|
Red_Muffins
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Eric
Gender: Male
Interests: Music, Listening to music, writing music, playing music, guitar, piano, overcoming adversity, Capoiera, drawing, anorexia, flexibility, deconstructionism, reading (not popular American literature), experiences, Henry David Thoreau, William Wordsworth, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Christo (Christo Vladimirov Javacheff), Blake, Caspar David Friedrich, John Cage, Jonathan Swift, Herman Melville, Victor Hugo, Sir Walter Scott, Miyamoto Musashi, Han Fei-tzu, Trans-humanism, Intellectual Property (IP), Sampling, Chopin, J.M.W. Turner, Goya
Expertise: Music, leaving the world a bit better
Occupation: Student
Message: message meEmail: email me
Member Since:
5/28/2005
|
|
| My finals were done, but the tribulation had yet to end. It was 1:30 PM and the paper was due at 11:59 PM. I would have to work quickly to revise and edit. While my arguments were already complete, revisions on a lengthy paper could take a while. What was I to do?
Actually, it wasn't that bad. I had plenty of time to do the paper - which was a semester long project. And while I did spend a lot of time on the paper - especially doing my research - I was very prepared to turn it in today. I had a solid first draft done several weeks ago, so I didn't leave that much for today. No worries. This is the final product. Make sure to read the notes at the end if you don't understand something in the paper.
Reconsidering
Intellectual Property
Intellectual
property (IP) is a legal concept that a person may own an idea and can not only
sell the idea, but also retains the ability to regulate the use of the idea, even
after it has been sold. IP has been
challenged because of dissimilarities between tangible properties (such as a
bicycle) and the abstract (such as an engineering method); IP never physically
changes hands, but is instead reproduced – never leaving the original
owner. The legitimacy of IP may be
questioned by the socialist who understands “property” should not belong to an
individual but rather to society – and “property”, then, is unnatural and
unethical. Moreover, IP is opposed
because it exploits the poor – who are given little ownership of ideas – and
promotes interests of the wealthy – who own more ideas. This argument is best stated by Eben Moglen
in the dotCommunist Manifesto:
Society
confronts the simple fact that when everyone can possess every intellectual
work of beauty and utility – reaping all the human value of every increase of
knowledge – at the same cost that any one person can possess them, it is no
longer moral to exclude…But the bourgeois system of ownership demands that
knowledge and culture be rationed by the ability to pay. (Moglen 2003)
Furthermore, while
IP has been said to benefit economy, research, and development, (Wagner 2003) it
has also been said to hinder these things while exclusively benefiting large
corporations who retain ownership of ideas (Boldrin and Levine 2002; Ku 2002;
Norcia 2005). Some argue IP would be
better termed “intellectual monopoly” because it grants unbalanced rights the
owner, preventing further use and development of ideas (Boldrin and Levine 2002);
if these accusations are true, IP could be said to impede societal progress (P),
scientific research, and technological development. I argue against strong IP laws by exploring
the possibility that IP controls (such as copyright (CR) and patent) impede P. I present the following case:
1. That which
hinders progress is unethical and should, therefore, be avoided.
2. IP laws are
governmental institutions that negate the social obligation of the idea owners to
make ideas available for the human good and, in so doing, hinder progress.
3. IP laws are
unethical and should be avoided.
First, I will
explain the importance of P to a society and how that which obstructs P should
be regarded as unethical. Second, I will
investigate the notion that IP encumbers this P in societies with protection
laws and will address the arguments that assert the contrary to promote IP laws. Finally, I will conclude by considering the
possibility of altering the current IP laws to make them more useful.
I. It
is Unethical to Impede Progress
Progress is essential to any society because it gives
people hope for a better future and flourishing lives within the
community. There are two types of P that
I want to include in this assessment: social and scientific. For a society, P is the evolution of the
society so that it increasingly resembles the ideal. Despite conflicting opinions on what truly constitutes
the ideal society, the ideal is, by definition, perfect; it is necessarily better
than the current state. Therefore, social
P can be generally described as the gradual betterment of a society.
Scientific P is the application of
scientific principles and methods to solve problems facing the individual, the
community, or the world. Clearly,
problems are undesirable and solutions are good because they eliminate
problems. When society becomes
increasingly good because science is used to solve problems, we say that it is
made better. Therefore, societal P and
scientific P are both desired because they both make life better.
The endeavor to make things better
is a moral aspiration because good is right whereas want of good is wrong. P pursues the betterment consistent with
morality and can be described as ethical.
That which is opposed to the ethical is considered to be unethical;
since P is ethical, institutions that hinder P oppose the moral ambitions of P
and are, therefore, unethical.
Some might contend, “This seems generally true, but there are
instances where it is morally obligatory to do something that impedes P”. Despite these claims, I hold that one would
be hard pressed to find a case where the most morally correct action is an
action that truly impedes P. For
instance, one might argue: Saving the life of a drunken sailor who fell
overboard and who is an absolute drain on society might be morally obligatory. This argument fails to deeply examine the
complexities of the issue. First, as a
society moves toward the ideal, people would be expected to have an increased
sense of grace and love; it would be expected that attempts to save the life of
another human is, in fact, a demonstration of social P that comes from heightened
morality. Second, doing that which is
morally obligatory works towards P of society because increased morality is a
significant component of the ideal society.
It may be necessary to determine which choice has greater benefit to P when
neither option is completely morally sound, but to even question which option
is better (attempting to create a false dichotomy between P and morality in the
situation) simply evidences the uncertainty inherit in such ethical
considerations. Third, the sailor’s job
needs to be filled by a person with the same experience as the sailor – and it
would take valuable time and resources to replace him; it is possible that the
death of the sailor results in net negative change in P (or decadence).
