The Route to Success

When reading about the Neolithic Era, a theme and continuous notion began to pop up, and I worded it in a way that shows both the positive and negative elements to it. This demonstrates exactly how the people in that time period struggled to find a balance between the pros and cons of an invention or idea. The people in the Neolithic Era exemplified the notion that the key to success if failure because through the revolutions and theories which were applied to society, they experienced both positive and negative outcomes as well as challenges which presented them with options that consistently returned to the idea of sustaining a connection between society in the environment. 

The principle of irrigation was developed as societies needed to find methods to efficiently and productively transport water from the distant water sources, the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, to their community. The civilization needed to come up with ways in which they can transfer sufficient amounts of water from the rivers to society without spilling mass amounts. They needed such a water source for the fundamental survival need of drinking, as well as to grow foods, plants, and livestock on newly developed farms. Irrigation expanded civilization exceedingly, as it sprouted an entirely new era of producing food and allowed people to trade and share foods since it was coming in larger amounts than before as a hunter brought in one animal for many individuals. This change initiated trade and expanded societies who traded with one another, creating new relationships in the process. While this was an extreme positive which came out of the invention of irrigation, there was also the immense danger that heavy rains could flood the rivers, therefore flowing huge amounts of water into communities and farms via irrigation systems, destroying farms and several human and animal lives on the way. This was the environment's method restoring balance and order into society, as it (water) was not intended to be utilized in this way. Therefore, with the relationship between humans and their environment thriving to a new level, the connection was forced to backtrack and restart the process of development again, as it was obviously flawed and not stable and agreeable with the environment. Through the connection with the environment, humanity was faced with an enormous failure and in need of revision of the method of irrigation. This failure, though, led to further adaptation and alteration of the notion of irrigation, and with the combination of the learned mistakes from the failure as well as further developed logic and thought, society was able to take the failure and use it to their complete advantage. They established a new, revised method of irrigation and transportation of water, forming a massive success. 

This illustrates an ideal example of how society found the key to success in failure. As peculiar as it may be, society develops and progresses only when a failure occurs as a result of a revolution or new idea; it is (mostly) bound for failure. Although, using the failure as experience and demonstration, humanity is then able to use what they have learned and apply it to create something more successful and developed than they ever envisioned.

The Earthquake's Economic Impact on Haiti

http://search.proquest.com/docview/405568918/1324A89FCF969B118B4/1?accountid=3360

1. This newspaper article offers many examples and identifications of Haiti’s economic standing after the earthquake destroyed most parts of society just a few weeks and months before. It explains how the undoubted economy of Haiti has rebounded extremely well from the disaster which hit them. The economy is showing signs of prosperity as business if returning after all businesses and economies were at a complete standstill for a while after the earthquake. Although, the earthquake shut down the primary banking systems, citizens found themselves in need of cash and a source of money. This raised the need of the recirculation of money through society, as the Haitian government implemented methods in order to infuse money back into circulation. The basic need is to get small businesses going again to get money into people’s possession, to re-involve banks into society and get them back up and running. The ones who do still have and are regaining money, though, are very protective and use minimal amounts because of the extreme rise of prices of all merchandise. In addition to money needing to be reinstalled in society, the destruction of many stores and economic centers have caused countless people to become unemployed, therefore having no money being received and none to spend to recirculate it. But, reporters and officials in Haiti are taking this opportunity of being in the rubble to rebuild an improved society. They say that with all the donated and found money flowing in, Haiti has the chance to create hundreds of new jobs, merchandises, structures, and even a new philosophy to lead them in the future. 
2. I chose this source because it presented be with the exact positive argument that I was searching for. Just like we are always supposed to say what happened as a result of something, in this case, the earthquake, this article explains the major issues which Haiti now faces and where it plans to progress, all because of the earthquake. Instead of the article merely stating Haiti’s current condition and the economic effects (which leaves me guessing how its current state will influence the future of the country), it provided different perspectives from reporters, citizens, officials, and professionals who were all effected in some way by the disaster regarding how their areas of focus view the fortune of Haiti’s defective economy. This allowed me to compare and contrast each viewpoint, therefore presenting me with similarities which then went to assemble a non-biased and equally agreed upon perspective of how the earthquake effected the current and future condition of Haiti’s economy (for the most part). Also, because it is a primary source and give details from someone who was writing at the time as well as individuals who were living at the time and in the area of the actual event. This allowed me to form much more complex and well rounded conclusions to the topic at hand, and use it to present and argue the economic impact which Haiti faced.
3. This periodical article applies to the essay prompt because it ideally explains the influence that the earthquake had on all aspects of the economy, gives examples of specific struggles, and expressed what society expects to do to reinstate the economy which they had before (or an improved system), all from more than one perspective. Using this source would allow me to write a valid essay since it is a primary source, yet not (completely) biased, as it provides firsthand knowledge from quotes and reports from individuals on both sides of the spectrum, whether poor or rich, political or economical, etc. It gives solid information which is all backed up by a quote which could be used as evidence to prove my point. Also, it raises good questions which all argue the positives, and makes no assumptions but rather predictions and ideas all based on collaborative and given information. Primarily, this source would help me answer the essay question because it serves as a reference point that has a variety of information which, whether biased or not, all answer the question at hand. Using all of the diverse information and thoughts, the source forms a combination of each element to structure one firm, evident, thoughtful, and supported answer to the inquiry. Additionally, it (was) current, and allows me to see the situation from a more prevalent and innovative outlook, therefore not forming a bias but answering the question more reflectively and potently. Both the diversity and prevalence of the article would result in a more intricate and convincing essay that proves to readers what the economic impact of the earthquake was on Haiti.

