Get Involved Outside the Classroom,
Where Learning is Limitless

by: Steven Benson

With over 20,000 undergraduate students, it is very easy for one to get “lost in the crowd.” Walking through the Diag, students often see unfamiliar faces, an occurrence quite different from the typical high school experience. The University of Michigan prides itself on the sense of community present among students. Community on this campus is built in a number of ways, with student activism and involvement in different organizations playing a major role. There are over 1,200 active student groups on this campus, each with a unique focus and mission statement. The excuse for student complacency can no longer be, “I couldn’t find anything that interested me.”

I decided to get involved on campus not to boost my resume, or to make my encouraging mother proud, but rather to satisfy my intrinsic needs. College is a unique experience for most in its requirement of self-motivation. College is only four years long, and it is what you make of it. No one is peering over my shoulder telling me what to do or how to make my decisions. To me, simply attending class and coming straight home was not the way I wanted to remember my college experience. I needed to become a part of something that was greater than myself. Solely attending classes didn’t offer me that “something;” I wanted to make my mark on the University. Then I found LSA Student Government.

My involvement as President of LSA Student Government is something from which I have extremely benefited. Academics come first, of course, but I have learned certain skills from Student Government that cannot be learned in the classroom. These skills are practical by nature and will help me advance myself in the real world. Networking is one important skill that first comes to mind. Through my collaboration with students, faculty, and administrators, I have built relationships and made connections with very influential people. Not to mention that I have made some of my best friends through my work. While we are a very tight knit group, we are also very critical of each other when needed Student Government taught me many useful things: how to conduct professional meetings, set a budget, address sensitive issues, and motivate others to complete their projects.

Furthermore, Student Government enabled me to strengthen my overall leadership skills, a requirement for any occupation or graduate program. The top recruiters in the workforce stress the importance of student involvement on campus specifically student leadership. Being an organization member is important; however, it is equally important to show growth inside an organization.

Student activism is an idea open for interpretation. There is no right way to become involved on campus. To some, joining an organization with three members is the right decision.

Piece of advice: rather than joining ten different student organizations at once, join a few and hold a leadership position in each.

To others, joining a fraternity or sorority with over 100 members is a perfect fit. Regardless of personal preference, students need to see beyond the classroom and acknowledge that any form of involvement is better than no involvement at all.

University of Michigan students are lucky to attend school in such a beautiful city that is interconnected with the campus culture. Take advantage of the many resources that Ann Arbor has to offer. Work with Ann Arbor Organizations , such as the Hospital or the public schools, to help them reach their goals. Even doing something as small as planting a flower in the arboretum, picking up trash on South University, or even volunteering at the Ann Arbor YMCA or JCC will make a difference. As a student at the University of Michigan it is our duty and obligation to give back to our community.

Let me offer a piece of advice: college is too short to only focus on classroom academics. These are meant to be the best years of our lives, so why not take advantage of them? Make the most out of this opportunity by getting involved, and you will be sure to benefit in the long run. Do you want to reflect back on your college experience and only remember aspects of student life relating to academics? Or do you want to realize that your four years were filled with great experiences, memories created through your involvement in an organization, and a sense of impacting our campus culture after earning your degree? These choices will help define the person you are, and the person you aspire to be.

back to top

Introduction to Fascinating Ideas: Why Attending Class Matters

by: Tim Dodd

Excerpts from the Fall 2010 LSA Course Guide: “Critical Theory in Medicine and Healing,” “Ghosts, Demons, Monsters: Fear and Dread in Literature,” “Experiments in Nonlinear Dynamics,” “Geoenvironmental Engineering,” “African Cinema,” “Introduction to Ethnobotany,” “The Mathematics of Language.”

To paraphrase that famous line from the Wizard of Oz: Toto, we’re not in high school anymore!

By now you’ve heard the drill from the deans: coming to the University of Michigan means learning from some of the world’s most renowned scholars in superb academic departments, most of which are ranked among the top 5 in the country. In addition to that spiel from the academic affairs administration, you have undoubtedly heard this line from representatives of the student affairs administration: “Your most memorable learning experiences at UM occur outside the classroom.”

As the director of academic advising in the Newnan LSA Academic Advising Center, I find myself amazed every semester by the number of interesting and unusual course titles and topics – just a few of which I noted above – that sprout up in the curricula at UM. This university provides myriad opportunities to take classes that deepen understanding, stretch the imagination, challenge assumptions, and gain new and nuanced perspectives on ourselves and the universe around us. That UM students sail beyond limited and conventional thinking and immerse themselves in ideas never before considered is central to my attempt as an advisor to inspire students to participate in the grandeur of the undergraduate experience. Frankly, there is no comparable time in your life – and I’ve lived many years in many places since leaving the undergraduate ranks – that permits the breadth of subject exploration and elicits the degree of intellectual wonder as do the undergraduate years.

While I attended a much smaller institution as an undergrad (Fordham University in the Bronx), I also had the pleasure of taking a diverse set of courses that enrich my life to this day. Would I have the appreciative and critical eye for art and film that I developed as a student in philosophy of aesthetics and film studies classes? Could I be the critical consumer of political discourse that I am had I not taken a course on rhetoric and propaganda? Do I still find compelling the range of human beliefs, behaviors and motivations because I took a religion and psychoanalysis class? Is my ability to assess quantitative data derived from my two semesters of calculus?

That UM bifurcates student existence into “academic affairs” and “student affairs” and then watches those distinct bureaucracies compete over which realm provides the best and most memorable “learning” is not at all representative of the undergraduate experience at UM.

Learning is a dynamic and integrative process that, as practiced particularly by UM undergraduates, spurs intellectual, social, personal and ethical development inside and outside the classroom.

True, you will grow smarter and more confident because we have many “top 5” departments and programs (and great thinkers and experts in each). But profound learning occurs throughout the undergraduate years because we also have 1241 student organizations (it says so on the Maize Pages; look it up) and tons of spontaneous moments of interaction, inquisition and reflection with friends, colleagues, and strangers on and off campus.    And here is the key: what is absorbed in class is tested through application in social, organizational, and community settings, and what is experienced in those settings informs and animates understanding of classroom theories and concepts. There’s a catch, though: it doesn’t happen by osmosis.

You have to go to class and be an active participant in the course “dialogue.”

With the advent of PowerPoint slides and lecture notes posted to Ctools course sites, some students believe it is unnecessary to attend class. To me, skipping class is like buying a ticket to a concert and, instead of attending, downloading the play list. Sure, you know what was performed, but you didn’t hear the words, you didn’t listen to how songs were played, you didn’t become aware of what nuanced shadings on verse and melody occurred, and you weren’t present to discuss the concert after it ended. You never would skip a concert and think that viewing the playlist was sufficient, so why would you skim a PowerPoint loaded on Ctools instead of attending class? Even in a 400-person lecture, listening to a scholar present his or her ideas stimulates a much deeper understanding of the course material, and discussing the lectures outside of class often solidifies or expands that understanding.

Maintaining the habit of class attendance can also provide practical benefits. It helps you develop a productive discipline and a rhythm of responsibility, both of which enforce effective time management and a healthy sleep schedule. There’s also no better way to get to know your professors, who, after all, will be writing your letters of recommendation. As wonderful as these benefits are, though, the most important reason to attend class is the intrinsically valuable experience the classroom environment provides. In fact, the classroom experience can be just as useful and important as other “real life” experiences. There is no substitute for a direct encounter with fascinating ideas and the minds that produced them.

So, yes, Go Blue . . . but go to class, too

back to top

edited by: aaron bekemeyer and lexie tourek

Science Based Field Research Could Address the Roots of Terrorism

by:  Dr. Scott Atran

S enators, I appreciate your letting me, an anthropologist, relate my views on the U.S. government’s strategy and efforts to counter violent extremism and radicalization and the military’s role in these efforts. I’ve been with would-be martyrs and holy warriors from Morocco’s Atlantic shore to Indonesia’s outer islands, and from Gaza to Kashmir. My field experience and studies in diverse cultural settings inform my views.