The concept that
impeding P is unethical still stands because the argument against it concedes
that morality should be pursued – and this morality cannot be separated from the
notion of P. Therefore, anything that
impedes P is morally inferior to that which encourages evolution toward the
ideal.
II. IP
Laws Obstruct P
“Knowledge serves the human interest in survival and well-being (Norcia 2005).”
A. Scholars
cite two reasons to have IP protection laws: the moral – creators deserve a
reward – and the economic – creators need an incentive (Breyer 1970; Sterk
1996). It has been argued that both of
these justification have been attempts to strengthen IP by portraying creators
as helpless, oppressed, and in need of sympathy (Sterk 1996); this effort has
been largely successful and IP has continued to grow, now becoming far stronger
than is just, protecting authors despite the lack of acceptable moral or
economic arguments (Sterk 1996). We
examine only the economic justification of IP because the moral argument[1] is
the weaker and does not argue against accusations that IP hinders P.
B. According
to the economic justification, IP protection laws are an agreement between the
populace and the creator. P is
instrumental to any society, and ideas facilitate such P. Supporters of IP contend that creation and
invention are not spontaneous but need to be promoted by offering
incentives. Such rewards provide
creators with the financial security needed to spend time and resources
creating. IP protection has been
instituted to provide this motivation for creators. Supporters of IP laws argue that the best way
to provide incentive is by protecting the rights of the creator to: (1) own,
reproduce, and sell the IP; and (2) regulate the use of the IP after it has
been disseminated (Boldrin and Levine 2002).
IP laws proponents
are divided; some believe it more important to expand the public domain increase
easy access to intellectual works (see the Norcia quote at the beginning of
section II) while others argue it is more necessary to provide great incentive
to the creators and further limit access to ideas. The latter assume creators will work more
eagerly with greater recompense offered; more ideas will be produced, resulting
in a larger public domain and greater P than when little compensation is
offered (Wagner 2003). Thus, scholars
that trust the legitimacy of IP laws argue amongst themselves about the best
way to implement protections in order to achieve proper balance between allowing
public access to information (spawning creativity) and encouraging creation.
C. Hence,
we are confronted with a question: do IP laws restrict P by limiting access or
encourage P by the rewarding creation?
The best way to answer this question is to examine the results of
implementing strong IP laws.
1. Consider
corporations that fund private (internal) research (R) – which remains
unpublished and used for invention of technology (T) which is later
commercialized during development. Such
companies have made great contributions to society. However, by refusing to publish their
findings, some use IP in a way that hinders P.
Researchers in these companies draw from R in the public domain but do
not give back to the scientific community; private IP conflicts with the usual
open exchange of scientific R and T P (Norcia 2005). Because they benefit from public domain
sources, it is wrong for the companies to keep R and T secret; commercial
assets (development) could remain private in some circumstances, but scientific
knowledge should be common in all situations because of the nature of science
which: (1) requires openness in testing scientific hypotheses, (2) demands the
repetition and confirmation of experimental results, and (3) necessitates discussion
and response from the scientific community.
Science thrives on evaluation and correction as well as acknowledgement
of success and failure by peers. Withholding
information “violates scientific integrity” and delays P in the invention of
effective medical treatments or useful T in the midst of human suffering (Norcia
2005).
The
two following examples show how private protection of R can harm society and
impede P: David Healy of Wales was denied professorship because his R on
anti-depressants revealed that the drugs often contribute to suicidal
tendencies (the University was funded, in part, by an anti-depressant
manufacturer that threatened to withhold funding); Betty Dong was restricted
from publishing adverse finding that a developed treatment was no more
effective than generic drugs (Norcia 2005).
In both situations, a researcher was censured by private companies (because
R findings would inconvenience the companies), thereby restricting the
availability and growth of scientific knowledge. By preventing the dissemination of information
included in the R, the companies promote their goods under false premises. Further, R cannot be seen by other scientists
that might think to apply techniques, methods, or data to creatively solve
unrelated problems.
Clearly,
R should be public, not private.
However, in many cases, T and development behind a product should be public
because of problems (physical or ethical) with the mode of production or because
commercialization could be improved upon in order to better protect workers,
offer the public a finer product, and accelerate P. Organizations such as the Public Sector IP
Resource for Agriculture – a public database of shared T that also identifies
commercial opportunity – permit public IP and private IP to meet with great
success (Norcia 2005).
2. Concerning
the entertainment industry, CR protects distributors/publishers when middlemen
are obsolete in the digital era because consumers can organize, build, and fund
their own modes of distribution (Ku 2002).
CR is intended to ease distribution by providing financial incentive to
the publisher who needs to invest resources to produce and disseminate
information. Unfortunately, only
distributors benefit from CR protection – not creators or the public (Ku 2002).
In the music industry, few artists earn income
from royalties and most remain in debt to the recording industry for cost of
manufacture, marketing, distribution, and encryption (Ku 2002); in fact, the
majority of an artist’s income comes from performance fees – with the rest of
income due to sale of licensed products (e.g. shirts and posters),
endorsements, and non-performance venues (Ku 2002). Many artists support free distribution of
their music because the recordings advertise their performances and concert
attendance increases when music and video is more accessible (Ku 2002).
