violence when they become desperate or being stimulated to be so. As previously mentioned, we can controlled our own actions and behaviour due to our ability to think. However, sometimes humans can be too emotional and become very agressive. For instance, the tamil tigers in Sri Lanka. The tamils there are badly treated and there is no way the tamils can do to alleviate the problem.They were denied basic human rights and were not treated equally. Thus, some turn to violence and to use force against the goverment to show their anger.Using violence then is their last option and they will definitely take this chance to make their point across to the government. This shows that when humans are to being driven to a corner or being badly treated, they will retaliate and become very mad, thus going on to use violence. This is a simple logic that can make anyone violent, even animals too.


In the case of Singapore's society, there are only rare cases where humans resort to violence to get what they want. There is one recent case of a professor in NTU being stabbed by a student from Indonesia(or Phillipines) who was rejected a scholarship to study here in Singapore. This is one isolated case where the student felt that the professor is against him and hence decided to stab him before killing himself. The students here in Singapore are actually well educated to be wise enough to control themselves rather than being too emotional and resort to violence. Whereas in other countries like America, there have been students commiting suicide killings just because they feel they are unwanted or bullied. Nevertheless, they too have their 'reasons' for doing so and all this goes to show how violent we can be if we are to be 'forced' to do so.

Are we all capable of violence?

By Diene Petterle

It was one of the thorniest questions of the 20th Century and it remains a conundrum today. Are all "ordinary" people potentially violent?

The human race is both appalled and fascinated by violence. Man's aggression spans the globe - from terrorist attacks to guerrilla wars to gang-related crime.

It is everywhere, and it binds all nations and races together. But where does it begin? Do we learn it or is it something instinctive?

Most of us think of ourselves as calm and peaceful people.

We're brought up to try and resolve all conflict peaceably and tend to think that violence is something that "other" people commit, not ourselves. But is it?

Is it possible that you, or your mother or daughter or son, could ever be driven to commit a dreadful crime? Do we have that level of violence in ourselves?

The answer is yes.

Contrary to popular belief, we are born violent. Until the age of three, our impulses run riot. There is no stopping the urges which come from the emotional centre in our brains.

But as we grow up, we start to develop the part of the brain that allows us to control our aggression - the pre-frontal cortex. Yet crucially, how well this control mechanism works depends on our experiences.

Festival of violence

Being taught to share and take turns rather than resolve conflict with violence actually changes the physical structure of the brain and therefore makes us less aggressive.

But trying to resolve conflict peaceably is not something all cultures subscribe to. In the Bolivian Andes, one tribe settles disputes which arise over the year in an annual festival of violence, known as the Tinku.

The way people with no history of violence committed atrocities during World War II has provoked much discussion

Their warrior tradition dictates that men, women and even children should learn to fight and deaths are not unheard of.

Neuroscientist Maria Couppis argues that their brains are different from the norm because they were socialised to resolve conflicts this way.

This suggests that although we are all born with a violent potential, our upbringing and the environment play a key part in creating violence controls in our brain.

Not only are we born violent, we are also chemically programmed to love it. Inside the brain a pleasure-inducing chemical called dopamine is released when we fight.

Dopamine informs the brain that we're having a good time. But the problem doesn't stop there - the rush we get from dopamine can get us physically addicted to violence. The more we have it, the more we want it.

Primeval pleasure

Danny Brown, a former hooligan, knows better than most just how far one can go to get this "hit". He was sent to prison for stabbing a rival fan but even that didn't stop him. The rush of hooliganism was too strong to resist.

"I was never into drinking or drugs. Fighting was my heroin."

It's only when your violent impulses are triggered that you realise you are out of control Prof Charles Golden

Fighting is a primeval pleasure controlled by the frontal part of the brain. But how easy is it for us to lose control? Crimes of passion are an everyday occurrence and perpetrators often don't know what came over them. How is this explained? What is it that drives them to lose it?

Neuro-psychology expert Prof Charles Golden says we can all easily lose control and commit an extreme act of violence. All we need is for there to be a breakdown in the pre-frontal cortex and that can be triggered by anything from a car accident or repeated blows to the head in a game of rugby.

In fact, physical injury is not the only way to cause the cortex to shut down. Depression, alcohol abuse, drugs, lack of sleep and even the natural ageing process can all injure our violence controls.