We are fixated on technology and technological success, and we have no sustained or systematic approach to field-based social understanding of our adversaries’  motivation, intent, will, and the dreams that drive their strategic vision, however strange.

On the intelligence side, the Christmas Day bombing attempt was a deep failing, caused in part by too great a reliance on technology to the detriment of social intelligence.  Computers, and the stochastic models and algorithms they use, are not well suited to pick up the significance of the almost unimaginable effort and anguish it took for one of the most respected men in a nation to swallow his pride and love of family and walk into an American embassy to say that his son was being dangerously radicalized. Widgets — for which there are billions of dollars-cannot do the job of socially sensitive thinkers — for whom there is relatively little concrete support — in creating alliances, leveraging non military advantages, reading intentions, building trust, changing opinions, managing perceptions, and empathizing (though not necessarily sympathizing) with others so as to understand, and change, what moves them to do what they do.

On the military side, career advancement in the armed forces privileges operational prowess and combat experience, which are necessary to gain victory in battles. But different abilities may be necessary for winning without having to fight, or for ending a war in Lincoln’s definitive sense of destroying enemies by making them into friends.  As George Marshall understood, this is what American efforts at democratization abroad are ultimately about. Soldiers should be adequately trained and rewarded for the political mission they are now being asked to carry out, which requires cultural and psychological expertise at being social mediators, managers, and movers.

If you want to be relevant in dealing with the radicalization problem — and successful in the long run in stopping the next and future generations of disaffected youth from finding their life’s meaning in the thrill of taking on the world’s mightiest power — then you have to understand the pathways that take young people to and from political and group violence.  Knowing these pathways, you can do what needs to be done.

The concept of science-based field research – embedded in potential hotspots and open to public verification and replication, with clear ways and means to falsify what is wrong – is often misunderstood in Washington.  Most legislators and policy makers think we have a great deal of this type of research being undertaken and funded.  We don’t.

The concept of science-based field research…is often misunderstood in Washington.  Most legislators and policy makers think we have a great deal of this type of research being undertaken and funded.  We don’t.

With assistance from the Defense Department and the National Science Foundation, ARTIS puts interdisciplinary teams in a conflict region to explore the nature of the conflict with leaders, community members, and youth. We follow up with an experimental design — which allows ready replication of initial results or falsification of our hypotheses — to understand pathways to and from violence.

The main security concern now isn’t from any organization, or from well-trained cadres of volunteers.  The main security concern is from a Qaeda, an inspired viral social and political movement that abuses religion in the name of defending Muslims.  This is particularly contagious among youth who are increasingly marginalized —  economically, socially, politically — and in transition stages in their lives: immigrants, students, in search of friends, mates and jobs.

The popular notion of a “clash of civilizations” is woefully misleading. Violent extremism represents a crash of traditional territorial cultures, not their resurgence, as people unmoored from millennial traditions flail about in search of a social identity. Individuals now mostly radicalize horizontally with their peers, rather than vertically through institutional leaders or organizational hierarchies: in small groups of friends —  from the same neighborhood or social network — or even as loners who find common cause with a virtual internet community.

Lack of economic opportunity often reliably leads to criminality. But given half a chance to take up a moral cause, some petty criminals become hyper-altruists ready to give up their lives for comrades and cause. This is one indication – our research reveals others – that economic opportunities alone may not turn people away from the path to political violence. Rather, youth must be given hopes and dreams of achievement, and plausible means to realize such hopes and dreams.

back to top

Embedded Anthropologists
Threaten Military Security

by: Gabriel Tourek

While it seems that anthropology has a rightful place among all scientific disciplines in determining proper action and intelligent decision-making, I think we can definitively say that, in military issues, pragmatics matter most.  This is not to say an anthropologist could never offer useful insight into practices that constitute some of the most momentous our government will make – to take the lives of those who threaten ours – but that in the majority of circumstances anthropological reflection on military ops can do more harm than good.

Certainly, we must be clear about the function of the “embedded anthropologist” about whom we are speaking.  This social scientist studies, records, removes herself, and philosophizes into the ever growing Word file that will eventually become her doctoral thesis.  This seems uncontroversial: journalists have traveled with the military since the time of Herodotus, publishing their observations far and wide, with significant implications for how future battles and wars are conducted.  For the most part, these are what current embedded anthropologists are like – working with the military as part of a research project, returning home, and submitting, eventually, recommendations to concerned parties.  What frightens me, however, are proposals to incorporate social scientists into the daily planning and strategy operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Military operations are about quick response, communication along the chain of command, and – let us be clear – cold, unflinching violence.  We can care about the victims of war in an abstract sense, but the truth is that we as a society have made a decision to fight when there is a pressing need.  The moral status of the decision to condone violence is exigent circumstances is a separate question; what is at issue here is whether we should allow social science perspectives to influence how our military apparatus carries out its assigned duty.

…We cannot jeopardize our military’s ability to target…and destroy.

To be blunt, we simply cannot jeopardize our military’s ability to target, smash, and destroy.  Gun battles with insurgents should be about simple troop movement, strategic missile targeting, and coordination with local forces.  The unaccounted-for assumptions of our military model do, no question, carry terrible implications for how we are fighting our wars, but fighting has always been about the balance sheet: wiping out the enemy while sustaining the least damages possible.  Our military machine is doing its job; it is killing the bad guys.  Admittedly, this seems to any liberal arts student an unsettling justification.  Yet could we imagine war being conducted in a good way?  Wouldn’t anthropologists simply help the military to be more efficient, to incorporate social observations into the calculating model that spits out death and destruction.

What could a social scientist even contribute in an immediate sense?

What could a social scientist even contribute in an immediate sense?  Let’s consider the nature of our war in Afghanistan.  Drone attacks operated out of the Western United States constitute a significant portion of military action.  Soldiers not on the ground, removed from context, are killing our targets.  Drones are not without efficiency and ethical problems, but we are using them, and it seems that “linguistic interpretations of Taliban metaphor-making in religio-ethnic ritual demonstrations of nationalism” can add little to the job of the man or woman who sits at a screen, points and clicks.

Finally, anthropological recommendations seem more properly situated as reflections, as evaluations of collected data and, most significantly, as comparisons of projections to the actual results of war.  We can only affirm the value of anthropological reflections on military operations after the fact.  Proposals to include anthropologists in military strategizing conflate the work of anthropology with the eagerness of its proponents to fix the problems they see in the world.  The rigor of scientific work, moreover, depends on its non-interventionist stance: how can one observe and reflect upon an event when s/he is affecting the outcome?  When we are dealing with people with bombs and guns, attempting to “understand the situation in context” and change the direction of military deployment not only makes for bad research but may delay action, cost lives, and jeopardize security.

back to top

edited by: Trisha Jain

Life: Up-North

by: Dylan Stec

Whether it’s the waiting, the bus rides, the isolation, or the abundance of food stealing critters, everyone seems to have some reason to hate North Campus. Knowing this, I realize I’m fighting an uphill battle when defending my beloved home. The very fact that there is someone out there who loves this forgotten part of U of M will surely stun some readers. However, I assure you that many people like me exist. We are proud of what many consider our North Campus stigma.

How is best to defend such a universally despised sector of the U of M? As I contemplate this question, I discover that my English class starts in 15 minutes. I quickly gather my stuff, run out the door, and miss the bus. Darn. Never fear though, less than 5 minutes later, another comes rolling right up.

It’s now 11:00, class starts in 10 minutes in Angel Hall. To the uniformed, arriving on time is a lost cause. To the experienced North Campus student, this is no problem. After 7 minutes, (that’s right) the bus stops at CC Little, and I walk briskly towards Angel. At 11:09 I’m in a seat awaiting my professor. Some might call this experience reckless. I call it Monday. Even to the least energetic among us, North Campus poses no problem for early morning classes.