The viral
distribution observed in the digital realm is progressive because information
spreads at no cost to providers and is easily attainable (Ku 2002). The internet is not threatening because it
prevents CR from accomplishing its purpose, but because it challenges the need
for distributors (Ku 2002). By retaining
an unnecessary party at unnecessary costs, CR impedes the P of arts in society. IP protection for distributors can be
eliminated without negative effects on the incentive for creation. The creators will persistently be “rewarded”
for their work by concert attendance (in music) and other venues, licensed
products, commercial endorsements, and donations[2]. They do not need additional incentives CR
offers to continue creating works. This
concept is not universally true; rather, it applies to industries where
distributors are obsolete (but continue to hold the majority of profit from
sales) and creation is not further promoted by the IP rights. For instance, it would not apply to the
videogame industry where financial incentive required to produce a game is much
greater due to cost if development; developers are increasingly turning from PC
to console[3]
development because there is less piracy in the console market.
3. Legal
abuse of CR and patent privilege ravages the creative world in America. Rights holders monopolize IP or prohibit free
speech to a degree that is unconstitutional (Boldrin 2002; Cotter 2003; Lemley
and Volokh 1998; Lunney 2001; Rubenfeld 2002).
The perversions of IP, termed “nuisance” and “defensive” patenting[4], are
too prevalent (Boldrin and Levine 2002).
CR owners frequently use their right to prevent distribution of others’
works rather than to simply receive the financial compensation granted them
(Lemley and Volokh 1998). Censorship is
likely to occur with derivative works (DW), which are new ideas that honor the
original; the CR holder requests a preliminary injunction preventing the DW
from being made available to the public (even if there is only a hint of
infringement) – a practice that would otherwise violate the First Amendment
(FA) (Lemley and Volokh 1998; Rubenfeld 2002).
The ability to
bypass FA rights, provided by IP laws, gives license owners the economically
dangerous right to regulate the use of ideas.
Some creators prefer to avoid competition with the customer, which leads
to use of IP to create a monopoly on the idea (Boldrin and Levine 2002). This is a problem because monopoly[5] is
notorious for its generally negative influence on P, whereas competition is
beneficial because (in the case of IP) it seeks to improve upon ideas and
reduce the cost of replication (Boldrin and Levine 2002). These companies seek to prevent others from
entering into the industry and use IP as a justification. Publishers try to extend CR in order to
monopolize certain literature. The
period of protection has grown from two years to fourteen, to twenty-one, to
twenty-eight, to fifty-six, and now to the life of the author plus seventy
years (Breyer 1970). However, only one
hundredth of books will remain in print for fifty-six years, and most revenue
will be made in the first few years on the market (Breyer 1970). Therefore, the extended time of protection is
unlikely to truly influence writing or publishing but instead gives publishers
an unjust advantage; this advantage ultimately leads to the monopolizing of a
book that is later deemed a classic, allowing the publisher able to respond to
high demand by raising prices. Interest-groups
politics, politicians, and “elite” members of the nation continue to work
towards unjust copyright expansion (Sterk 1996). The nation has forgotten the primary goal of
IP is to serve public interest, not creators or distributors (Lunney 2001); in
this age, however, copyright is increasingly serving the interests of private
companies.
The
abuse of IP for private benefit at the expense of P is made clear not only in
the example of DWs but also in the suppression of dissenting voice. Consider the following case: Arnie Lerma posts
selections from religious materials owned by the Church
of Scientology on-line to expose the
religion as a fraud; the Church
of Scientology, on the
basis of IP, has police raid his home and the courts suppress his speech
(Rubenfeld 2002). This is a clear case
where IP is misused and hinders P.
Refinement of religious beliefs and practices is an important aspect of P;
freedom to criticize – even by using copyrighted materials – should not be
prevented. The use of CR for censorship
is not new or uncommon and does not occur only in the religious context. The central value anchoring the FA, that
people should not be punished for thinking or expressing unauthorized ideas,
has been undermined by expansion of IP. If
the free speech provided by the FA is essential to unhindered P in the arts and
sciences and if IP laws restrict this free speech (as they have been shown to
do), then IP laws indeed hinder P.
D. I
have shown the economic argument insufficient to justify the current power of
IP laws. The current level of protection
IP provides is used to hinder scientific research, create information
monopolies, prevent the dissemination of DWs, and control artistic direction
despite the presence of more efficient distribution methods.
III. Conclusions
Certainly,
unhindered P in arts and sciences is a good thing for all societies and
introducing unnecessary forces that retard such P in unethical. Furthermore, IP protection laws are such a
force. Continually growing in size and
power, they benefit the obsolete middlemen while providing no additional
incentive for creation, and in so doing, they impede P. Therefore, it follows that IP laws – as they
currently exist – are unethical. It is
time to reform the IP system[6]. Current IP laws are entirely too restrictive
and society is unable to experience the P it should. The rate of P will surely increase when we
make more allowances for cheaper distribution, allow DWs to enter the public
domain, lessen the restrictions of “fair use” policy, and require scientific
openness. Creators will have the same
incentive as always, distributors will no longer be necessary, and more people
will be able to create; the amount of IP in the public domain will no longer be
hindered by the unavailability of information.
Works Cited
Boldrin, Michele;
and David Levine. 2002. The Case Against Intellectual Property. The American Economic Review
92(2):209-212.
Breyer, Stephen.
1970. The Uneasy Case for Copyright: A Study of Copyright in Books,
Photocopies, and Computer Programs. Harvard
Law Review 84(2):281-351.
Cotter, Thomas F.
2003. Gutenberg’s Legacy: Copyright, Censorship, and Religious Pluralism. California Law Review 91(2):323-392.
Ku, Raymond Shih
Ray. 2002. The Creative Destruction of Copyright: Napster and the New Economics
of Digital Technology. The University of Chicago Law Review 69(1):263-324.
Lemley, Mark A.;
and Eugene Volokh. 1998. Freedom of Speech and Injunctions in Intellectual
Property Cases. Duke Law Journal
48(2):147-242.
