Academic Essays

Arguments For and Against Birth Control

What is Birth Control?

When it comes to birth control, the idea of being against it or for it, comes down to what an individual defines birth control as being. In some opinions, anything that prevents or terminates a pregnancy would be considered some type of birth control. Others would limit their definition of birth control only to those things that actually prevent a pregnancy, (i.e. birth control pills, condoms, diaphragms, or surgeries such as hysterectomies). For the purposes of this paper, the definition of birth control will be limited to those forms that simply prevent pregnancy and not those that terminate a pregnancy.

Arguments For Birth Control

In what is probably the most hailed purpose for birth control is its usage as a means of controlling the population. Proponents of this idea state that the world, with its population of 7 billion plus people, is greatly overpopulated. It is only through the use of birth control that we can stop this meteoric ride to self-destruction by the inability of the earth to sustain our population.

Another argument in favor of birth control is concern for those who simply can’t afford to raise children. In some cases this might mean that the parents already have 1 or 2 children, but would become financially strapped were they to have more. In other cases, some couples want to have children, but would rather wait a few years until they are more financially able to afford them. In cases such as these, advocates say, birth control needs to be readily available and affordable.

A third argument for the need of the availability of inexpensive birth control is in situations in which a woman is not healthy enough to have a child. Although medical advances have made the incidences of endangerment, and even death, a much smaller problem than in years past, there are still women today who might possibly suffer serious consequences related either to the pregnancy or the birth itself. These are the women who would benefit from the availability of birth control products, say advocates.

Arguments Against Birth Control

Although many people are for the sale and use of all or at least some of the many forms of birth control, there are still many people who object to the sale or use of any birth control products, regardless of the reason. One such group is that which opposes it on religious grounds. The biggest purveyor of this belief is the Catholic Church. What is the Catholic Church’s reason for denying its congregants the right to practice any type of contraception? According to the Catholic Answers website, Pope Paul VI stated, “it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.” (Birth Control) The Catholic Church teaches that the main, if not only purpose of intercourse is for the purpose of procreation. Although pleasure is allowed in the act, no sexual act is allowed which is for the sole purpose of enjoyment. Thus, intercourse using any type of contraceptive would be deemed sinful according to Catholic doctrine.

Another argument in the debate concerning birth control isn’t so much an argument against birth control itself, as much as it is against the purpose of birth control. Although many people have promoted the use of various methods of birth control to combat the surge in the population, there exists another group that challenges that assertion saying that the earth is indeed not overpopulated. It was said a few years ago, when the earth’s population was roughly six billion, that if all the people in the world at the time were placed in the same location roughly forty feet away from each other, then the whole world population could be gathered together in an area the size of Texas with room left over. When one does the math, they find this statement to be correct. Even with the rise in population to the 7 billion of today, everyone would fit inside of Texas and Oklahoma, and the rest of the world would still be empty. Although land mass isn’t the only factor when considering whether or not the earth is overpopulated (one must also take into consideration the natural resources, food, and water requirements needed to sustain life), one can see from the example above that the world is a lot bigger place than we give it credit. Regardless, those who say that the earth is far from being overpopulated believe that the earth’s carrying capacity is much higher than the current population. According to the How Stuff Workswebsite, “if everyone on the planet consumed only what he or she needed, 40 billion would be a feasible number”. (Layton)

Weighing All the Facts

No matter what side of the argument you are on, reasons to support your position can always be found. One must look at both sides of the story and compare all the facts available in order to determine which side you will agree with. Notwithstanding, it will always be an interesting debate.

References

Birth Control. Catholic Answers website. Retrieved April 5, 2016 from http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

Layton, Julia. Has Earth reached its carrying capacity? How Stuff Works website. Retrieved April 5, 2016 from http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/earth-carrying-capacity.htm

© 2018 Stephen Moore

China: A Discussion of the “Middle Kingdom”, Population, and Industrialization

China’s history has been long and varied throughout her existence. From ancient times to modern, she has seen and made great strides both in her influence around the world, and amongst those of her own people. China is the originator of inventions such as paper, printing, the compass, and gunpowder. The Great Wall, the Summer Palace, the Temple of Heaven, and the Yun Gang Grottoes are only a touch of the magnificent architectural structures that the Chinese have forged in her long history. However, China has also experienced devastating times that have nearly destroyed it and its people. From the feudal dynasties of the past to the failed and disastrous policies of the “Great Leap Forward”, China has seen and experienced times that were almost her undoing. In the midst of her roller coaster ride however, one thing has remained constant: the Sino-centrism of the Chinese people.