Control mechanisms

"One of my patients is a priest," says Prof Golden. "He spent all his life helping people and one day he had a car accident. In the hospital, the doctors sent him home saying he was completely fine.

"For a month he didn't notice anything was wrong. But then he had a fight with his wife and completely lost it. He very nearly killed her. So much so that she left him straight away.

Many are forced into violent action and desensitised

"The scary thing is that in your everyday life you just don't notice there's anything wrong. It's only when your violent impulses are triggered that you realise you are out of control. But by then it's probably too late."

It's hard to accept that we're born violent, that we enjoy it, and that all our control mechanisms can easily be broken.

But if we think about why most people get killed, it isn't because of a crime of passion or a sudden rush of violence - it is because of war and genocide. It is because someone deliberately decided to kill another person.

Emmanuel Jal, a former child soldier in the Sudan, has personal experience of how a traumatic experience can lead you to deliberately want to kill another human being.

He had a healthy and happy childhood until one day war tore his hopes for a normal life. His mother disappeared, his village was burnt down and he lost everything he had.

Justified aggression

He became convinced that the people who did this to him deserved to die, and joined the rebel army. With them, he killed and tortured many people.

He is now trying to re-build his life and share with the world the idea that violence only creates more violence.

Emmanuel Jal's experience is extreme. But how extreme does a situation need to be for you or I to be convinced that violence is justified against another person?

Sometimes violence is explained by alcohol consumption or other factors

Most of us can imagine that if someone harmed our children or loved ones, we might engage in violence. But could we ever harm someone who hasn't caused us any harm, merely because of an idea or ideology?

The much-cited Milgram experiment of 1961 suggests the answer might be yes. Members of the public were asked to give a shock to a "volunteer" every time they got an answer from a multiple questions test wrong. The shocks were to be increased incrementally, up until the lethal 450v shock.

What the participants didn't know was that the "volunteer" was acting and hadn't been receiving shocks. But still two-thirds were prepared to deliver the "fatal" 450v shock because of the supervision of a white-coated authority figure.

The experiment has often been used as the proof that we are all capable of violence within a certain framework. We struggle to accept this, but the science seems to suggest we are wrong.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8043688.stm

*Review to be followed...

review on 'Every Day Is Earth Day?'

The writer mentioned that ever since Earth Day was enacted, it became the catalyst for a series of nature-based legislation and eventually the emergence of a mainstream environmental movement. I believe this statement to be rather true but there are doubts pertaining to how successful it has led to environmental conservancy. No doubt Earth Day has been well-received since its debut, with approximately 20 million Americans participating in the first modern environmental movement, with a goal of a healthy, sustainable environment.

 

The matter of concern is that despite the raise in awareness and participation in saving the environment, the environmental damage till date is still of concern. Till date, environmental damage is still one of the world’s most pressing issues and has since escalated to one demanding high attention, there is yet much to do salvage the situation.

 

The writer stated that the first Earth Day was like the sounding of a bullhorn for the people to unite and get moving, which worked. But this year, 39 years later, the original intent has long eroded. The one-day demonstration that started a movement lost most of its luster decades ago. This is profoundly true because despite the supposed action to address this environmental issue that has been plaguing us, the situation has been on the decline instead.

 

The writer criticizes the demonstration and that it has been, and has gradually lost its eminency and effect. The sole purpose of this establishment is for the one cause that we have strived to achieve-saving the earth. Yet through years of ineffectual celebration of this movement have seen the earth declining into a more worrying state.

 

Some environmentalists have become critical of Earth Day, particularly those in the environmentalism camp. They charge that Earth Day has come to symbolize the marginalization of environmental sustainability, and that the celebration itself has outlived its usefulness.

 

This inutile practice that the writer compares to that of a snooze; what was originally intended as the sound the world has adopted has only managed to shed some weight off our burden. What was originally intended as the sounding of an alarm has been reproduced each year in the exact same way-it is hard to be motivated by a screeching alarm when you've been hitting the snooze button for the last four decades. I believe what needs to be done now is that the world should put in place a new plan to tackle this ageing problem of environmental damage, because it is evident that the campaigns of old are diminishing in effect and are now merely a façade of environmental movement; there is not really much done to bail ourselves out of this mess.