Litman, Jessica.
1992. Copyright and Information Policy. Law
and Contemporary Problems 55(2):185-209.
Lunney, Glynn S.
Jr. 2001. The Death of Copyright: Digital Technology, Private Copying, and the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Virginia
Law Review 87(5):813-920.
Moglen, Eben.
2003. The dotCommunist Manifesto.
N/A. 1999. The
Criminalization of Copyright Infringement in the Digital Era. Harvard Law Review 112(7):1705-1722.
Norcia, Vincent
di. 2005. Intellectual Property and the Commercialization of Research and
Development. Science and Engineering
Ethics 11:203-219.
Rubenfeld, Jed.
2002. The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright’s Constitutionality. The Yale Law Journal 112(1):1-60.
Siebrasse,
Norman. 2001. A Property Rights Theory of the Limits of Copyright. The University of Toronto
Law Journal 51(1):1-61.
Sterk, Stewart E.
1996. Rhetoric and Reality in Copyright Law. Michigan
Law Review. 94(5):1197-1249.
Wagner, R. Polk.
2003. Information Wants to be Free: Intellectual Property and the Mythologies
of Control. Columbia Law Review 103(4):995-1034.
Notes
[1]II.A The
Moral Justification for IP
The
moral argument does not directly pertain to the discussion of the effects of IP
on progress, but it is worthwhile to refute.
It takes many forms: (1) a reward
is due the creator; (2) the creator has a natural right to the fruits of
his/her labor; (3) the creator should receive the value of his/her contribution
to society; and (3) society should cheerfully reward great contributions to P
(Breyer 1970). The flaws with these
arguments should be obvious: they are all ill defined. This vagueness is evident in that the
arguments rely on terms like “natural right” and “value”. One cannot confirm the existence of such a
natural right; neither can he/she define the scope of the right. Likewise, “value” is not easily assessed and
it is rare that workers in any situation earn back the extent of their
contribution. Moreover, the argument
that creators or investors deserve compensation makes an unwarranted claim that
IP is the best possible reward, despite the possibility that another form of
compensation might be better for all parties (Boldrin and Levine 2002). This is why most scholars agree that the
moral justifications for copyright are insufficient to justify IP rights.
[2]II.C.2 Donations
There
are many examples of donations acting as incentive for creation and digital
distribution; for instance, when Stephen King wrote a story that was made
available for download, he made over $400,000 on the first installment without
going through a publisher [Ku 2002].
[3] II.C.2 Consoles
X-Box
360, PS3, Wii, PSP, and Nintendo DS are examples of some common videogame
consoles.
[4]
II.C.3 Defensive Patenting
Nuisance
patenting is used to prevent development of aligned products by patenting every
conceivable variation of an idea when there is no actual intent to utilize the
ideas patented. Defensive patenting
occurs when a company preemptively patents a method or trademarks a term in
anticipation of the actions of the competition.
Often this results in IP protection for things that would be considered
by the public to be ridiculous. It could
be because the patents are impractical or because they are universally used
(and no one should, therefore, have ownership).
A recent example that
demonstrates the concept behind defensive patenting (as applied to trademark)
can be seen in the Futuremark case.
Finnish software company Futuremark Games Studio filed on February 26,
2008 to trademark “Pwnage” in relation to videogames, movies, music, and many
other media. In a statement released by
Jukka Mäkinen, Executive Producer, Futuremark Games Studio, he defends the
company by claiming the trademark was not meant to be a means to profit but
rather a protective measure. The issue
is that “Pwn”, “Pwned”, and “Pwnage” are mainstream words that no one has the
right to own. A spokesman for the
website Pwned.com explained that because the term “Pwn” is so universal, they
never felt the need to file for a trademark a term they had not created; the
actions of Futuremark, however, were worrisome because they could be charged
for infringing on IP laws by continuing to use the term without Futuremark’s
permission.
Patent trolling occurs when a
patent holder opportunistically enforces patents on alleged infringers for gain
even when the patent is ridiculous or is not being used in production.
[5] II.C.3 Monopoly
It
is true that monopoly does not always obstruct P. If a person has a monopoly on an idea i that solves a given problem q, there are some cases where another
might search for an alternative solution s
to compete with the first individual.
However, this is rare (especially in the types of situations being discussed
in this paper).
First, the monopoly could
possibly utilize the best method or technique or idea to solve q, but not to its full potential; this
would the prevent P if an entrepreneur is hindered from entering the market and
improving on the concept i. Second, the monopoly could have the best
possible i, but might not be just in
its distribution, keeping society at large from the solution to q and hindering P when P is entirely
possible (and even reasonable). Third,
the individual could just be monopolizing the whole industry of all possible s to the problem by actually
monopolizing q while claiming that
he/she will not have incentive to solve q
without the reassurance that he/she has priority in the solving of q.
There are many other examples
like these where Monopolies hinder P and it would be difficult to name them
all. Even so, it is clear (even by
observing modern industry pseudo-monopolies, such as the control Microsoft
exerts over the software industry) that monopolies often do impede P.
[6]
III. Suggestions for change
Norman Siebrasse argues that
the economic balance approach described above is insufficient to thoroughly
explain the complexities of IP (Siebrasse 2001). Rather than concentrate on balance, we should
try to define what rights should be granted more clearly. Siebrasse writes, “Fair use, for example, is
probably best justified as a means of increasing dissemination of a work when
transaction costs of licensing are higher than the benefit to a subsequent
author of using the work (Siebrasse 2001).”