I wake up the next day (with 20 minutes to spare!) and head out for my programming class. I walk down a quiet road surrounded by trees and flowers. I might as well be in the Arb. As I stroll along, I encounter a group of friendly deer. Yep, deer. After living with generations of animal loving students, these normally shy creatures have become nearly as fearless as the Diag squirrels. I elicit little more than a sideways glance from them as I walk by. They listen to me complain about how no one appreciates North Campus until I reach the edge of the woods. For those who have never walked to class with a deer, trust me, it’s just as cool as it sounds. You should try it sometime.

“…oh you don’t have a video game archive on Central? How sad.”

Since it’s kind of chilly, I pass through Pierpont Commons, which connects itself to the Duderstadt Library. Since I’ve got 15 minutes left, I ride the escalator to the second floor and indulge in some video games. Oh, you don’t have a video game archive on Central? How sad. While you dodge traffic on State Street, I play GoldenEye 007.

When class ends, I head over to the North Campus Recreation Building. Even though it’s 4 pm, the only crowded spot is the elliptical room (must be the abundance of engineers and music students up here).

I enjoy the weight room with only a handful of others. Well look at the time, it’s pushing 9 now, and better yet, it’s Friday.

I hop on the next bus down to Central and enjoy the evening. Around 2:45am, I decide it’s time to go to bed and make my way back to CC Little, jumping on the first bus that pulls up.
I have just entered the legendary “Drunk Bus.” Imagine a crazy house party, full of the most intoxicated people you’ve ever met, on wheels. Hilarious.

I get off the bus and walk towards my beloved Cross House. I’m exhausted, and in no mood to deal with hordes of drunk students shouting beneath my window all night. Luckily, I can sleep easily knowing that fully 50% of North just spent their weekend in the library studying for their next engineering exam. Ah, bliss.

The next day, I walk past several bustling Ultimate Frisbee games and head into Bursley’s sprawling cafeteria. Here, the great Sexy G serves up good eats and life advice, all with a happy demeanor and a mustache to rival Chuck Norris. Anyone who has gotten food from Sexy G knows, it just tastes better here.

After lunch, I walk back outside and see my little deer friend wandering between the endless amounts of trees dotting the immense natural landscape. I pass three huge fields hosting three separate soccer games. Who knows, I might even skip stones on the Music School’s pond (it looks like a piano from the sky!). I see another bus drop off more students. Some look bewildered. It’s easy to tell the North Campus rookies. If they just had a little experience, they’d think twice about bashing this truly wonderful place.

North is the WORST

by: Hannah Frey

Picture yourself on a bus – a hellish bus. You know the one.  You are shoved against 10 other people, struggling to stay upright as the bus lurches at each stop. The trip drags on and on as you wait for your time to be released from the confines of the horrible metal contraption. But at least your destination is a pleasant one, right? Somewhere like the mall, Disney World, or at least the Union which offers a plethora of delicious fast food.  Wrong. You’re going to a barren wasteland named North Campus.
What gives me the right to trash North Campus? I am an Engineering sophomore and have been enduring North Campus for almost 2 years. I have learned all the pros and cons, and let me tell you, there are mostly cons.

Not only is the bus ride a major pain, but North Campus itself is just an unsocial place. Looking for an exciting party on North? Well, you’re out of luck, because there are none. Trust me, nothing interesting happens there. I’ve heard students make up weekly parades just to make  North Campus sound more appealing. Guess what? No one comes to these parades. You know why? Because North Campus sucks.

Another problem I have with North Campus – feces. I typically watch where I walk, but I have often fallen victim to carefully concealed piles of poop. Geese droppings are the most prevalent, but students need to be careful to avoid the little pebbles left behind by deer and rabbits. I absolutely love animals, but not the messes they leave behind. Nature should be viewed, not stepped in. While I enjoy the surprise of seeing a goose or deer in the city, I really don’t want to deal with the surprise that I later find on my shoe.

Then there’s the North Campus curfew. Now wait a second. Didn’t you leave home so that you wouldn’t have a curfew? Well, this curfew isn’t set by mommy and daddy. This curfew depends solely on the buses which stop running at 2 am on weekdays and 3 am on weekends. I thoroughly enjoy the freedom that college has to offer, and I by no means want to cut back on my weekend partying so that I can make the last bus. I have watched many of my friends, reluctant and near tears, leave an exciting party to catch the North bus. Let’s face the facts. The North Campus bus has ‘cock-blocked’ many a horny college student. No one wants their cock blocked, literally or figuratively. So not only are you being unwillingly dragged away from a rare chance to get lucky, but you’ve also doomed yourself to riding the ‘Vomit Comet.’

The Vomit Comet needs no introduction. But for those of you who’ve been fortunate enough to have avoided North Campus, let me describe it for you. It’s a bus filled with drunken people. This may sound like a fun continuation of the party you just left. No, little one, this is not so. The line between good and evil on this bus is drawn between happy drunks and angry drunks. The happy drunks are singing The Victors or Sweet Caroline. The angry drunks are yelling and trying to fight the happy drunks.

Other than being drunk, there is something the two groups share in common. They’ve both lost control of their ability to hold in their fluids. It’s inevitable that someone on the Vomit Comet will throw up or wet themselves. Am I exaggerating? I wish I was. The messy culprit might get tossed off the bus, but this still leaves you with a bus full of puke and a good 15 minutes before you can get the hell out.

North Campus is not a pleasant place. You shouldn’t even want to visit. Here’s my final warning. Take it from someone who has class there everyday, North Campus destroys souls.

Take Responsibility and Take Action

by: Lilly Zoller

As children, we were all taught various invaluable life lessons such as: treat others as you want to be treated, always say please and thank you, and be careful what you wish for. Unfortunately, it seems that the United States government missed the day that it was supposed to learn one particularly important lesson: take responsibility for your actions.

On average, the United States contributes 20% of global atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions every year.  We are the second largest contributor in the world (China beats the U.S. by a mere 1%, but their national population is over four times greater).  Generally, carbon dioxide emissions can be a reliable indicator of a nation’s affluence.  More affluent countries consume more energy, food, and other goods, and as a result, their carbon dioxide emissions are high.  In the same respect, less affluent nations consume less and therefore emit less carbon.  However, the United States rejects the fact that we have played a major role in global climate change.  As a result, the richest nation in the world is not taking responsibility for its actions and is definitely not implementing effective climate change policies.

Given where we started and the expectations for this conference, anything than a legally binding and agreed outcome falls short of the mark.

-John Ashe, Chair of the Kyoto talks, during the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference

In the past, United States government officials have said that they will not commit to a binding international climate change agreement unless the major developing nations (i.e. China and India) do so as well.  President Bush abandoned the Kyoto Protocol because he didn’t want the United States to be economically strained, while other countries were not.  However, the fact is that the United States is, in a large part, responsible for global warming, but it is the developing and vulnerable nations that are experiencing the consequences.  Many small island nations have already experienced sea level rise, which, if it continues, will eventually cause the disappearance of entire islands.  Parts of Africa have had droughts for the past three or four decades that have been killing millions of people who don’t have access to fresh water.  When the United States government says that it does not want to commit America to binding emissions reductions because it may lose some money, it should take a look at what some of the poorer nations throughout the world have already lost due to America’s excessive carbon emissions.

In addition to reducing carbon dioxide emissions, the United States, along with other developed countries, has the responsibility to assist poorer nations in coping with the current and likely future impacts of climate change.  Most developing and vulnerable nations have expressed that they feel the developed nations should provide them with compensation for their losses caused by global warming (in the form of funding for adaptation plans) as well as monetary aid for future development.  Some say that developing nations have the right to continue using oil and coal because they deserve the same chance at development that America has experienced over the past few centuries.  Although these nations do deserve a fighting chance at economic development, using unsustainable technologies will only contribute more to the current climate crisis. Therefore, the funding that developed countries donate to developing nations should be used for sustainable development.

Finally, because America is such a significant contributor to global atmospheric carbon emissions, once it enters a binding carbon reduction agreement, global reduction efforts will really begin to pay off.  A multi-national effort in reducing carbon dioxide levels will not be successful without America’s efforts, despite the efforts of other nations.  Significantly reducing energy consumption and carbon emissions will not be easy.  It will involve expensive technological advancements as well as commitments from government agencies, private businesses and all individuals.  Americans will have to make changes in our every day lifestyles.  We will have to get used to eating less meat, driving our cars less often, utilizing locally made goods, and living more minimally in general.  However, these changes are necessary, because dealing with the consequences of not making such a commitment will be far, far worse.