 

Despite the diminution of Earth Day and its campaigns, I feel that we should not do away with it as it unites the world to a familiar cause. Ardent environmentalists hold some contempt at the idea of still having an annual, one-day celebration. It marks recognition of where the conservation movement has come from, and where it is going. It should serve as a depiction of our continuous efforts in our endeavors to save the earth. What the world needs now is not a banishment of Earth Day, but instead a brand new, much broader, more frequent and much more inclusive movement as hinted by the writer.

 

The writer stated that the mantra that developed in the years following the original Earth Day was that "Earth Day is Every Day”. I believe this could well be a very possible and feasible plan to work on; the only way to positively eliminate or rather to reduce environmental damage is for everyone to make an effort. There is no point in enacting movements or campaigns if there is no meaningful participation or purposeful involvement in it; they require proactivity active involvement for it to be fruitful.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Every Day Is Earth Day?

If only it were so. Why it may be time to give up the one-day-a-year celebration

 It's widely debated how exactly it started, but the roots of the modern environmental movement trace back to the 1960s. Early in the decade,Rachel Carson published her nonfiction work "Silent Spring" as a wake-up call to current and impending environmental concerns. Several years later,U.S. Sen. Gaylord Nelson (of Wisconsin), one of the government's first eco warriors, sought to harvest general awareness and turn it into a movement. He hit on the idea of an event, modeled after the anti-Vietnam war teach-ins of the day, to raise eco consciousness nationwide. The event that turned into the first "Earth Day" took place on April 22, 1970, and became the catalyst for a series of nature-based legislation and eventually the emergence of a mainstream environmental movement.

Back then, the issues were only broadly understood. There was some talk about extinctions of wildlife, scarce groundwater supplies and a niche-but-growing theory about something called climate change (Was the Earth, NEWSWEEK wondered in the 1970s, getting colder—or was it getting warmer?). Still, there was an emerging consensus that our planet's resources are not infinite, and if the exploitation of them remained unaddressed, bigger problems awaited. The takeaway for the 20 million people who participated that first Earth Day in 1970 was simple: we all live on the same rock; let's not foul our nest.

The first Earth Day was like the sounding of a bullhorn for the people to unite and get moving, which worked. But this year, 39 years later, the original intent has long eroded. The one-day demonstration that started a movement lost most of its luster decades ago. Yet we still have it—and that has alarming implications for our environmental progress. What was originally intended as the sounding of an alarm has been reproduced each year in the exact same way. The problem is, it's hard to be motivated by a screeching alarm when you've been hitting the snooze button for the last four decades. Even worse, maintaining an old solution to a problem that changes by the minute seems to compartmentalize a movement that, by now, should be much broader, more frequent and much more inclusive.

Ardent environmentalists hold some contempt at the idea of still having an annual, one-day celebration. As a friend who's an environmental researcher told me last week, Earth Day for environmental professionals is like Easter for Christians: it's a good excuse to have a party, but the real discipleship is supposed to happen all year. In other words, the eco roar that once captivated the world's attention somehow turned into an annual whimper of corporate sponsorships and moving yet empty speeches about the future of our children. "It's been reduced to planetary sound bites," says Chip Giller, the editor of the environmental online magazine Grist.org, which this month launched a "Screw Earth Day" campaign. "It's not about a single day, dude, it's about living green every day," reasoned David Roberts, one of the site's writers, in response to criticism of the site's irreverent take on the celebration.

In that sense , it's safe to think of modern celebrations of Earth Day as an annual tradition, something akin to, say, Mothers Day, when we're supposed to celebrate on one day how much we love mothers all year. And there's great virtue in annual celebrations, even an annual ode to Mother Nature. In a larger sense, it marks a recognition of where the conservation movement has come from, and where it's going.

 

 

Loud advocacy on the National Mall and assembly fields across the country do indeed spread awareness of what people can do to help. It also opens the tent of the movement and encourages people to modestly change their lifestyle. Some thinkers, like environmental historian William Cronon, see an undeniable value in how, given the diversity of environmental issues—inner city health, global warming, renewable energy—an annual day of environmental reckoning brings everyone to the table to take stock of the broader movement.