Under this definition, fair use should be applied more liberally than
what is currently acceptable and cannot allow IP to be used for monopoly or
censorship; it becomes unnecessary to consult the vague economic balance
theories when trying to determine if something falls under fair use. It would be reasonable to employ this process
to reform all aspects of IP protection laws.
Raymond Shih Ray Ku has
proposed introducing a small tax on already (relatively) inexpensive devices
that are used for copying or recording, such as computers and CDs; the tax
would support creators, ensuring that they will receive compensation for their
contributions and the distributors will no longer be necessary (Ku 2002).
Additionally, such changes in the system of distribution of IP would help to
fight against the commoditization of music caused by the recording industry
(Moglen 2003) and lead to more expressive and meaningful works that contribute
to P.
| | |
| It certainly has been too long since my last post. It will probably take a long while for me to post again. School is consuming me, but against it I do not desire to fight. Summer will come and perhaps then I will find more time to write. Or perhaps I will allow myself to be entertained by my upcoming work with virus research. Or studying for the MCATs. Whatever the case, I am sure I will be perfectly content. As I am now. I wrote a song for a Philosophy project the other day. I really like it. It sounds nice. I might post it eventually.
Popcorn and Veils
Dim lights
Red lights
Bar hidden under the stairs
Old couch
New ornaments
Our Makeshift happy places
CRT
Moving lights
Haunting dance cast on the wall
The boasting
Drowning out
Meaningful conversation
Do you
Fear dying
While you are mostly alone
For me
Rather death than
Asphyxiation by these
Short Carpet
Avalanche
Used cigs and empty bottle
Mountainside
Wildlife
Popcorn flee catastrophe
Wet hair
Wet towel
Wet razor excoriates
Wet floor
Clean faces
Contemplate return to sleep
Dark sky
Ice streets
Vehicles levitating
Float up
Float down
Deviating from the way
| | |
| I have been writing more and more like an impressionist paints. I capture the random instances of thought and being. I focus on the contrasts between light and dark without defining any shapes with lines. I present it as is, without spin or modification. The music is flowing through me. I like writing this way. I feel it may be the most right - a true expression. This poem is titled from its first line. It isn't gruesome, but it is real. Perhaps you know what it is like to want something or pursue something without having the ability to achieve it. Would it be even worse if one was confined to a point they couldn't even sense what it was that they really wanted besides experiencing a few glimpses in a dream? Sight, taste, touch, smell, hearing. I love you guys. I don't know why I ended it so comically. What justifies the upbeat conclusion? I cannot remember the influence under which I wrote this - besides that it was written several months ago while I was unable to sleep. I assume that I was able to come to terms with myself or society or God. Thank God for hope. Sometimes it really is all we can have. However, occasionally we aren't even allowed that. Pray for the people who are suffering for their suffering is heard. Pray that the hopeless can find hope. Life is precious. Don't ever let it go and don't ever think anyone (or anything) has the right to take it from you. I'm confident knowing that God is Judge. A judicial system without corruption? It must be like heaven. In other news, the Republican candidates look rather hidebound for refusing to accept evolution. Some say evolution limits God. I say it reveals His wisdom. They say the Bible must be interpreted literally. I say they interperet it simply and at face-value. Some say evolutionary thinking is the main cause of sin, evil, and destruction in society. I say it might have something to do with misplaced concentration and hazy priorities. There are many more things both parties can say. At any rate, I believe the main cause of this controversy is a refusal to acknowledge the influence culture has on belief and understanding. I encourage you to try to understand how your culture shapes your beliefs. Your culture's stance may not be integrally wrong - but there is a possibility that it is wrong about certain issues. Additionally, there are many issues that I find are completely unimportant as a whole but are made important by conflicting cultures. Is alcohol good? Is alcohol bad? Is alcohol right? Is alcohol wrong? Is it even possible that two cultures with completely polarized viewpoints could both be wholly right? Think about it. Maybe find a few good examples. Finally, look into 20th century musical composition. It is fulfilling. A dead man I think, therefore I must be dead For I am most certainly not alive I do not dance Nor do I sing I have no friends, nor have I enemies I cannot hear Smell only dirt But I can see everything that I want Perhaps I dream Perhaps I don’t What is real I dream; what I dream is death A moon full with Man’s suffering Bleeds all consuming black and drinks the sky Maybe I lie Prostrate over A grassy hill; Maybe I float above trees Maybe I sink Deep into silt In a muddy bay – reservoir for life So I dance for Life and genius And creativity that invades dreams And sinews form Between his bones He stands, looking deep into the stars Skin wraps around Precious curls grow From his brow as he begins to feel whole A living man -Eric Elliott | | |
| Protecting Arctic Populations from Climate Change The Inuit seal hunter feels it when he catches considerably fewer seals each year (Murray 33). The Iñupiaq subsistence whaler sees it when he finds himself trapped after ice breaks away from the shore (Wohlforth 48). The villagers know it when absence of costal ice in late fall invites waves to destroy a costal settlement – and their homes (Drapkin 48). A mother fears it when she hears that dangerous pollutants have reached high concentrations in her colostrum (Suk 113). What is the truth that all these people have learned firsthand? Global climate change is already affecting human communities and the testimony of these indigenous people is confirmation. Research and personal experience of Arctic populations demonstrate that warming is no longer an unrealized, foreboding anxiety; instead, the sinister reality of Arctic climate change is legitimate cause for alarm. Global warming threatens the traditional subsistence culture of indigenous Arctic peoples; potential danger can be negated by careful collaborative research, worldwide restrictions on chemical usage, and reform in Western economics and energy sources. First, it is necessary to understand what is meant by “Arctic”. Defined by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), the Arctic is the territory north of sixty degrees North