Haiti Earthquake--"Shabbat of Hell"

While reading through the Haiti Earthquake article, the piece of information which I thought of as the most distinguished and significant was the notion of the situation being just like the stories of the Holocaust. “It’s just like the stories we are told of the Holocaust – thousands of bodies everywhere.” This primary source describes and details the magnitude of the disaster and its aftermath, and provides sufficient and illustrative information to what the conditions were like. These few words encompasses several descriptions that allows one to understand what really happened. It describes death, hunger, disorder, destruction of culture, corruption of humanity, inhumanity, collaborations of humanity, community, danger, and so much more that made up the Holocaust, therefore making up this disaster. As it may be a bit of an exaggeration from the one who spoke about it this way because he was greatly effected by it, the idea of the earthquake comparing to the Holocaust shows the vast spectrum by which all aspects of life were effected by it. In other words, by establishing a connection between persecution/war and the environment, two completely opposite elements of life, proves how one aspect of life goes on to involve and impact all others. What the quote explains is significant because the earthquake lead to an extreme amount of development in all of the areas of life which were effected and consequentially changed by it. By damaging and changing the environment, the earthquake also altered the way humanity stands in relation to the world today. 

A Walk in the Woods "vs./and" Hurricane Katrina

In English, we just finished reading the playwrights, A Walk in the Woods. In this play, two negotiators spend a year or so debating over the limitations of nuclear arms throughout the USSR and United States of America, in addition to forming relationships with one another that carry their negotiation to an entirely new level. One of the characters, Botvinnik (he is Russian) realizes and communicates the point that technology is moving at a much faster and efficient rate than government and humanity is moving at. In other words, the pace of technology is outrunning humanity, and humanity can never win the race. This relates identically a main theme which emerges form Hurricane Katrina, in that humanity instituted a technology which was unreliable and unstable, and cause humanity to take an enormous step backwards and evaluate what was feasible and dependable enough to build an entire community upon it. We created the technologies of the levies to break the ocean waters and divide it from the land; if not for the levies, the city would be underwater. But, because of the prominent ambition for advancement and progression in the world humanity developed a groundbreaking, complex, and unstable technology which allowed humanity itself to expand as well as its capacity and knowledge of engineering, construction, and technology. Essentially, humanity has grown itself into something bigger and better than humanity had ever conceived of, and is outpacing nature. The theme of a fight between technology and nature becomes relevant, as each is trying to dominate the other. Just like in the playwright, humans are using technologies which are not meant to be used, let alone established, in nature. But, the pace, quality, and quantity by which these technologies are inventions are moving at and playing a bigger and bigger part in society is defeating the pace by which humanity is moving at. Eventually, the technologies which were so ahead of our time and beyond our capacity of sustainability will come to hurt us, just like the Hurricane eliminated most elements of humanity and society as well as the negotiations of limiting nuclear arms separated humanity and turned it against itself. It is impossible to slow down the pace of technology and speed up the pace of humanity, so, instead of establishing a mutual pace by which each progresses, I think a theme of nature and technology should replace one of nature versus technology. Nature should work along and in line with technology, creating a system which both benefits from the other. In other words, humanity must overcome its determination to become bigger and better than nature itself, and apply the limited technology to nature and discover as well as implement ways which the advanced technology could improve nature, as the two would be working together rather than against each other. This would prevent disasters like Katrina from destroying human installations of technology and causing something much greater than it would have been if humanity abided by nature’s law and built New Orleans on land which is naturally above water/sea level. If technology and nature work together, than humanity in addition to nature has the potential to collaboratively become something bigger and better than one could have ever conceived.