In the end, it is up to the American government whether or not global warming will continue.  It is imperative that government officials soon come to the realization that we are responsible for a good portion of carbon dioxide emissions, and it is our job to deal with the consequences.  It is unethical to let the less affluent and more vulnerable nations feel the impacts of global warming while we continue to live our lives, business as usual.  It is time for the American government to put that very important life lesson to use and finally take responsibility for our actions.

Rethinking the Structure of International Climate Agreements

by:  Brian Ford

One of the greatest challenges of confronting climate change is the negotiation of international climate agreements. History has demonstrated that the world’s largest emitters of carbon are unwilling to reduce their emissions to a safe level on their own accord. It is widely believed that if a global temperature rise is to be limited to 2.8 degrees Celsius, the most promising solution lies in an international treaty that binds participants to effective targets and timetables for emissions. Unfortunately, there is no supreme power that can enforce the cooperation of political giants and emissions leaders in such a treaty. Even if the United States or China, in an unprecedented, unexpected move, committed their signatures to a binding climate treaty with clear-cut timetables for emissions reduction, what would ensure the cooperation of other nations? Good intentions do not always produce commensurate results, and most countries that signed the Kyoto Protocol did not meet set targets nor purchase sufficient credits to offset their emissions. Furthermore, these countries do not face any real repercussions for failing to adhere to their pledges. Canada went so far as to completely withdraw from the agreement to no consequence at all.

Conventions such as the Earth Summit, Kyoto Protocol, and Copenhagen Climate Conference have all recognized the threats of climate change, but have been mutually disappointing. Self-interest and distrust are often blamed for the failure of developed nations to commit to lower emissions. Developing nations such as Brazil, India, and China are reluctant to sign any treaty that limits their economic growth. African nations, the poorest in the world, refuse to commit to a treaty unless foreign aid is promised to them from developed countries to implement green technologies. Even the United States, one of the richest countries in the history of civilization, refuses to make any commitment because it would be political suicide for the incumbent president.

Even the United States, one of the richest countries in the history of civilization, refuses to make any commitment because it would be political suicide for the incumbent president.

The key to reaching a successful agreement lies in restructuring the format and goals of the traditional climate conference. Sporadic, ad hoc conferences on climate change have proved to be an unconstructive way of addressing climate change and negotiating agreements. An optimal scenario would entail an international organization such as the United Nations conducting an ongoing session dedicated to debating and deciding a course of action against climate change. This way, decisions would affect all member nations and be internationally binding. Secondly, the “timetables and targets” approach needs to be rethought.

We have seen countries pledge time and again to meet specific targets and timetables for reducing emissions and fail to follow through. To reach any goals, economic incentives need to be provided for countries to make commitments and hold true to them. Climate agreements are not arms treaties, and military action against nations that fail to adhere to emissions goals would be highly frowned upon. Cost-effective international policies that ensure that nations receive the most environmental benefit from their mitigation investments will surely promote participation but must be tailored to a wide range of needs before a conclusive agreement is finally reached. This is why ongoing negotiation is crucial.

In a perfectly moral world, the leaders of industrialized nations would embrace martyrdom and commit to a climate agreement without so much prodding, sacrificing their political futures for the immeasurable long-term benefits for all of the Earth’s inhabitants. It would be a historic moment to see the United States renounce its hypocrisy and to lead the way in future climate talks while practicing a new, zero tolerance policy on emissions reductions. There is nothing wrong with crossing our fingers while we wait for this to happen. In the meantime, however, we must dedicate more time and thought to creating an enforceable structure for international climate change decision making.

back to top

edited by: Gabriel Tourek

Obese Passengers Create an Unfair Burden?

by:  Jae H. Chung

Anyone who needs multiple seats due to their size should be required to purchase multiple seats. Why? Let’s conduct a thought experiment where the large passenger sits in a seat located by the aisle. In order for the large passenger not to bother the passenger next to him, he would have to sit in such a way that a portion of his body is protruding into the aisle. This is unacceptable because the aisle needs to be clear. Passengers need to use the aisle to access the restrooms, and stewardesses need to use the aisle to provide service to passengers.

What if the large passenger sits in a way to clear the aisle? This would imply that a portion of the large passenger’s body would obtrude into the passenger next to him. That passenger would be forced into an uncomfortable position for a prolonged period of time. Besides the physical discomfort, there are serious health issues that are associated with this for both parties. For example, blood flow could be blocked, which could lead to other health issues. The only way to mediate this situation is for a large passenger to sit in multiple seats.
How do airlines determine whether a passenger requires multiple seats? According to Southwest Airlines, “the armrest is the definitive gauge for a Customer of size. It serves as the boundary between seats and measures 17 inches in width.” Is this policy ethical? Yes. Each passenger pays for one seat (space on the plane) and they should be entitled to all the space that they purchased. The armrest serves as an indicator of the boundaries of the purchased space. The armrest for airplane seats is analogous of the fence for houses. A landowner does not have the right to break down their neighbor’s fence and utilize their neighbor’s property.

Even if the adjacent passenger consents, the airline has the right to demand that the large passenger purchase multiple seats. Given that there are health risks associated with a passenger being confined into a tight location for a prolonged period of time, the airline has the right to demand that the passenger follow the safety precautions established by the airline. As a private enterprise, the airline not only has the right to look out for its own interests but the obligation to look out for the well-being of its customers, even if its customers may not. A parallel scenario would be a bar that turns down an intoxicated patron. The bar maintains and enforces its safety precautions to protect itself and its customers.

Given that large passengers must take up multiple seats, the fundamental issue is whether a passenger of size should pay for the additional space. The current policy is one-seat-per-ticket. When passengers purchase an airline ticket, they are allotted a space on the plane. Although one could upgrade to first class if one wishes to purchase additional space, passengers cannot purchase one ticket and occupy more space than they were allotted. The alternative is a one-ticket-per-passenger policy where the airline charges passengers for the flight regardless of the amount of space the passengers take up. The former standardizes the cost per space whereas the latter standardizes the cost per travel.

The one-seat-per-ticket policy is the most equitable method because it takes into account more factors than the one-ticket-per-passenger policy. Although the primary reason for flying is to travel from one destination to another, passengers are also paying for comfort. The latter policy fails to address the issue of comfort for passengers traveling on an airplane. Although passengers have the right to relinquish comfort to save money, it cannot be at a cost to the other passengers. On the other hand, the one-seat-per-ticket policy charges a flat rate for a plot of space. It enables every passenger to purchase the appropriate amount of seating, so that they could travel without encroaching on another’s space. Secondly, the former policy addresses the issues concerning the health hazards. By requiring passengers to purchase the appropriate amount of seating, the policy effectively deals with the threat of decreased blood circulation and other health problems. Conversely, the latter policy increases the chances of health issues arising from cramming passengers together.

The one-seat-per-ticket policy is the most equitable method because it takes into account more factors than the one-ticket-per-passenger policy.

back to top

It is Unethical to
Tax a Disability

by: Robert Hinck

I s it ethical to charge obese individuals extra for taking up extra space? Last spring the media blew up after United Air announced it was forcing passengers who could not fit within the airplane’s arm rests to pay for two tickets. Although this policy brought United Air in line with the five largest U.S. carriers, the policy drew heated debate and for good reason. Requiring obese passengers to purchase additional tickets is not only unethical, but sits on a slippery slope that could result in further discrimination.