This attitude can most readily be seen in the Chinese name for itself: (pronounced Zhang guó) literally means middle kingdom. From ancient times the Chinese have thought of themselves as a superior people who ruled all others from the center of the world. If you weren’t Chinese, you were either a barbarian or at best, a vassal who was forever a servant of the Chinese. While this belief has changed in modern times, the Chinese people today still have a nationalistic pride in their country.

China has long been known for her belief in and use of “soft power”; that is, the domination of another country not by force, but rather through subtle cooperation and attraction. This use of soft power has been around for centuries, even if it has not always been intentional. Many characteristics of Chinese culture have been adopted by neighboring countries. Japan, Korea, and others share certain aspects of Chinese religious beliefs, written script, and the predominate importance of the group being more important than the individual. In more modern times, this use of soft power can be seen in the acceptance of cheap Chinese labor from other countries, which has brought billions of dollars in income to the Chinese government and its people. Even as recently as 2007, Chairman Hu Jintao informed the 17th Communist Party Congress that it was important for China to increase its use of power.

Of course, with the increase of power and prestige comes a whole new slew of problems. In China this can be seem most predominately in the issue of population growth; a continuing problem that has yet to be fully addressed or solved. Even though steps have been taken in recent years to curb the population explosion, it appears to be a problem that will haunt China for many years to come.

Probably the most devastating quest initiated by China’s first chairman, Mao Zedong, was to declare that there was power in numbers, thus encouraging an already extremely large population of people to begin propagating at an unprecedented rate. In 1949, the first year of Mao’s reign, the population of China was already at 541 million, nearly twice that of the population of the United States, the world’s third largest country, in 2011. Today, China boasts, albeit not proudly, of having more than 1.3 billion people at her disposal. China, which has only 7% of the world’s arable land, nonetheless holds roughly 20% of the world’s population.

Despite the fact that nearly 30 million people died due to the disastrous policies instituted during the “Great Leap Forward”, and the many policies put forth by the Chinese government to curb the number of births in China, many other factors have contributed to great increases in the numbers of Chinese people. Amongst these was the fact that between 1945 and 2008, the infant mortality rate fell from 200 per 1,000 to 23 per 1,000. In addition, life expectancy rose from an average of 35 to 74 years. When China instituted the one child policy it was predicted that China’s population would be around 1.25 billion by 2000 and decrease to 500 million by 2070. But these numbers have proven to be way off. In 2000 the population was already at 1.27 billion.

As has happened in many cultures in the past, China was not content to grow at a slow and steady pace. With his introduction of what would become known as the “Great Leap Forward”, Mao Zedong put forth policies putting forth changes which would transform China from a predominately agricultural society to an industrial society. These changes, which were put forth too soon and at too great a pace, would almost completely decimate the land and the people. In an already large and still growing society of people, lowering the amount of agricultural production was almost sure to lead to homegrown famine and starvation. When industrial production began to decline, the already impoverished nation was left with no food, but also no income to purchase food from the outside world. Millions would never live to tell their story.

Since the late 1970s, China has seen a need to make some changes not only to their domestic policies, but also to their foreign policies. It was discovered that if they were to survive as a nation, they must be more open to investment and subsidies from other countries. Deng Xiaoping, Mao Zedong’s successor, saw the value of an open door policy declaring, “It doesn’t matter whether it’s a black cat or a white cat, as long as it catches mice.”

While many improvements were made considering foreign policy during Deng’s time, many more improvements have been since then. In 1998 the Chinese people were encouraged to begin buying their own houses, as opposed to living in company owned houses. This led to a growth in the building sector. Although many businesses still remained the property of the government, many of the decisions formally made by the government, have now been handed over to the firm managers.

Although China has many more years and much more work to do, she has made drastic steps toward becoming a mighty global power. The people of China have the potential and wherewithal to become a great nation, but will they have the patience needed to succeed remains a viable question.

Stephen Moore is an English and history teacher at Shanxi Datong University in Datong, China. He is also a student at Ashworth College where he is pursuing a master’s degree. He writes articles on varying subjects: English, history, the bible, college life, life in China, etc. This article was written for the course Essentials of Sociology at Ashworth College. Other articles by the same author can be read at https://homebase21.weebly.com/.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/9952573