But when it comes to environmental progress, shouldn't we be further along in 2009? And if we're not, it's certainly a signal that we've got to move faster. "We've got to accept that we're never going to solve a problem as big as global warming as individuals," says Adam Rome, a Penn State professor of human interaction with nature, who's working on a book about the first Earth Day. "Expecting present-day Earth Day to change society is ridiculous." Having an annual open house implies that there are still people on the outside who have yet to come in. And when they see environmentalists going big one day of the year, it suggests the rest of the days they go home, which doesn't quite attach urgency to the issue.

No one can belittle the accomplishments of the modern environmental movement. As the science has advanced, so too has the sheer number of groups and dollars devoted to conservation and activism. Yet a singular Earth Day—the same kind that we had in 1970 when we knew much less—suggests that we still haven't moved much, or at all. It makes it appear that environmental protection is still a franchise issue, one of many, that we don't have time to address as our busy lives race, so we make time to celebrate once each year.

The mantra that developed in the years following the original Earth Day was that "Earth Day is Every Day," or at least that it should be. That kitschy statement (who can disagree?) hung on a poster in my elementary school, two decades ago. The fact that we still, 39 years later, have one loud day devoted to environmental prudence belies that pursuit of diligent year-round conservation. As we approach the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, it's a contradiction worth noting

 

Review on "Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against Church?"

It is said that gay marriages will result in churches turning against other churches because of what they believe and support. Gay marriage is a very controvertial issue which many people have different views and opinions on. I for one, think that gay marriages is something which can be allowed, but not encouraged.

Many think that homosexuality is morally wrong. But how does one define "morally wrong"? It depends on how the individual perceives it. Some people may object violently towards homosexuality while others feel that it is perfectly fine. The different teachings from different culture also leads to people having differing views on the issue. This, will definitely bring tension and conflict between the various teachings, as mentioned in the article.

I agree with the author about gay marriage resulting in clashes between churches as different churches have different teachings. "Some churches and denominations have capitulated to the demands of the homosexual rights movement, and now accept homosexuality as a fully valid lifestyle", as such, clashes will happen due to the differing views and teachings.

Saying "yes" to gay marriages may cause harm to society itself. Because by agreeing to gay marriages, it is akin to supporting homosexuality. This may result in the younger generations to be influenced by it and will result in many of them thinking that it is alright to be gay or lesbian and would turn that, thinking that it is the norm. If that were to be the case, then society would be in trouble. when that happens, the birth rates might be lower than ever, affecting not only the economy, but also the defence of the country.

However, it is really up to the individual to decide whether it is alright for gays to get married. Ultimately, it is the individuals who decide whether to get married or not and not the community or the society. Moreover, most countries are democratic, where everybody have their own rights. Wouldn't we be breaking human rights law if we deprive gays the right to get married? Gays are also normal human beings like you and me who have feelings with the ability to think, except for the fact that they are more inclined towards people of the same sex. But apart from that, we are the same. So how can we stop them from doing what they want, when it does not harm anyone?

There had been a repeal to Penal code 377A in Singapore. Gay rights activists say the law against homosexual sex affects about 200 000 people in Singapore. However, the Singapore Parliament did not repeal Section 377A, rejecting a petition by gay rights activists and their homosexual supporters to abolish the law. The had been many protests from the public as well. The differing views of people was part of the factor for consideration when deciding this.

Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against Church?
By Michael A. Lindenberger Sunday, Apr. 26, 2009

The fight over gay marriage may be far from over, but already some conservative Christian leaders are looking beyond the courtroom dramas and the legislative infighting. The trouble they see is not just an America where general support for gay marriage will have driven a wedge between churches and the world, but between churches themselves.

"More than anything else, these developments may signal the fact that those who, on biblical grounds, are led by conscience to reject same-sex marriage, really will be exposed as a moral minority," the Rev. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a staunch defender of traditional definition of marriage, told TIME recently. "If so, it will expose a great divide over the authority of the Bible among many Christian churches and denominations — perhaps in a way exceeding any other issue." (Check out the story "What If You're on the Gay 'Enemies List.'")

Ever since Jesus told followers to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's," preachers have been warning about a clash between "the world" and "the church." But now Mohler is predicting something more, a clash between churches themselves. (Most recently, the Anglican Communion has been paralyzed by debate over the consecration of gay bishops.) Writing on Thursday morning in his personal blog, Mohler laid out his thoughts more clearly still. "No issue defines our current cultural crisis as clearly as homosexuality. Some churches and denominations have capitulated to the demands of the homosexual rights movement, and now accept homosexuality as a fully valid lifestyle," he wrote. "Other denominations are tottering on the brink, and without a massive conservative resistance, they are almost certain to abandon biblical truth and bless what the Bible condemns. Within a few short years, a major dividing line has become evident — with those churches endorsing homosexuality on one side, and those stubbornly resisting the cultural tide on the other." (Read the story "A Gay Marriage Solution: End Marriage?")