The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) defines a disabled person as someone who has a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his or her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

The fact is, obesity is a disability. The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) defines a disabled person as someone who has a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his or her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Obesity has long term health effects. The Center for Disease Control lists coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, hypertension, high cholesterol, stoke, liver disease and more as potential health risks arising from obesity. Obese individuals may have difficulties getting in and out of cars, chairs, and even bed. Morbidly obese individuals may even have problems walking. Regardless, discrimination against obese individuals runs high in America due to the belief that obesity results from individuals eating too much and not caring about their diets. Although this may true for individuals who are overweight or those barely considered obese, according to Medicine.net, obesity is often multifactorial, based on both genetic and behavioral factors. Treatment of obesity usually requires more than just dietary changes. Exercise, counseling and support, and sometimes medication can supplement diet to help patients conquer weight problems. Courts are even beginning to rule morbidly obese individuals as qualifying for benefits under the ADA.

Yet, the airline industry continues to charge morbidly obese passengers extra. Even though airlines are willing to accommodate passengers in wheel chairs additional space free of charge, obese passengers are forced to pay extra due to the distress they cause other airline passengers. First, morbidly obese passengers are the ones most often targeted by these policies, and morbid obesity is not a result of simply choosing to eat more. According to a New York Times article published in August 2007, genetics, psychological problems, and childhood eating habits significantly influence one’s weight later on in life. Dieting and exercise rarely work and relapse is high. Obesity, let alone morbid obesity, is not a choice we willingly make. Second, forcing obese passengers to pay extra merely ostracizes these individuals. The humiliation and pain caused by testing obese passengers whether they make the cut or not causes greater harm than the discomfort of passengers sitting next to them. Ethical approaches focusing on protecting the moral rights of individuals also speaks out against these airline policies. Human beings have dignity and are to be treated as ends, not means to an end. We cannot fine obese individuals to incentivize them to lose weight. Morbidly obese or other handicap individuals have not volunteered for their impairments, and should be treated with respect and dignity for who they are, not discriminated against so they feel unwanted or seen as some inconvenience to those around them.

Other approaches contend that individuals should be treated equally and justly. Obese passengers have just as much of a right for air travel as others. Crying babies cause discomfort for passengers, so do individuals with poor hygiene among a dozen other causes for inconveniences when people are crammed in close courters for hours, yet we do not charge those individuals extra. Obese individuals are people too, and should be treated like people. To promote the common good, we should be taking care of those who cannot take of themselves. We should not be chastising obese passengers, who cannot control their eating and must experience the dirty stares and everyday discrimination as a result of our societies demand for good looks. We must protect their rights and help them carry their burden.

Creating vague discriminatory policies will only cause us greater harm in the future. Although we might be rationalizing fining obese passengers for the “discomfort” they cause us today, who knows what we will find inconvenient tomorrow. Where is the threshold for a significant discomfort? Where is the cutoff for how fat is too fat? Charging obese passengers for additional space is simply unethical. It does not produce the greatest amount of happiness, nor promote the common good, and questions the dignity and rights of those who find themselves in violation. Although we might find ourselves in the majority today, perhaps tomorrow we will fall in the minority. What then? We must protect the rights of all people and fight against discrimination. We must change our outlook towards obesity and, instead of hindering those who hinder us, help those so they no longer hinder us.

back to top

edited by: Eric Eaton

Cash-For-Kidneys?
NO Sale!

by:  Robert L. Houbeck

You trudge along the Huron, absorbed in wonder at what the miracle of compound interest is doing to your college debt.  Suddenly, a splash, a cry.  A man flails in the water.  He can’t swim; you can. “Please, help me!”  You (1), plunge in and do your best to rescue him, or (2), cup your hands and inquire:  “What’s it worth to you?”

Michigan men and women would choose Option One.  But why is it the right choice?  No need to invoke scripture or catechism where Kant can explain: “[T]o help others where one can is a duty.”¹ In a rescue situation, if we have the special competence and unique opportunity, we have the moral obligation to aid a neighbor in need.

The present kidney shortage is a situation in need of rescuers: more than 5,000 of our neighbors will die this year awaiting a transplant.  However, proposals to legalize compensation for kidney donors are the moral equivalent of Option Two: “What’s it worth to you?”

What’s-it-worth is official policy in Iran.² In an attempt to eliminate their shortage of kidneys for transplant, the government guarantees kidney-sellers a base fee of $1,200.  Patients then meet privately with seller-candidates to negotiate an add-on price, usually many times more.  If the parties cannot agree on “what it’s worth”, the seller walks.  If the patient has enough cash, they make a deal.

Iranian sellers are not blameworthy.  They are desperate people being treated like means.  Eighty-four percent are poor.  The state doesn’t monitor their post-sale health.  Reflecting on their ordeal, 76 percent think kidney sales should be banned!³ The true culprit is a regime that has legitimated trade in body parts.

Iran is the poster child for those who advocate compensating kidney donors.  Yet Cash-for-Kidneys hasn’t achieved its putative goal of eliminating the shortage of transplant organs.⁴ Officials admit they don’t know the full extent of national need, and many Iranians with renal disease go undiagnosed.  Hundreds who do need a transplant but can’t pay the added fee languish on the wait list for cadaver organs.

Doubtless a US kidney-sale system would be more sensitive than Iran’s.  Seller and patient would be kept apart.  Third parties – certainly government, maybe insurers – would pick up the entire tab.  Yet the program we would establish in law would be the equivalent of the Iranian Cash-for-Kidneys program.

Well, why not?  Paying for kidneys may be distasteful, but why is it wrong?

The first principle of practical reason directs us not just to pursue the good but to avoid evil.⁷ Commodifying kidneys is an evil because it reduces the human person to a means.⁸ It depersonalizes us, literally renders us an object with a market price.

Pricing kidneys reduces constitutive parts of the human person to the status of pork bellies.⁹ Moral laws apply universally.  We can’t bracket ourselves.  If it’s wrong to treat a human being as an object, and you’re a human being, it’s wrong to treat yourself as an object.  It’s wrong also for others to collude in the extracting and selling – surgeons, technicians, bureaucrats, lawmakers, taxpayers.

The Iranian state has chosen a path that we must reject.⁵ The logic of supply and demand is relentless.  Just think “outsourcing.”  Reduce the kidneys of US citizens to a commodity and soon enough we will be importing cheaper organs sold in desperation by the world’s poor.  We’d probably draw the line at kidneys from executed Chinese prisoners.⁶ But if a healthy human kidney is just another spare part bought at a market price, why squirm?

Your body is not a building inhabited by the real, unseen “you”.  Properly understood, you are your body.  A human being is a substantial unity of a material and a spiritual principle intrinsically self-integrating and self-directing.¹⁰ Some human beings once had a market price slapped onto their chests, but we fought a civil war to put an end to that injustice.  Owning a whole human being is wrong.  Paying for parts of human beings is similarly wrong.  Our living bodies, along with the fundamental goods that we pursue and which fulfill us by actualizing our basic potentialities – life, health, friendship, marriage, knowledge of truth, self-integration, worship – do not have a market exchange value.  They are incommensurable goods beyond supply and demand.¹¹

But, to rescue a neighbor, we may give as a gift that which we may not sell.  Donation of a kidney, whether in life or at death, is a gesture of the deepest friendship.  The grammar of the deed affirms: “You are not alone, I stand with you.”  We gift something of our very self.  Ideally, the gesture evokes a response equally generous.  This is how, concretely, we build a culture of solidarity.¹² If these gestures by living donors are few, no wonder:  they are acts of heroism.  Yet even the least heroic of us can do something bold: sign the “anatomical gift” commitment on the reverse of our Michigan drivers’ license.

The market economy is a valuable human invention.  It enables us to allocate scarce resources efficiently, but we choose the ends to pursue.  We are not obliged to subject human kidneys to market mechanisms.  In fact, we are obliged to resist that temptation.

back to top

Legalize Compensation for Kidney Donors? YES!

by: Mark J. Perry

The most straightforward approach is to simply legalize cash payments for living kidney donors within a regulated market with government controls.  Surprisingly maybe, Iran first legalized financial compensation for kidney donors in the late 1980s and its organ shortage was eliminated within a decade.  The Iranian system of financial compensation involves a combination of government-funded cash payments and free health insurance for donors, supplemented by cash payments from the recipient.  For kidney recipients who are too poor to afford the normal payment, private charities provide funding.