Theories on the Development of Self-Identity

Undoubtedly everyone at some point in their life has posited the question “Who am I?” This, along with “Why am I here?”, “What is the purpose of life?”, and other seemingly transient questions, has been a query that has puzzled philosophers throughout the ages. Individuals and cultures alike have tried to render a verdict for the evidence that has been presented. Although the glut of answers that has been given throughout history has varied tremendously both in scope and nature, they can all be condensed into two basic viewpoints: atheistic and theistic. In the atheistic view, which tends to be the leaning of most modern philosophers, is that we are here, just like everything else – by accident. Over the course of billions of years of evolution, humans, somewhere in the last few million years have developed a conscience – a self-realization. What it is really, is anyone’s guess, but it somehow puts us a little above the plants and flowers, which although are alive, growing, and reproducing, have in themselves no concept of being; they just simply exist, and nothing more. Neither do they care. In this scenario, we really have no existence or purpose in life; we just have a few overdeveloped brain cells that are firing erratically causing us to temporarily become somewhat aware of our existence. When we die, it is all over and we, conscious of our being or not, simply cease to exist. On the other hand, in the theistic view, humans were created by God with a set purpose in life. We are created with a mind (νοῦς nous, understanding), a body (σῶμα, soma, the physical body), and a soul (ψυχή,psuché,breath of life). Following are brief synopses of three prominent sociologists.
Charles Horton Cooley was a professor at the University of Michigan from 1892 until his death in 1929. Dr. Cooley set out to theorize human self-awareness by postulating three elements that define our awareness based on our relationships with those around us. He believed that we first imagine how we appear to those around us, then we interpret the reactions of others based on their perception of us, and finally we develop a self-concept based on how we interpret the reactions of others. He called this theory the “looking-glass self”. He felt that we perceive in our minds how we look or seem to those around us. Regardless of how we feel about ourselves, we often worry about how others regard us. In middle school, we all hope that everyone will think we are cool. In high school we can’t fathom the thought that we won’t be found attractive. In college and throughout life we constantly worry that others will look down on us for some unknown reason. We often evaluate the responses we get from those around us to determine how they feel about us based on how they see us. Do they think we are weak because we are nice? Perhaps they see us as cool because we speak condescendingly to others. If we are quiet by nature, do they perceive us as intelligent, or simply unfriendly? After we have evaluated the reactions of our friends and acquaintances, we will begin to develop ideas about ourselves. He believed that the idea of self was a lifelong, constantly changing, process.
George Herbert Mead also used a three-step process to explain the development of self, however, his steps differed from those proposed by Dr. Cooley. The first of his steps was what he called imitation. In this stage, which begins at an early age, we begin to imitate the actions and words of those around us. We don’t really have a true sense of being; we simply view ourselves as an extension of those around us. In the second stage, called play, we begin the process of learning our self-identity by no longer simply imitating others, but rather by pretending to be them. Although we haven’t fully realized ourselves as being a total and separate entity, we are realizing a step in that direction by showing that we understand that others are individuals who are different from one another. In the final stage we begin to take on the roles of others when we play team sports. In these situations we must learn to play as a team by not only playing our part, but by also knowing the roles that other people play so that we may anticipate their moves. In some cases we might also be required to actively take on their role, such as when a player is hurt and we must substitute for them. It is in these three steps, according to Dr. Mead, that we each develop our own individual identity.
Jean Piaget was a Swiss psychologist who noticed that children often make the same wrong observations in similar situations. He deduced that all children used the same reasoning when presented with a problem, regardless of their background. At the conclusion of years of studying them, Dr. Piaget determined that children go through four stages in the development of reasoning skills. The first stage, which he called the sensorimotor stage, lasts until about the age of two in most children. All of our ideas about self are limited to direct physical touch. We have yet to develop the idea of abstract thought or the ability to realize that actions have consequences. The preoperational stage, which lasts from about age two to age seven, is the period of time where we begin to learn about what he called symbols. That is, anything that we use to represent something else. This terminology not only applies to concrete symbols, such as the male/female silhouettes on bathroom doors, but also to more abstract symbols such as language and counting. Although children begin to use and realize the use of these symbols, they don’t always fully understand their complete meaning. For example, a child may be able to comprehend the difference between one cookie and two cookies, but they would have no concept of the difference between a car that cost $400 and another that cost $40,000. In the third stage, the concrete operational stage which lasts from roughly 7-12 years of age, older children are beginning to grasp the overall meanings of concrete symbols such as numbers (even if they are very large numbers), yet still have difficulties understanding abstract ideas such as love and honesty. In the fourth and final stage of our development, the formal operational stage, we now are beginning to understand abstract ideas. We can now answer not only questions about who, what, where, and when, but we can also begin to answer questions related to why something is right, wrong, beautiful, kind, etc.
Although Charles Cooley and George Mead differed in their approach to the development of self (Cooley’s was more mental in aspect, whereas Mead’s was more physical), their ideas were the same in that their approach was the idea that we look to others to determine our idea of self. Regardless of whether it is our thoughts or actions that are based on those of others, we can’t develop the idea of self without the presence of others. On the same hand though, those we are looking at are also looking back at us to make their own determinations about them selves. What we wind up with then is a case of the blind leading the blind. Jean Piaget on the other hand tended to see us as relying on symbols that help us explain and identify those things around us that in turn are our guide to the development of self-identity. These all, of course, differ from the theistic view which states that we should look to God (Hebrews 12:2, KJV). The Bible recounts a story of the Apostle Paul debating with the philosophers in Athens. In brief Paul says to them, “…as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To The Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. God that made the world and all things therein…neither is worshipped with men’s hands…he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things…they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us…for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said…” (Acts 17:15-34)