latitude and is populated by 3.74 million people (Arctic Climate). It is home to 340 thousand indigenous people who are dependent on subsistence hunting of seals, whales, caribou, and fish along with many non-native immigrants (Tenenbaum, “Northern Overexposure” A65). These Arctic natives have a communalist lifestyle foreign to those familiar with temperate, Western civilization; emphasizing community, the people work together to sustain themselves. To indigenous societies, hunting contributes to tribe unity and defines identity; additionally, hunting is beneficial because traditional food is healthier than ‘modern’ food and it counteracts disease. For instance, according to microbiologist Dr. William A. Suk, nutritional deficiencies are expected to occur in populations that have abandoned traditional food (114); moreover, health and environmental science researcher, Tenenbaum, notes that disease rates increased fifty percent, mental illness increased 250 percent, and diabetes increased 100 percent in cultures that have ‘modernized’ (Suk 114-115; Tenenbaum, “Northern” A68). Not only are these foods beneficial to health and society, but because the indigenous do not have a cash-based economy and because transportation costs make it unaffordable, imported ‘modern’ foods are an economic impossibility (Suk 114; Tenenbaum, “Northern” A68). The Arctic is considered among the most fragile regions on Earth; environmental change is more prominent at the poles than in temperate climates and harsh weather conditions make ecological preservation a challenge (Rothwell 283). Although some studies show that temperatures are decreasing in a few isolated regions (Tenenbaum, “Global Warming: Arctic Climate: The Heat Is On” A91), the majority of the Arctic is experiencing temperature increase. Further, any climate change – warming or cooling – may have negative effects on the ecosystem because rapid change makes adaptation difficult. Temperatures in the Arctic are expected to increase 2 to 2.4 times the global average (Kennedy 686). While ice reflects up to eighty percent of radiation (Kennedy 697), the loss of forty percent of arctic ice in the last three decades due to warming (Suk 113) provides for positive feedback; warming rates increase when radiation is absorbed by land and water where ice has disappeared. Over the past fifty years, temperatures have risen nearly four degrees Celsius (Wohlforth 49). Whereas annual ice loss was 90 cubic kilometers in 1996, 150 cubic kilometers were lost in 2005 (Murray 32). Because its presence is essential to the Arctic ecosystem, the significant changes in Arctic ice and snow (due to warming) are having marked effects on human and animal populations as well as landscape. For instance, seal populations decline because the protective snow caves built to nurture pups melt and expose young seals to cold temperatures and predators (Murray 33). Caribou labor to eat their usual diet of lichen during the winter because repeated thawing and freezing hardens the snow surrounding the food (Tenenbaum, “Global Warming” A91). Polar bears have a shorter hunting season because the ice on which they hunt recedes more quickly (Williams 51) and declining seal and caribou populations leave bear with less food. Furthermore, the shortage of food and the melting of hunting and living space have even led to several recent bear attacks on humans (Williams 51). Also attributed to food shortage is population decline in bear; Polar bear populations have decreased seventeen percent in the last ten years (Murray 34). Manifest in the increasing struggle of these animals, the changes in the Arctic due to warming negatively impact the local ecosystem. Similarly, humans are affected by changes in ice and wildlife. The population declines in seal and caribou are reflected in the decreasing yields of indigenous hunters. Additionally, higher temperatures cause ice to form later and leave sooner; as a result, hunting season has been shortened by four months (Murray 33). The overall loss of ice and the reduced winter season make travel by dogsled difficult for seal hunters (Murray 32) and create danger for whale hunters who walk over ocean on ice (Wohlforth 48). Inhibition of travel due to the abridged winter season prevents hunters from making sufficient yield to sustain their tribes. This is especially catastrophic because, as previously noted, cultural bonds to hunting and preparing traditional foods are very strong. Richard Glenn, geologist and member of an Iñupiaq whaling crew, emphasizes this aspect: “Longer distances and riskier journeys to get food. We’re coastal people, and the coast is in danger (qtd. in Wohlforth 49)”. In Shishmaref, Alaska, thirty miles of ice once shielded a village from storms; now, because the thinning ice reaches less than seven miles, waves build and storms demolish houses and public structures (Drapkin 48). The Eskimo residents of Shishmaref will relocate twelve miles away and rebuild; it is unfortunate - not only because, according to Drapkin, “They are being called one of the first refugees of global warming” (48) and because projected costs are $180 million, but mostly because the loss of home is a loss of associations, culture, and identity (Drapkin 49). Furthermore, an anthropologist at the National Museum of Natural History, Igor Krupnik, says of these events, “…when waves wash away a village, that’s concrete and very emotional (qtd. in Drapkin 49)”. It is disturbing that there are so many people whose lives are forcibly altered because of climate change. For these communal populations, loss of food and residence is absolutely devastating to culture, society, and health. A solution must be sought that allows for Arctic natives to maintain traditional food sources, to continue living near the coast, and to preserve their culture. Another consequence of Global Warming is just beginning to affect indigenous populations and is likely to worsen – the introduction of destructive chemicals to the environment. The Arctic contains surprisingly large amounts of heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, and persistent organic pollutants (POPs) (Tenenbaum, “Northern” A64). Such pollutants are dispersed from temperate, industrialized nations and tropical regions by air, water, ice, and migratory animals (Tenenbaum, “Northern” A65). Upon reaching the Arctic, these chemicals precipitate and become trapped in the permafrost – ground that remains frozen throughout the entire year (Suk 114; “Permafrost”). Low temperatures preserve the compounds for extraordinary amounts of time (Rothwell 282). This permafrost is melting across the Arctic; as it melts, it releases the trapped pollutants into the ecosystem. As a result, concentrations of 54 nanograms per liter of the pesticide hexachlorocyclohexane were found in ten Russian rivers, whereas the next highest concentration (in rivers further south) was