A good place to start a discussion about whether it should be legal for kidney donors to receive financial compensation is a review of some statistical data.

Consider that:

1. Almost 51,000 patients have died on the kidney waiting list since data started being collected in 1987 – almost as many Americans who died in the Vietnam War.

2. The kidney waiting list has increased almost 6 times since 1988 while the number of annual kidney transplants has not even doubled (see chart).

3. For those patients suffering from renal failure and in desperate need of a kidney transplant, 2009 was not a good year to join the growing national waiting list.  The list for kidneys last year swelled to a new record of 83,146 waiting patients.  This wouldn’t be so bad if the number of kidney transplant operations was increasing, but it’s not.  There will likely be about 17,000 transplant operations in 2009, which is just barely higher than the previous year, and below the record-high 17,095 operations in 2006 (see chart).

Given these two trends (an increasing waiting list for kidneys, with no significant increase in transplant operations), those who joined the waiting list in 2009 will be facing the worst chances ever – only about 1 in six patients will actually receive a kidney this year, and thousands will die waiting.

The data paint a pretty grim picture of the current situation, and it worsens every year.  Simply put, the current system of organ procurement is not working and we need a new approach.

What is the current approach that leads to so much unnecessary and preventable suffering and death? Federal law (National Organ Transplant Act of 1984) makes it illegal to accept any form of financial compensation for providing a kidney to another human being, though such a transaction may save those in need from years of debilitating dialysis and a premature death sentence.

In other words, the price of a life-saving kidney is artificially set by the government at price of zero, and current law relies exclusively on altruism as the only legal means of providing a life-saving kidney.  Economics tells us that an artificially low price, regardless of the commodity, guarantees a certain outcome: a shortage.

When it comes to kidneys, the result of an artificially low price of $0.00 results in exactly what economic science predicts: a huge and growing kidney shortage that gets worse every year.  Current law ensures that needless suffering, life-draining dialysis, and premature death for kidney patients continue to increase year after year.  However, if we are willing to consider the alternative – financial compensation – we could easily solve the kidney shortage. 

What would a system that allows financial compensation for kidney donors look like? 

What has been advocated for the U.S. is a modified financial compensation program for living kidney donors, which would not involve direct cash payments like the Iranian model.  Instead, it’s been proposed that there be some type of “in-kind” financial compensation for living kidney donors that might include a contribution to an IRA retirement plan, tuition vouchers for the donor or his or her children, a tax credit, early access to Medicare, or subsidized health insurance for the donor.

Even under a modified program of financial incentives, we could realistically expect to see the number of living kidney donors increase enough to eliminate organ shortage and end the preventable suffering and premature deaths.  It’s not that the current emphasis on altruism isn’t a legitimate, partial solution to the growing kidney shortage, but, more importantly, altruism alone will never be a complete solution to the problem.  That’s why we need to legalize financial compensation for donors.

Interestingly, recent polls show that a majority of Americans agree that we should move towards a system that makes it legal to provide financial incentives for living kidney donors; the general public now understands that donor compensation is the one way to solve the growing organ shortage.

The grim reality is that a suffering patient with renal failure dies every two hours – more than 12 every day – waiting for a kidney under the current policy.  A system of altruism has not worked in the United States, it hasn’t worked anywhere else, and it will never work as the sole legitimate motive for donating kidneys.  The only way to effectively address the growing kidney shortage in the United States is to make it legal to receive financial incentives as a living kidney donor.  The market-based approach has worked in Iran and it will work here.

back to top

edited by: David M. Friedman

Endnotes:

1. Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals [1785], trans. H.J.Paton (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), 66; 398 of the RPA ed. Cited in Hadley Arkes, First Things: An Inquiry into the First Principles of Morals and Justice (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986), 290.

2. Anne Griffin, “Iranian Organ Donation: Kidneys on Demand,” British Medical Journal: 334 (10 March 2007), 502-505. www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/334/7592/502 .

3. Ibid., 504.

4. Ibid., 505.

5. Alastair V. Campbell, “No such thing as an ethical organ market,” The Straits Times, 11 July 2008 www.asiaone.com/Health/News/Story/A1Story20080710-75872.html .

6. “China admits death row organ use,” BBC News, 26 August 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8222732.stm

7. Arkes, 163-174.

8. Leon Kass, Life, Liberty and the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2003), Chapter 6, “Organs for Sale? Propriety, Property and the Price of Progress,” especially 242-245.

9. John Paul II, Address to the 18^th International Congress of the Transplantation Society, 29 August 2000, Section 3, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2000/jul-sep/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20000829_transplants_en.html

10. Patrick Lee and Robert P. George, Body-Self Dualism in Contemporary Ethics and Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), especially 130-140.

11. Wilhelm Roepke, A Humane Economy: The Social Framework of the Free Market, trans. Elizabeth Henderson (South Bend, IN: Gateway Editions, 1960). The original title [1958] was Jenseits von Angebot und Nachfrage – “Beyond Supply and Demand”.

12. Benedict XVI, “A Unique Testimony of Charity”, 7 November 2008 www.zenit.org/article-24191?l=english.

On January 12, 2010 a massive earthquake struck the nation of Haiti…The United States Government has deployed over 13,000 troops, treated over 7,000 patients, and evacuated over 10,500 people as of January 21st.

The White House-Office of the Press Secretary-January 21, 2010

Student Development Work Hurts Those in Need

by:  Brad Detjen

Every Spring Break, while some let loose in South Beach and others catch up on schoolwork in the library, a small but growing number of students choose to do international volunteer work. The programs they take part in vary from mission trips teaching English at orphanages in the Dominican Republic to Engineers Without Borders, through which students install sanitation systems in rural villages in Thailand. Having taken part in and organized these trips myself, I can say without hesitation that they are powerful, often life-changing experiences for student participants. However, these projects fail to help the communities that they target and often do harm.

I have recently heard that a few organizations at U of M are planning to bring students to Haiti to do volunteer work, either in relief or development. Relief projects would place students temporarily with a relief agency (such as the Red Cross) to address the immediate needs of earthquake victims. In development work, students would design a long-term project that attempts to install sustainable infrastructures for Haiti’s future. In the near future, I believe that any student project in Haiti is massively irresponsible. Long-term, I fear that any volunteer program based at U of M will attempt to graft a flawed model – a model of change brought about by temporary volunteer work – onto a failed state, and it may end disastrously.

First, let’s try to imagine a group of Michigan students traveling to Haiti in the next month. If they are able to get past the border, they will be entering an apocalyptic world. Massive shortages of food, water, and shelter persist everywhere. The sanitation system is in ruins, and cholera and dysentery are spreading wildly. The collapse of the state government has led to looting and mayhem. As the U.S. military attempts to gain control over the country, travel slows to a crawl. Whatever plans the students have to help people will have to be adaptable; donated items may attract the attention of those fighting for survival.  Any relief agency that chooses to host these students will be taking on massive liability due to the dangers listed above. Simply feeding and housing volunteers will tear invaluable resources away from dying Haitians.

In the past, most projects like these have failed to do much concrete good and have often caused harm. Why do volunteer projects miss the mark when their intentions are so pure? There are many reasons.

First, students lack the language skills and cultural sensitivity needed to carry themselves appropriately and to gain the trust of the communities where they work. From a logistical point of view, the only people who have any business entering the country now are doctors who are fluent in French and/or Haitian Creole and who have experience in disaster relief.  Beyond language are local customs and attitudes that will make or break any attempted project. Young students tend to believe in simple fixes and do not appreciate the knowledge and skills that are at hand in to project communities. This makes American students seem arrogant and becomes a cultural barrier. Often, a lot of promises are made and forgotten, giving developing communities a false hope that someone else will solve their problems for them.

Additionally, most programs – even those that claim to promote “sustainability” – do unsustainable work. They focus on short-term returns and do not establish a lasting presence that will see the project through to completion. At U of M, students cannot be involved with a project for more than 4 years, but many development projects like these have 10-year planning cycles – meaning that a project will have complete turnover at least twice between its inception and its conclusion. In Haiti, even the most sustainably-planned project may not be prepared for the instability that is characteristic to the area, from political coups to natural disasters and migratory populations.