Sociological Perspectives of Religion

In the study of sociology, we are presented three varying perspectives concerning our interactions with the world and those in it. Although parts of all three contain some bits of truth, it is this author’s opinion that the structural-functionalism perspective is more in line with that held within the sphere of religion. When discussing our roles in this life, the bible clearly states that there are “diversities of gifts…differences of administrations…and diversities of operations”. (I Corinthians 12:4-6, King James Version) It is unfortunate, however, that many people tend to focus on what others should be doing, and not on their own responsibility. The problem with Karl Marx’s conflict theory is that it focuses solely on one aspect of a problematic situation. In his view, all the rich are evil, and all the poor are good. By his thinking, if you have nothing, it is because those who are wealthy are hoarding it from you, and are by any means possible shielding the wealth, and the means to it, from you. Your only recourse is to rebel and steal what is “rightfully yours”: the Robin Hood complex, so to speak. While this author would never argue that all the wealthy have accrued their riches through just means, he too would never suggest that all the poor are thus, simply because they are being held back by the powerful. Marx fails to take into account that many of the rich have gotten that way through hard work and smart use of their money, and that many of the poor have also entered their state, or remained there, through an irresponsible lifestyle. In the symbolic-interactionist perspective, we are presented with the idea that the symbols, or labels, we place on people determine how we act toward them. The drawback to this theory is that throughout the world, different peoples and cultures will have contradictory symbols when compared with those from other cultures. Even within a culture, these symbols may change in meaning over time. This fact stems in part from the fact that we are taught that there are no absolutes. Thus, we wind up concluding that something is right, only to change our mind about it when in a different place, or even time. Biblically speaking, right is right and wrong is wrong, regardless of where or when you are.
Structural-functionalism is, according to dictionary.com, “a theoretical orientation that views society as a system of interdependent parts whose functions contribute to the stability and survival of the system.” (“Functionalism”) By system, it is meant any number of organizations that have multiple groups or individuals, who by necessity, must act and interact in a specific manner in order that the organism may survive. The use of organism here is in reference to the fact that some sociologists, such as Auguste Comte, saw the interactions of people in a society working much the same way as the different parts of a living organism work together. Although sociologist Robert Merton didn’t view people’s roles in society as being synonymous with the interactions of a living being’s organs, he did believe that each being has its own important role to play. Those who fail to play their part are no longer contributing to the functions of a society. They are, rather, adding dysfunctions, which damage the equilibrium of a society. In religion, as in society, members must act in accordance with their assigned or chosen roles if it is to survive and perpetuate. In I Corinthians 12, Paul compares the church to the human body, where each individual member of the church has a specific function. “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?” (I Cor. 1:12, 14, & 15)
Karl Marx believed that “society is in a state of perpetual conflict due to competition for limited resources” (“What is”, 2016). He believed that this conflict was the result of the wealthy and powerful (the bourgeoisie) hoarding their wealth and oppressing the poor (the proletariat). Marx separated his view of society into three parts: the thesis, the antithesis, and the synthesis. In his model, the thesis was the act of the rich controlling the means of production and wealth, the antithesis was the laborers rebelling against the overlords, and the synthesis was the final society formed. However, this would not be the end, for once the synthesis had formed, it would in turn create another thesis which would eventually lead to another antithesis, and so on. Marx felt that if all conflicts eventually resolved themselves, then the perfect society would have been formed, as everyone would now be equal. Religion touches upon this conflict when the bible discusses the proper relationships between those of different stations. Although the bible does indicate we are all equal in the aspect of our righteousness when it says “…there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” (Psalm 14:3), it does indicate that in our situation in life we may not necessarily be peers with those around us. “But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.” (II Timothy 2:20) What Marx called the antithesis; the bible refers to as rebellion. We should learn to appreciate where we are and what we have. “…for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.” (Philippians 4:11) That isn’t to say that God requires us to be perpetually in a state of ruin. If we apply ourselves, it is possible to dig ourselves out of our unfavorable estate. “If a man therefore purge himself from these (iniquities), he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work” (II Timothy 2:21). What those in power must also realize, the impetus to create a better society isn’t just on the workers; those in charge also have a responsibility. “Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal…” (Colossians 4:1).
The symbolic interactionism perspective states that we view those people and things around us based on what symbols we have attached to them. We view people differently based on whether they are our sister or girlfriend, uncle or father, or any other number of symbols we have assigned to those around us. One caveat of this perspective is that meanings of symbols will change over time. One example is marriage and divorce. The meaning of marriage has changed from two parties uniting in mutual feelings of what they can do for each other to “what can the other do for me?” Divorce is no longer looked down on as a sign of failure, but rather as a symbol of freedom. In the last few years the rate of divorce has skyrocketed, splitting families and even friends. In religion, these same symbols are used; however, because they are designated by God, there is no allowance for change. “I change not.” (Malachi 3:6) In the area of divorce the bible says, “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:6)
So when considering these three perspectives from the viewpoint of the bible, which one should we concentrate on? When considering the symbolic-interactionist perspective, we must keep in mind what the bible says about our relationships with others. “…whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them…” (Matthew 7:12) “…an elder, but treat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren…” (I Timothy 5:1) In a direct clash with the conflict theory, we are commanded biblically to “obey them that have the rule over you…salute them that have the rule over you…” (Hebrews 13:17 & 24), and “…Fear God. Honour the king. Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the forward.” (I Peter 2:17) When considering the structural-functionalism perspective, it is very important to keep in mind that our most important concern should be to fulfill our own responsibilities. After he had assigned roles to his disciples, and one of them had confronted him wanting to know what another disciple was going to do, Jesus said to him, “…what is that to thee? follow thou me.” (John 21:22)