three nanograms per liter; studies show that PCB concentrations have been increasing in areas with more melting (Tenenbaum, “Northern” A65). While most chemical concentrations in the environment are relatively low at the producer level, bioaccumulation magnifies the concentration of harmful pollutants. Chemicals are retained in tissues and fats; when an organism consumes another organism, it acquires that organism’s chemicals; thus, magnification occurs at each trophic level as animals consume other organisms. Bioaccumulation increases the concentration of harmful chemicals to dangerous levels when natives consume traditional foods. For instance, Inuit in northern Quebec have 33 times the concentration of PCBs and 7 times as much tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin as residents of southern Quebec (Tenenbaum, “Northern” A66). Moreover, attention span, memory, and language have decreased in children whose mothers have been exposed to PCB and methylmercury through traditional food (Tenenbaum, “Northern” A68). This occurs because bioaccumulation amplifies the concentration of PCB, and other toxins, in the colostrum of a nursing mother. The concern any Arctic native may have of acquiring dangerous levels of POPs from food is no doubt augmented when the security of a child is endangered; after all, young are far more vulnerable to disease from pathogens, poor nutrition, and pollutants like PCB and DDT. The reality is that these chemicals are affecting humans. Something must be done to clean up the abundant POPs and radioactive chemicals. Again, if temperate and tropical practices are not changed to control greenhouse gas emissions and if pollutants continue to accumulate in the Arctic, indigenous people may have to alter their diet and abandon subsistence hunting for fear that they will be poisoned. Arctic populations have been assaulted by climate change – and more damage may still be done. Should temperate society expect indigenous populations to alter their sustenance lifestyles to avoid illness because of industrial emissions? For positive change to occur, Western society must first acknowledge that environmental warming directly endangers human communities. The dangers natives face are a disturbing alarm – showing society the destructive power of climate change. These cultures have been endangered by human negligence; now is the time for education and action. Promising efforts to solve these issues come from international agreement and collaboration manifest as two distinct types of partnership – legal and scientific. The purposes of legal alliances are to unite indigenous peoples, inform the public, provide political pressure, and speak on behalf of the entire Arctic. The Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS) took early leadership in searching for solutions, establishing other institutions (such as AMAP), and providing unity between Arctic regions. Rothwell lists five intentions of the AEPS: (1) to protect the Arctic ecosystem, including humans; (2) to provide for the protection, enhancement and restoration of environmental quality and the sustainable utilisation of natural resources…; (3) to recognize and … seek to accommodate the traditional and cultural needs, values and practices of the indigenous peoples as determined by themselves…; (4) to review regularly the state of the Arctic environment; and (5) to identify, reduce and, as a final goal, eliminate pollution. (295) With clearly stated objectives and support of several people groups, the AEPS is equipped to lead the struggle against environmental changes in the Arctic. Furthermore, with the proposal and acceptance of the Arctic Council Initiative (ACI), increased international stability can be expected. According to its website, “The Arctic Council is a high-level forum for cooperation, coordination and interaction between Arctic states, indigenous communities and other Arctic residents (Arctic Council)”. Promoting cooperation between several governments and indigenous organizations, the ACI has power and potential to improve the condition of the Arctic. As shown in the example of ACI, indigenous people have begun impacting international and domestic policy by forming alliances with the interest of protecting their culture; this is especially due to the leadership of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC) and the Saami Council and the pressure they provide (Rothwell 306-307). If international agreements maintain the support of multiple nations and receive public support, they will be able to address issues like remedy of an injured environment, management of industrial emissions and pollutants, emergency response to accidents, and general protection. Further, while the AMAP has successfully determined many of the important pollutants threatening native populations, the governmental response has been minimal (Tenenbaum, “Northern” A69). People must pressure their national governments to become increasingly involved in international policy-making to protect indigenous people. The goals of collaborative research are to create an environment where: researchers easily find information they need, the Arctic public is taught what changes are occurring and why, natives can make decisions about the direction of studies, and science can best address ice and pollution problems. Research partnerships could be especially effective in solving the dilemma associated with POP assimilation. Suk details two types of studies that require strict cooperation between researchers and the Arctic communities plagued by increasing levels of pollutants: diet and health monitoring and study of exposures, effects, and susceptibilities. Collaborative research plans to use three types of data to understand vulnerabilities: measurement of exposure to pollutants, identification of effects on health, and analysis of differences between individuals’ exposures and effect outcomes (susceptibilities) (Suk 117). The latter biomarker determines genetic variation that can cause vulnerability or resistance. It is useful in developing a cure to the specific exposure or event that causes the health changes; in the case of Arctic research, the environmental exposure is pollutants while the effects include change in cognitive ability. Study is necessary to determine what pollutants are present in the environment, how they biologically affect humans, and how humans can be treated if they develop diseases. An important component of this research involves understanding and relating to the indigenous populations being studied. Researchers must overcome cultural obstacles and understand that Arctic natives may resist research because of spiritual beliefs. For this reason, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission requires that cultures be protected when conducting research on people groups (Suk 118). To fulfill this requirement, the AMAP