In Haiti, in particular, a sustainable development project will be nearly impossible to coordinate. Political instability and lack of infrastructure present enormous obstacles.  This is not to say that no U of M project could ever be successful in Haiti, but it would require a continuous, year-round presence and coordination with a well-established Haitian organization. Students will need preparation in Haitian Creole, cultural training, and study in sustainable development principles.

In general, the problems of developing world poverty are far more complex, deeply-rooted, and difficult to reverse than most young people assume. In their arrogance, students can cause more problems than they set out to solve, and I am deeply concerned that any U of M-led project in Haiti will be unproductive, inappropriate, and unsafe.

back to top

Thoughtful Service for the Common Good

by: Rebecca R. Cheezum

In the wake of the recent earthquake in Haiti, many students, seeing the images of the devastation and suffering, have looked for opportunities to provide assistance to the residents of Haiti.  Several student groups have been successful in raising funds for organizations that are providing immediate relief such as The American Red Cross and Partners in Health.  Other students have wanted to do more, and several began to speak of going to Haiti to help.  In response, a new initiative, Tèt Ansanm Ak Ayiti (TAAA), which means “United with Haiti,” aims to channel students’ altruistic energy by taking the time to build an institutionalized, long-term partnership with organizations or communities in Haiti in order to provide sustainable relief through capacity-building and long-term collaboration.  TAAA will incorporate a service learning strategy as a mechanism for responding to this crisis in a manner that will benefit Haiti while also working towards the University of Michigan’s purpose of providing education and training to its students.

Service learning is a pedagogical method for integrating community service, classroom learning, and personal reflection.  This method helps students learn class material and develop skills while also providing them valuable work experience and the opportunity to partner with diverse groups of people.  More than simply padding a résumé, service learning projects serve as a structured way for students to face the challenges of applying theoretical concepts to real world situations.

Communities can also benefit from service learning projects.

Students can help community-based organizations by contributing labor necessary to provide services that the organization may not otherwise have the staffing to do.

Students often have access to resources that community-based organizations may not, such as peer-reviewed literature, technology, faculty advisors with related expertise, and knowledge about cutting edge developments in the field.  By connecting communities with these resources, the quality of services delivered can increase.

However, not all student endeavors in communities have positive outcomes.  Poorly planned service learning projects run the risk of exploiting communities, expending energy on useless work, or sending ill-prepared students into communities where they may act offensively or paternalistically.

In order to increase the likelihood that the project is beneficial – and not detrimental – to communities, there are several key components to a service learning project that are necessary.  First, the service learning project should be developed through a collaborative partnership with the community.  Second, the purpose, goals, and expectations of the project should be clearly defined and agreed upon by students, faculty, and community partners.  Finally, there should be systems to provide feedback where students present results or reports to the community, and the community is given the opportunity to comment on the quality of the student’s work and interactions.

In an effort to use a service learning approach that will benefit both University of Michigan students and, most importantly, the residents of Haiti, TAAA will use a strategic service learning approach.  Recognizing the complexity of the needs of Haiti during a redevelopment process, the effort will be multi-disciplinary, engaging students and faculty from across campus.  The initiative will use two separate, but connected participatory processes in order to identify the interests and expertise of students and also to prioritize projects based on the most pressing needs in Haiti, as identified by Haitian community members.  TAAA will take its time in planning a response and building relationships, in order to prevent a premature, poorly planned response.

Currently, there is not enough water, food, or shelter for those who live in Haiti, let alone to support visiting students.   The roads and infrastructure have been destroyed. Security concerns that have been present for some time may be heightened due to the desperation and lack of resources.  If student service learning projects were to take place as a relief effort, they are likely to have negative consequences to the country’s residents by using limited resources and by not being sufficiently planned or appropriately directed.

TAAA recognizes that the rebuilding process of Haiti will take place over a long period of time.  Over the course of the process, the resources and skills necessary are likely to change, and the work of TAAA will adapt with these changes.  As part of the rebuilding process, it is essential for the initiative to build upon the assets of Haiti and to focus on capacity building and sustainable change.  The purpose of each service learning project will be to educate students and to build skills and increase resources among Haitians communities and organizations.

TAAA serves as an example of a budding initiative that, through thoughtful planning and genuine partnership, hopes to leave a positive legacy within the University of Michigan and communities in Haiti.  

back to top

edited by: Daniel Strauss

Can Queer Love Fit Marriage’s Heteronorms?

by:  parker cronin

Contrary to what you may believe based on the thesis of this article, I am not a homophobic bigot. In fact, I am a proud gay man. My stance against marriage stems, neither from a sense of self-hatred (I like being gay), nor from religious belief (I am an atheist), nor even from the fact that I wish to keep marriage at its current status. The modern GLBT (Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender)  movement has focused extensively on this crusade for equal legal rights, yet in its hasty attempt to attain legal equality, activists have never really stopped to ask the question – why do gays want to get married? This article argues that gays should not want to get married.

Advocates for same-sex marriage often say that marriage is “only about love,” which is actually something that I agree with. Truly committed relationships require nothing more than love.  This also means that they do not need marriage. The government does not need to sanction my love. This is the same system that beat queers at Stonewall, the system that is about to engage in active genocide against queers in Uganda, and the system that maintained sodomy laws until less than a decade ago in the United States.  Despite the fact that the state has done nothing but oppress us, the modern GLBT movement has decided to turn to government in order to achieve change. To put it simply: we should not embrace the system that for the past several hundred years has been playing a game that sets us up to fail. We should not want this violent system to infect our love. There may be pragmatic and tangible benefits to marriage, but, to resist oppressive systems, we as queers should refuse those benefits in order to transform overall meta-power structures that label and suppress us as so-called deviants.

Moreover, let us not forget that legal change is not directly related to the disruption of heteronormative oppression. “Heteronormativity” – the collection of practices making “straight” normal and “queer” non-normal – does not exist on its own; its people and the institutions in which, they place power perpetuate this social system. Churches and homophobes are the reason why queer people often face unnecessarily difficult lives.  Laws are not the problem; the people behind them are. Legal change does not change the hearts and minds of bigots.

The true goal of the GLBT movement should be the end of sexuality-based oppression.

Unfortunately, marriage plays the familiar game. In modern society there are thousands of markers designed to exclude sexualities not deemed to be normal. The state-system has created a game, and it controls the rules. Ideal life includes marriage between one man and one woman, kids, and settling down. Each of these and a thousand other little acts are norms that form the rules of the marriage game. The GLBT movement has lost its way when it seeks permission to play the game that is the source of queer oppression.

In this way, same-sex marriage redraws the lines of exclusion in a slightly different way. Not only the history of marriage, but also the intrinsic character of marriage define a norm of what should be included, implicitly excluding any relationships that are not deemed acceptable. One account of a queer marriage in San Francisco tells of a threesome who stood outside city hall waiting to get their marriage licenses. Their fellow queers booed them off the steps and jeered at them – yelling that they were “ruining it for the rest of them.” How dare these sexual deviants even show their faces in public!

True freedom from sexual oppression means overcoming the necessarily normative structure of marriage. It means breaking away from a defined relational status.

It means that we need to stop playing the rigged game in which the oppressor decides which groups of people are deviant and which are acceptable. Marriage, by definition, requires some sort of institutional requirements over what can and cannot be considered legitimate. As such, it is a system that necessarily excludes certain groups from normalcy.

True sexual freedom means overcoming the belief that we can use the systems that have oppressed us for so long in a productive way. We do not need yet another token reform; we need a radical act that changes the way that people think. The GLBT movement should actively refuse marriage as a way of voicing our opposition to normative and violent structures. Rather than focus on needlessly pragmatic and unimaginative reforms, we must reach beyond pragmatic action into a world of truly free sexual expression. Gay marriage is a step – refusing gay marriage is a step with more potential to create ruptures in the way that oppressive systems operate. In fact, through our activism it may finally become clear that everyone, not just queer people, should refuse marriage as a troubled, oppressive institution that society must abandon in its entirety in order to be free.