South Africa’s Apartheid Policy of 1948

In order to fully understand the rise of apartheid (Afrikaans: apartness) and its ensuing polices, it is necessary that the history of South Africa prior to 1948 first be comprehended. For many years this area, once known as the Boer Republic, had long been ruled by whites who had come from Europe. Up until 1899, this area was ruled by Afrikaans-speaking Dutch settlers. When the British Empire invaded in 1899, the Boer republic consisted of two independent states: the South African Republic, and the Orange Free State.

This Second Boer War, which lasted nearly three years, would end in a British victory. Both Boer republics were annexed by the British Empire and were subsequently incorporated into the Union of South Africa in 1910. In spite of the fact that they had once been enemies, Great Britain and the Union of South Africa became allies and joined forces against the German Empire in World War I. Former generals in the Boer War against Great Britain, Prime Minister Louis Botha and Defense Minister Jan Smuts, were now both members of the Imperial War Cabinet

Defense Minister Smuts was a member of the United Party. In 1948 his party was defeated by the Reunited National Party (RNP) headed by Protestant cleric Daniel Malan, who ran on a policy of apartheid. The RNP joined forces with the Afrikaner Party and later merged to form the National Party (NP). Malan became the prime minister, and thus was started the era of apartheid.

Apartheid legislation in reality was not anything new, as it was in fact based on former British laws that Great Britain had put into place after the Anglo-Boer war in an effort to keep the different races segregated. Using the British laws as a model, the NP leaders reasoned that South Africa was not a united nation, but rather four nations separated along racial lines. While some of their reasoning might seem strange to us today, they were in fact in line with most beliefs of the day that tended to not only look down on interactions between different races, but in many cases deemed them immoral, or even in certain situations illegal.

Although there were several sub-groups designated, the country was divided into four main racial groups: whites, blacks, Indians, and colored. The whites were either immigrants from or descendants of English and Afrikans speaking immigrants from Europe.

There were two types of apartheid laws instituted: grand apartheid and petty apartheid. Grand apartheid was the separation of peoples along racial lines. The grand apartheid laws separated the cities into small townships where people were moved to based on skin color. All interaction between the races was illegal. Petty apartheid laws were those dealing with everyday places such as beaches, clubs, restaurants, and the like.

An article on the website Stanford.edu states “that with the enactment of apartheid laws in 1948, racial discrimination was institutionalized. Race laws touched every aspect of social life, including a prohibition of marriage between non-whites and whites, and the sanctioning of “white-only” jobs.” (History) The first law was the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act which made it a crime for people to marry outside their race.

The second such law was the Population Registration Act of 1950 which required people to carry an identification card indicating which racial group they belonged to.

In 1950 the Group Areas Act was passed. This apartheid law officially sanctioned the separation of the races into areas based solely on race. Forced removal was often implemented.