The Blame Game

After watching the third part of the Hurricane Katrina film, I began thinking about the relationship between blame and subjectivity. We saw many individuals who work in different areas of society who have incredibly conflicting and contrasting thought about the disaster, whose fault it was, and how it can be fixed. Someone who held a high position at FEMA was one hundred precent convinced that it was the Department of Homeland Security fault that the disaster escalated to such and extreme height, yet the Department of Homeland Security thought the exact same about FEMA. Essentially, both FEMA and Homeland Security have completely different roles in society, as FEMA is to relieve humanity after a disaster and Homeland Security is merely to insure the utmost safety in the country. While their missions and roles in society overlap and they both provide for similar humanitarian needs, the question remains: whose responsibility is it? This question can be answered in countless amount of ways, but all responses will contain some partiality based on who one answers. The blame game and ongoing fight to determine whose fault it truly was continued/continues because neither side wants to accept the responsibility and consequences which come along with the blame. In reality, no individual or group wants to be the one who is identified and labeled as the one/s who were responsible for a catastrophic disaster, and therefore, they naturally put the blame on another individual/group to put the focus and recognition on someone else than the ones guilty. But, the truth is, when it comes to the responsibility of Katrina, no human or group can be singled out and blamed. It was humanity’s fault as a whole. That is the only answer that is justified and impartial, and the truth. The only way that Katrina resulted so poorly was through the collaboration of all aspects of humanity itself; a single one could not have caused and effected the victims and greater world like humanity did during and after the disaster. FEMA did not make sure that all necessary steps were immediately taken to help and deliver the things the victims in New Orleans needed. The Department of Homeland Security did not consider and secure every citizen’s safety, well-being, and protection as many were left feeling abandoned and vulnerable. When stating the facts of what each side did, we can determine that neither FEMA or Homeland Security improved the situation, and in fact, worsened it in some ways. Therefore, it was/is essential to not blame and argue over whose fault it was when it was everyone’s fault, and the collaboration of humanity which was not taking productive action caused catastrophe such as Hurricane Katrina.