Mohler's view is, to a certain extent, shared by Joseph E. Kurtz, Archbishop of Louisville, who leads an ad hoc panel of U.S. Catholic bishops set up to fight gay marriage. He too sees a potential future when a greater acceptance of homosexuality leads to pressure on churches to conform, and even to change their teachings. "There are grave threats that decisions by the courts, legislative actions or regulations could erode religious freedom," Kurtz tells TIME. "With regard to marriage, this implicates the right of Catholics to practice our beliefs. Here we are talking about the bedrock of society, it's not just a belief, it's written on the hearts of every human person."

Unlike the Baptist's stark outlook, however, Kurtz is more optimistic that the fight to preserve a traditional definition of marriage is not doomed — and is actively forming alliances and organizing to shore up the one-man-and-one-woman concept of matrimony. He sent a letter last fall to Thomas Monson, president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, praising Mormon support for Prop 8, the ballot-initiative in California that made gay marriage unconstitutional. That state's Supreme Court is expected to rule on the validity of the amendment soon.

Kurtz concedes there have been wins for supporters of gay marriage lately, but last November's statewide votes against gay marriage in California, Arizona and Florida buoyed him. "It's hard for any of us to have a crystal ball to know our culture society will move," says Kurtz. "The Catholic Church will certainly respond with a commitment to truth and love. ... November is not all that long ago, and I still believe that getting out the message about marriage, with a commitment to both truth and love, will succeed. In upholding the traditional definition of marriage, there is not a desire to punish or hurt anyone. We want to do a better job of communicating our concern for all, for both those who agree, and disagree."

Mohler sees the true church as a body comprised of believers who refuse to give ground on gay marriage. So does the Catholic Church, which has shown no willingness to change its own teachings, rooted as they often are in centuries of tradition. But, except for the November referendums, solidarity among fellow-thinkers has not borne much fruit. And a recent swarm of dire ads warning of a "gathering storm" of gay rights mostly backfired. "Those advocates want to change the way I think," a woman says in one of the most-viewed commercials. Another adds, "I will have no choice." And another warns that she will soon be faced with a choice between "my job and my faith." The ads prompted hundreds of thousands of views on Youtube.com, but they mainly served to show how far removed their creators were from the zeitgeist. The Colbert Report mocked the ads, and countless parodies have sprung up across the Internet at the expense of the ads' grave-faced actors.

So while both men are calling for courage and compassion among their flocks, it's not clear yet whether their message that homosexuals are sinners by definition is resonating beyond their staunchest supporters. Of course, that may be just fine with both men, who see in the future a kind of purifying ordeal that will sort out the true church from the others.

Review to 'Russia's Rearm'

I believe that Russia's recent approach to rebuild its military defence is untimely as now a bigger crisis is on the surface- unemployment. I acknowledge the fact that military defence is an important aspect in the country's survival however the priority should be placed at reducing the unemployment rate by spending big money into creating new jobs or sustain the economy rather than on improving the technology of military weapons. Satisfying the people's needs and desires are clearly important as a country's government can not afford to displease the people as democracy is mostly used. Hence, the inceased spending in military defence is a risk-involving move as people's needs are misplaced in this case.

However, as Russia's approach to increase their military power, the weapon technology is being constantly upgraded and is also a source of income for Russia by selling the manufactured weapons to other countries. But, the purpose of the income generated is not clear on whether it is used to rebuild the economy or to further fund them in the upgrading of military power. Supposingly if the generated income is used to rebuild the economy, we can claim that the approach is well-planned as Russia can now strengthen the military and also rebuild the economy using the income generated, however it will be a bad one if it's not the above case.

Also, Guy Anderson mentioned, "The West sees it as saber-rattling, but for Russia it is about retaking what it sees as its rightful position in the world". For the West, the rebuilding of the military is alarming as there's hardly the need to engage in any conflicts or fighting in the near future and yet the Russians are still reinforcing their arms and in the eyes of the peace loving countries.