According to an article on the website africanhistory.about.com, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act 0f 1953 was “forced segregation in all public amenities, public buildings, and public transport with the aim of eliminating contact between whites and other races. “Europeans Only” and “Non-Europeans Only” signs were put up. The act stated that facilities provided for different races need not be equal.” (Boddy-Evans)

The Suppression of Communism Act of 1950 banned the South African Communist Party and any other party that subscribed to any form of Communism. The law was written in such a broad sense though, thatany form of government that opposed apartheid could be banned regardless of whether it had anything to do with communism or not.

The Bantu Education Act of 1953 created a system of schools and universities that were tailored for individual races. With this type of educational system, it made it impossible for blacks to become anything other than common laborers.

While interracial contact in sport was frowned upon, there were no official laws separating the races in sports.

Other nations, by way of the United Nations (UN) began to show concern about the apartheid laws in 1946, but it was deemed that this was an internal affair better left to the care of South Africa. Finally, in 1960, after the Sharpeville Massacre, in which 69 protestors were killed by police, the UN agreed on a concerted action against apartheid. It was demanded that apartheid and racial segregation be eliminated in South Africa.

In 1962 the UN passed Resolution 1761 which formally condemned the South African policies. Resolution 181 was passed in 1963 calling for a voluntary arms embargo against South Africa. Apartheid became officially illegal and was classified as a crime against humanity, open to prosecution to any perpetrators. In 1977 Resolution 181 was changed from a voluntary to a mandatory arms embargo.

During the 1980s, many leaders tried to reform apartheid in an effort to quell several uprisings, but to no avail. It was determined that the only way to solve the problems in South Africa was to repeal the apartheid laws and in 1990 then President Frederik Willem de Klerk began negotiations to repeal them. Although all the apartheid laws were repealed in 1990, the recognized end of apartheid was not until 1994 when South Africa held its first non-

racial general elections which were won by the African National Congress under the leadership of Nelson Mandela, who only 4 years prior had been released from prison after serving 27 years of a life sentence for leading protests against apartheid.

Read more essays by the same author at “Words of Wisdom“.

References

Apartheid Legislation in South Africa. Date published unk. Alistair Boddy-Evans. 3 July 2012

http://africanhistory.about.com/library/bl/blsalaws.htm

Stanford. Date published unk. Author unk. 3 July 2012

http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~cale/cs201/apartheid.hist.html

On the Origins of Life

When, where, and how did life originate on earth? This is a question that has been on the minds of men for centuries. From the earliest civilizations to modern times, many theories and ideas have been put forth. While many of these beliefs have gone by the wayside, either because they have been proven untrue, or those who were once followers of a particular belief no longer exist, there are today three prevailing ideas that still exist among a large group of scientists: life began on another planet and via a meteor, or some other means, made its way to earth; life began here on earth as a heterotroph; or life had its beginnings on earth in the form of an autotroph.

Prior to the mid-1600s, many scientists believed that life was generated by means of spontaneous generation, that is life arose from nonliving material. Through experiments done by such scientists as Frencesco Redi, Louis Pasteur, and others the idea of life being generated in this manner was proven to be untrue. It is now known that life is generated exclusively from other living organisms, that is, biogenesis. The question today remains, how did that first bit of life come into being?

Although not accepted by many scientists today, the idea of panspermia, that is life arose elsewhere and somehow made it to earth was once touted by a number of scientists. Panspermia was not a new idea at the time, but it was popularized by the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in the early 1900s. Another proponent of this idea was the British molecular biologist Francis Crick who put forth the idea of “directed panspermia”, that is the idea that the seeds of life didn’t just accidently arrive here on earth, but rather were sent here by intelligent beings on another planet. On the website Astrobio.net, the author states that Crick believed that “a technological civilization could direct panspermia by stocking a spacecraft with a genetic starter kit.” (Matsos). Crick believed that this race of creatures (we must assume that they also evolved over multiplied billions of years) intentionally sent some sort of bacteria that could survive the harsh realities of space in order to populate this distant planet. Most scientists tend to be critical of the idea of panspermia as it doesn’t answer the question of how life arose, but simply moves the question of its genesis to another planet.

A second idea of the origin of life is the belief that the first living organisms were heterotrophs, which began their existence here on earth. These organisms would have derived their nutritional needs from organic molecules in the waters where they lived. As these creatures devoured the existing organic molecules, it is proposed that the amount of nutrients available to them would eventually be depleted. In order for future generations to survive, it would be necessary for mutations to take place and the offspring which had acquired these mutations would be able to survive because they could consume other types of organisms. The problem with this theory though is that it has been scientifically proven over the years that mutations almost always lead to death or weaknesses in the organisms. Besides, this idea itself doesn’t answer the question about the origin of life, but rather just tries to explain how the first forms of life consumed their dinner.