established a community-based participatory research (CBPR) that has formed networks between several villages and research groups (Suk 118). CBPR is a research method that teaches the study group the science behind POP exposure and health changes, that explains to them the purpose of conducting research, and that gives native communities influence and direction in the research process. It is a wonderful idea because it gives natives authority, thereby ensuring that research doesn’t abuse or offend the subjects. International organization and collaboration on these projects is essential. Because the Arctic is widespread, because communities are so diverse, and because researchers are obligated to work with and bond with natives to create a more comfortable research environment, studies must be conducted by many researchers in many diverse locations. Successful international collaboration has potential to effectively serve health needs of communities. Another possible solution to the increasing concentrations and exposures to POPs is to create national or international institutions to regulate use of toxins and manage disposal of chemicals. Toxins (including DDT) are still used in many countries – even after being banned in the U.S. and Canada (Williams 72). Therefore, concentrations of POPs are likely to increase unless pesticide use is ceased. Arctic natives would benefit from the adoption of worldwide policy banning these toxins – although this would negatively affect those who are dependent on pesticides to protect themselves from diseased mosquitoes. The United Nations Economic Commission has already begun negotiations to regulate the use of POPs (Tenenbaum, “Northern” A69). Again, if the public were willing to acknowledge the threat pollutants pose to Arctic people and to coerce their national government to act, then health risks from consuming traditional foods could be significantly reduced and native culture could be protected. Furthermore, because products of the consumption of fuel used in transportation and industry contribute to warming, changes in fuel usage could cause a noticeable decrease in warming rates. An average car exhausts 50 tons of carbon-dioxide into the atmosphere; proposals (such as Kyoto) suggest that regulations be put into place that increase standards for fuel economy (specifically, 45 mpg for cars and 34 mpg for trucks) (Williams 74). Williams suggests that companies should make use of better, already extant technologies and developments – pointing to the fact that it is already possible to get over 50 mpg (74). The public should consider purchasing vehicles that best suit their needs, otherwise it would be appropriate for the government to restrict SUV sales and purchases. Also, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Union of Concerned Scientists, 122 corporations are the source of eighty percent of greenhouse gas emissions (Williams 75). It would be appropriate for these companies to change their energy usage and fuel consumption behavior to retard climate change. Renewable energy sources should continue to be developed and they need public support for Western society to ever develop a more energy efficient economy. People must support domestic and international policies that will reduce both carbon emissions and discharge of pollutants into the atmosphere. Again, international cooperation and research have a lot of potential to solve the difficulties surrounding the Arctic because of their legal and scientific approaches; because of their incorporation of many factors, including cultural needs of indigenous people; and because they include indigenous people in decisions and policy negotiations – strongly considering their experience and feelings. Prospective changes in energy use and economy should be anticipated with excitement and current possibilities examined. Alternative energies, hybridized vehicles, etc. should be considered as magnificent opportunities to reduce pollution and warming. Bearing in mind the threat warming and POPs pose to Arctic cultures, Western society ought to readily modify behaviors that contribute to this threat.
Works Cited Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA). Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme. 28 Jan. 2007. <http://www.amap.no/acia/>. Arctic Council. Arctic Council. 13 Feb. 2007. <http://www.arctic-council.org>. Drapkin, Jennifer. “A Struggle to Stay Afloat.” Smithsonian 37.1 (2006): 48-50. Academic Search Premier. Buswell Memorial Library, Wheaton, IL. 23 January 2007. http://search.ebscohost.com. Kennedy, Andrew D. “Antarctic Terrestrial Ecosystem Response to Global Environmental Change.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26 (1995): 683-704. JSTOR. Buswell Memorial Library, Wheaton, IL. 23 January 2007. http://www.jstor.org. Murray, Louise. “On THIN ICE.” Geographical 78.8 (2006): 32-35. Academic Search Premier. Buswell Memorial Library, Wheaton, IL. 23 January 2007. http://search.ebscohost.com. “Permafrost.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encylopædia Britannica Online. 29 Jan. 2007 <http://britannica.com/eb/article-9374938>. Rothwell, Donald R. “International Law and the Protection of the Arctic Environment.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 44.2 Apr. 1995: 280-312. JSTOR. Buswell Memorial Library, Wheaton, IL. 23 January 2007. http://www.jstor.org. Suk, William A., et al. “Human Exposure Monitoring and Evaluation in the Arctic: The Importance of Understanding Exposures to the Development of Public Health Policy.” Environmental Health Perspectives 112.2 Feb. 2004: 113-120. JSTOR. Buswell Memorial Library, Wheaton, IL. 23 January 2007. http://www.jstor.org. Tenenbaum, David J. “Global Warming: Arctic Climate: The Heat Is On.” Environmental Health Perspectives 113.2 Feb. 2005: A91. JSTOR. Buswell Memorial Library, Wheaton, IL. 23 January 2007. http://www.jstor.org. Tenenbaum, David J. “Northern Overexposure.” Environmental Health Perspectives 106.2 Feb. 1998: A64-A69. JSTOR. Buswell Memorial Library, Wheaton, IL. 23 January 2007. http://www.jstor.org. Williams, Mary E., ed. Is Global Warming A Threat?. Greenhaven Press: San Diego, 2003. Wohlforth, Charles. “As the Arctic Melts, and Ancient Culture Faces Ruin.” National Wildlife 43.3: 48-55. Academic Search Premier. Buswell Memorial Library, Wheaton, IL. 23 January 2007. http://search.ebscohost.com. | | |
| My thoughts about an absolutely beautiful day. Spring in Fall Wonderful Autumn day Experiencing pure joy You are good; You are warm With a cool breeze on my neck, Color and Rich smells that Tell me life has just begun. Memories Still with thought Building a fort in the wood Shallow creek Bathe my feet Flowers smile back at me Heavy rain, But not cold, Bearing the scent of spirit Vigor and Vitality Remind me of your beauty. Today has Captured my Breath in small glass bottle. -Eric E______ | | |
|