Human Nature

When watching the film regarding the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, there was one thing which particularly struck me. And I’m still trying to decide whose “fault”, or responsibility for what happened it was. So, I’m going to argue both sides. My question is: how did human nature intervene and effect people’s lives in New Orleans after the disaster? Human nature is defined as the general psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioral traits of humankind (Wikipedia). This is exactly what was showcased and exercised in the film. On one hand, human nature has the distinct and powerful will to survive, and do whatever it takes in order to do so. This was developed early one in the course of the disaster, as people were desperately exploring and considering all possible measures by which to survive what was to come/what was happening. But, it really shined as countless people were in need of many resources essential to survive, and stranded with no help on the way or contact to the outer world. Because of such strong and devoted human nature, the natural thought was to go to stores and places which provided things that they could use to either make them more comfortable or to fulfill their survival needs (food, water, etc.). Therefore, human nature overrode all ideas of morals and ethics, and people raided and destroyed all stores and homes in which held things that they could use to better their situation. From looting many stores, humanity was using its surroundings in order to survive. This represents the side of human nature which can turn out to be more voracious, self-absorbed, and negative, but can be argued positive for reasons regarding the essence of human nature: survival (but the means to come across it). This raises the point, do the ends justify the means? This argues the more unfavorable side of the question and human nature as a whole, but there was one area of the film which argued the exact opposite. Right before its conclusion, it was heard and seen of a group of people (which turned into the entire city) singing a song of hope, faith, and good will. One man began singing “I’m Gonna Let it Shine!” and the entire feeling and emotion of the film was lifted to a positive, optimistic level. The population was coming together and sharing, coexisting, and surviving as one instead of as individuals. The sound of the music and the happiness which burst from the people’s faces when hearing and joining in changed the entire spirit of the film. The enormous change from devastated, dejected, hopeless, and solitariness feelings to hopeful, ethical, communal, and mere pleasure feelings highlighted what a small action can do to an entire community, and how that there was still some optimism and hope left throughout all of the destruction and devastation. This exemplifies the positive, ethical, and bright side of human nature, and shows that in the worst of times, human nature has the capability to change it and better it; literally and philosophically picking the world up form the rubble and rebuilding it. It shows that aside from crime and selfishness, human nature has a good and virtuous side to it, and it is determined which side is shown based solely on the individual. As the film represented both the criminal and exemplary sides of human nature, it was and still is up to humanity itself to live in accordance to the side of human nature which we all admire and aspire.

The Ripple Effect

After watching some of the film regarding Hurricane Katrina and the discussion of the crossovers which occur between different aspects of society, I asked the question: why does one element of society consistently conflict and effect other ones? Throughout the video, there were interviews of individuals who specialize in a specific area of life in society, and each step taken, no matter how big or how small, in one certain area of life goes on to make a huge effect on the present and future state of people’s lives. The government was the first area alluded to, as everyone immediately looked towards their elected officials to guide them in a secure, stable, and ultimately good direction to avoid as much destruction as possible. Politically, the disaster became known as something which ignited an enormous issue of trust and faithfulness in the government, in the sense that society did not know whether or not the government is doing the best thing for humanity, keeping all individual needs and desires in mind. But, it also was an opportunity for leaders and the government to take a stand and guide the community in a positive and agreeable direction. Unfortunately, that only occurred after the physical disaster hit society. After debate and much wasted time, the government imposed a mandatory evacuation to all citizens in New Orleans. This caused much controversy in society, as there were two sides of the community which were opposed to each other; one who knew they wanted to leave and acted straight away, and the ones who decided to sit it out and see how it would play out. This separation sprouted an entirely new struggle in issues of social class and economics. People who were eager and in favor of evacuating and relocating were most likely the ones with the most options, therefore having more money (usually). The ones who desired to stay and keep all of their resources and valuables with them were the ones who had a lack of money and class, like ones in the 9th Ward. This created a division in society, beginning issues of social class. The ones in the lower class began to make accusations to the upper classes, which then got politics involved in order to justly and equally allow each individual (regardless of class) to get the same chance of survival. Then, came issues of technology, as the levies which the city was structured upon, were destroyed. This initiated conflicts in the technological world, as people began to understand that technology can not always be trusted, and building a city on the foundation of a technology that without it, the city would not be standing, was not the most logical idea. Without the levies, the city would be flooded and part of the ocean; it was not meant for nature. This went back to involve technologists who created the levies to be questioned, the government for misinterpreting and not telling society the truth about the strength and structure of the levies, as well as social issues while the richer people have more options and resources that could be used to escape the disaster. It is a ripple effect; no matter what area of life something happens in, it goes back to involve and effect all others. I think this happens because cultures are so diverse, and the diversity originates from one central point: humanity. With everything expanding off one point, all other points merge and impact whatever follows or comes before it; therefore inserting elements of it into another. In other words, every individual part of society has something from all of the other parts as well. This forces each individual element to effect all other elements of society whenever it faces something challenging, new, positive, etc. Hurricane Katrina was not only an environmental disaster--it was a variety of disasters all beginning with a gust of wind.