A third idea is the belief that the first earthly organisms were autotrophs. Autotrophs would have been organisms that acquired their energy from inorganic materials. Many scientists believe that the earth was once in an extremely hot state. Based on the fact that many organisms, called chemoautotrophs, derive their nutrients from the energy released from inorganic chemical reactions, some scientists today believe that the ancestors of these chemoautotrophs were themselves able to derive nutrients from their thermal surroundings. Again, this theory, like all the rest do little to explain how the first forms of life originated, they simply make conjectures about how these simple forms of life may have existed.

The main problem with all of these ideas is that they have absolutely no way to explain the origin of whatever was here first. If one states that organism C came from organism B, it begs the question, then where did organism B come from? The only answer is that it came from organism A, but where did organism A come from? No matter how far back you go, there is always that same question, where did the very first organism come from? In the book Concepts in Biology, the authors state that “new living things come from other living things…but that does not answer …how the first living thing developed…life must have originated spontaneously from nonliving material at least once.” Which of course makes us ask once again: Where did that first nonliving material come from?

Read this author’s “Words of Wisdom” Blog.

References

Enger, Eldon D., Frederick C. Ross, and David B. Bailey. Concepts in Biology. New York:McGraw-Hill, 2012

Matsos, Helen. “Francis Crick Remembered.” Astrobio.net 30 July 2004. 15 May 2012 http://www.astrobio.net/index.php?option=com_retrospection&task=detail&id=1107

The Chartres Cathedral/ A Comparison of Two Nativities

Even before you enter the Chartres Cathedral, its magnificence will undoubtedly overwhelm you. Approaching the cathedral from the west, your gaze is immediately drawn heavenward. Even without the two gothic towers bordering the west façade of the cathedral with their conical tops pointing to the Heavens, the rose window decorating the upper middle portion of the front wall will undoubtedly capture your wandering eyes, locking them in its glorious brilliance. But even its powerful grasp is not enough to hold you once the two towers grab ahold of you. Almost it seems, they have not only clasped onto your sight, but even your whole being. So strong is this pull that you feel that you have been lifted so high, that if you raised your arm, and stretched forth your finger, you just might be able to touch the throne of God.

Lest your raptured soul takes its flight to Paradise, you must quickly shake off this feeling of euphoria and make your way up the stairs to the Royal Portal, a set of three doors piercing the west façade of the cathedral. Due to lack of time, you must direct your attention to the tympanum above the middle portal with just a cursory glance toward those on the right and left. (The tympanum on the right depicts a seated Mary holding the child Jesus, while the one on the right shows the ascension of Christ to Heaven.) Centered under the middle arch is Christ at the Second Coming. Immediately surrounding him are symbolic reliefs depicting the writers of the four Gospels: Matthew as an angel, Mark as a lion, Luke as a bull, and John as an eagle. Standing directly below Christ and the four writers are the twelve apostles. In the inner archivolt Christ is surrounded by twelve angels, two of whom are crowning him as Christ the King. These angels are in turn surrounded in the outer two archivolts by the twenty-four elders of the Apocalypse. On the door jams, on each of the portals, Old Testament kings and queens are depicted in changing styles from Early Gothic to High Gothic. Unfortunately, as Laurie Adams states in her book, “many of these statues were destroyed during the French Revolution in 1789 by rioting crowds that mistook the biblical figures for kings and queens of France”. (208)

As you step through the portals and enter the nave between the two towers you will notice that bordering the nave on each side are two small aisles. The aisles are divided from the nave via a series of cluster piers with colonnettes. As you step into the nave the view is breathtaking. The soaring piers on either side, and the rays of colored light spilling through the stained-glass windows are magnificent, but “the overwhelming sensation on entering Chartres Cathedral from the western entrance”, as one author puts it in A History of Western Art(212), “is height.” The ceiling vaults shoot up a staggering 120 feet.

As you head east down the nave you will soon come to the crossing where, by looking left and right, you can observe the north and south entrances. Embedded in the north transept is a 42-foot diameter rose window, so called due to its shape. This rose window is surrounded by geometric shapes, royal coats of arms, and depictions of biblical figures. Depending on the time of day, the brightness of the light varies in intensity as it passes through the stained glass.

As you walk through the crossing you will next pass by the choir. Around this area to the back you will then enter the apse, a large semicircular recess located at the end of the cathedral, in what is known as the liturgical area (the location of the altar). Protruding out of the apse is what are known as radiating chapels; each with its own display of biblical history in illuminating stained glass. As you look at the marvelous handiwork and consider the amount of finances poured into this great cathedral, it begs the question: were the people displaying their love of God, or were they buying their way into Heaven?

A Comparison of Two Nativities

When comparing the nativity scenes depicted by Giotto and Pisano, one cannot help but notice the striking differences between the two artists’ renderings. Not only have they used different mediums-Giotto painted a fresco, Pisano sculpted a bas relief-but their use of space is glaringly different. Spaced out over a wide area, Giotto’s painting shows two scenes: the annunciation to the shepherds and the nativity. Pisano however crams four scenes (the nativity, along with the annunciations to Mary and the shepherds, and a scene of Mary bathing the infant Jesus) into a very limited space. Whereas Mary dominates the central space in Pisano’s sculpture, and the infant Jesus is relegated to an unimportant position behind her, the mother and child in Giotto’s painting seem to equally hold positions of importance as they gaze lovingly at each other from the left side of the picture. Regardless of the differences depicted in these works of art, it is obvious that both men had a passion unequaled by many.

View Stephen’s Words of Wisdom Blog for more essays.

References

Adams, Laurie Schneider. A History of Western Art. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011

Genetic Diversity: Mutations, Sexual Reproduction, Migration, and Population Size

Genetic diversity is the variation in the characteristics inherited from the parent organisms in a population of a specific species. This diversity is extremely important for the survival of a species as it allows for the survival of certain members when a portion of the group is destroyed either through disease, changing environments, or other factors that are detrimental to their survival. Genetic diversity can come about through a number of ways: mutations, sexual reproduction, migration, and population size.

Mutations are changes in the alleles that introduce new genetic information into a group. While some mutations are readily visible (two-headed snakes, five-legged sheep, frogs with six-eyes, etc.), many other mutations are not so obvious. An organism that is susceptible to a certain disease, for example. While mutations will introduce new characteristics into a population, these changes are almost always harmful, and usually lead to death in a species, not to an improvement.

Sexual reproduction, unlike mutations, does not cause the creation of new alleles, but rather combines different alleles from the parent organisms to introduce new combinations of alleles. If an organism receives a combination of alleles that cause it to be more likely to survive than others in its community, then it will be better able to produce offspring, which will in turn inherit these genes and pass them on to their offspring. The main advantages of sexual reproduction over asexual reproduction, as stated by the Journal of Evolutionary Philosophy, is this ability to combine genes from different organisms because now “beneficial mutations from separate ancestries can be combined, beneficial mutations can be separated from harmful mutations, and unsuccessful genetic traits can easily disappear from an existing population.”

The migrations of groups from one location to another allow them to come into contact with others of their own species. As these different groups meet and interact, they also begin to breed with each other. Certain alleles that are absent in one group are generally present in the other group. Many times these missing genes are important to the survival of the species. As the two groups begin to interbreed, these missing genes now become a part of the genetic makeup of the species. Interbreeding in turn also allows for the combinations of beneficial characteristics that would otherwise never occur within a single group.

Another factor that can contribute to the genetic diversity, or lack there of, is the size of the population. Obviously, the larger a population is, the greater the diversity. The problem with a smaller population is not only the extreme lack of diversity, but also the fact that genes that are in a community can be lost over time. One way this happens is through what is called genetic drift. Genetic drift occurs whenever a small portion of a group carries a certain gene. If every organism that carries this gene fails to produce offspring, whether it is through an early death or the inability to find a mate, this gene will be lost forever. This is especially detrimental to a species if this characteristic is important to the survival of this particular species.

Genetic diversity is what allows a species to survive. As environments, populations, and circumstances change, so too must a species adapt to these changes. The greater genetic diversity there is in a group, the better able it is to pass on beneficial genes to their offspring. Even as certain characteristics lie dormant, they are still a part of the makeup of the species, and thus are there when needed if environment or certain situations call for them.

Read Stephen’s “Words of Wisdom” Blog.

References

The Evolution of Sexual Reproduction. Date published unk. Author unk. 2006

http://www.evolutionary-philosophy.net/sex.html

The Journey Begins

This Blog contains a series of essays I wrote as required papers for Ashworth College in my pursuit of a Bachelor’s Degree in Education. Undoubtedly I acquired a vast amount of knowledge in doing research for these papers. My goal is to pass this information on to you, the reader. My hope is that you will increase your learning as I did. Enjoy.

Good company in a journey makes the way seem shorter. — Izaak Walton