¹Wendy Brown. Edgework: Critical Essays on Knowledge and Politics. Princeton U Press. Pp 3-4

back to top

Marriage Equality Now

by: Sara Burke

Some activists have resisted the push for marriage equality by arguing that marriage in itself is patriarchal or heteronormative, or that many leading figures in the marriage equality movement exhibit oppressive social attitudes.

But marriage is not assimilation, and even if it were, it would still be a right worth fighting for.

I acknowledge that marriage has an oppressive history. In many influential cultures, including but not limited to most pre-20th century Western cultures, marriage was the transfer of a woman as property from the control of her father to the control of her husband. Even today, in most cultures, marriage is still frequently deployed to reinforce oppressive cultural norms—not just sexism, but also classism and other practices, which reinforce the dominant order.

Marriage does not have to be intrinsically sexist or classist. It can mean simply loving someone and living with them for the rest of one’s life—regardless of the identities or social positions of the two people involved. This concept of marriage is valuable and emotionally satisfying to many people—it already exists, even though it sometimes comes with a bunch of oppressive baggage. Reforms can change the way our culture thinks about marriage, doing more to combat the oppressive norms than simply rejecting the whole concept ever could.

I acknowledge that there are people in the gay marriage movement who have problematic ideas. The same is true of any movement. Those ideas can and should be resisted without rejecting the idea of marriage equality itself. When one progressive idea becomes increasingly ‘mainstream’, some people with other, less progressive ideas will be more willing to adopt it. This is a good thing, because it makes incremental gains more possible.

Working toward equality is important—regardless of the particular inequality in discussion. Administrative structures should confer the same material treatment on everybody regardless of arbitrary personal variables like race, ethnic background, sex, gender, sexual orientation, class, ability or disability, medical condition, et cetera. This ideal is valuable even if it has never been fully attained by any major organization or government. It affirms the fundamental value of each human being and reinforces the idea that faultless demographic characteristics should not be allowed to artificially constrain individual choices and freedoms. Any violation of this principle, by any institution, should be resisted—and the bigger the institution, the more influential its precedents.

Marriage inequality is not the only such discriminatory violation in US law—not by a long shot—but it is such a violation. All should be fought. All are meaningful.

Marriage equality would set a valuable legal precedent. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the ongoing suit against California’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, is almost certain to be appealed and re-appealed until the Supreme Court resolves it. A favorable decision, especially one that applies the “strict scrutiny” standard under the federal 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, could expand official legal theory to encompass many more protections against unequal treatment, and also pave the way for the application of “strict scrutiny” to other marginalized groups.

The law has symbolic effects on society. It would be great if everybody started thinking everything through individually and coming to rational conclusions independent of what the government says, but we don’t, and we never will. Humans naturally rely on heuristics to make judgments about acceptable behavior, and the institutions that surround us influence those heuristics—especially when they have very simple policies, like marriage restrictions, that can be interpreted without much effort.

Governmental acknowledgment of gay and lesbian relationships is absolutely not necessary for those relationships to be valuable and real, but it unquestionably contributes to the widespread social acceptance of those relationships.

Finally, marriage equality would bring tangible benefits to real people.  State-sanctioned marriage is an easy way to guarantee important rights in a long-term familial relationship, such as hospital visitation, access to family health insurance plans, work leave to care for a sick spouse, and access to pension plans. Any ideological argument against marriage equality—from the right or from the left—must take responsibility for all of the families who currently lack these rights and the security they provide.

Fighting for these benefits is not plainly a frivolous pursuit of the heteronormative elites: it is a step toward improving the lives of gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans in many social and economic conditions. And while it isn’t enough—not even close to enough—it is still something.

back to top

edited by: Aaron Bekemeyer

Pornography and Female Objectification

by:  Lexie Tourek

Mass produced videos of the “barely legal” girl, the Asian sex-slave, and the impossibly perfect blonde objectify, oppress, and stereotype every womyn. It does not matter that these womyn are filmed voluntarily, that men recognize the fantastical nature of pornographic material, or that no one is physically harmed. Every explicit sexual image degrades womyn in the eyes and minds of porn’s audience and creates expectations regarding how womyn are supposed to look, act, and respond sexually.

Feminist scholar and UM professor Catharine MacKinnon offers a brilliant counterargument to the defense of pornography as an avenue for “liberation”: she argues that pornographic material is an obscene creation that actively constructs a sexual reality in which womyn are, in effect, made submissive, not only depicted as such.  In this sense, the very existence of explicit sexual images of womyn (and men) removes the very possibility of gender equality.  So long as people make porn a part of their lives, its social repercussions will affect everyone, regardless of whether he or she views it.

There is no opportunity for equality when pornography thrives in an undetected and un-debated social realm; sexual representations link female gender with a womyn’s sexuality…

There is no opportunity for equality when pornography thrives in an undetected and un-debated social realm; sexual representations link female gender with a womyn’s sexuality, which becomes inseparable from tendentious images disseminated by a network of PlayBoy-esque industries propagating a proper form for what a womyn should be. Moreover, the sexual reality of pornography is not contained in the bedroom: objectification of womyn jeopardizes attempts for female economic and social equality when sexual stereotypes come to describe (and stigmatize) womyn as political subjects.

Within our highly sexualized culture, porn is not the only locus spreading harmful sexual representations, but it is one of the most powerful. Porn creates sexual norms, linking violence with pleasure and pleasure with male satisfaction. Cultural encouragements for womyn, to conform to this gendered dynamic, explains much of what we see today: many womyn aspire to change their bodies with plastic surgeries, hair removals, and diets to become the porn star. For males, “normal sex” entails a portrayal of the domination over female sexual partners as illustrated in porn.

Porn’s sewage seeps not only into our learned sexual roles, but further into other social and political roles. It is impossible to say whether the problem of sexual harassment in the workplace or the media’s fixation on what color lipstick Sarah Palin wore during the elections is a direct result of porn’s prescription of female sexuality, yet it is disturbing that a womyn’s role as a politician or employee must be viewed or complicated by sexuality. Porn cements the relationship between a womyn and her body to how society desires to see her body and to how men use her body.

As a corollary to this general description of dehumanization, the sexual portrayal of minorities creates and reinforces other stereotypes. Porn links race to false structures of sexual desire that unite separate systems of domination. Womyn of different socioeconomic classes are distinguished from one another by the types of sexual acts, and racist depictions of sexuality begin to perversely inform the base stereotypes upon which they thrive.

For example, a video featuring a “hard-working Latina” engaging in obscene sexual performance immediately distinguishes her identity from that of a white/privileged womyn; the fact that the Latina is seen engaging in indiscriminate and ‘filthy’ sex as if it were natural for her to do so disturbingly maps onto racial stereotypes describing the “colored womyn as insatiable sex-fiend” and makes the misapplication of assumptions about “her” identity (as standing in for all Latinas) all the easier, for it is (1) presented in the reinforcing context of the most extreme and basest objectification and (2) attended by the gratifying release of masturbatory orgasm.

Porn stands in for real life encounters, yet simultaneously constructs our fantasies into our reality. This has the most terrifying implications for gender relations in that womyn’s sexuality is shunted by a collective attitude and message that realization of sexual power or equality is not desirable or profitable. How are we supposed to change this dynamic when porn has such an ominous voice in our politics? Is it at all troubling that significant numbers of our public officials have documented problems with sex and sex addiction? Could a porn-based critique of legislative outcomes offer insight into why enormous inequalities still attach to gender in America?

back to top

The Limitations of
Anti-Pornography Feminism

by:  Rachel Yung

Whether or not pornography contributes to sexualized violence against women and the extent of such an effect, have been hotly contested issues in feminist debate. Anti-pornography feminists tend to argue that porn is intimately linked to sexual violence and enables it, if not instigates it. In his essay “Using Pornography,” anti-pornography feminist Robert Jensen cites particular examples of men who claim that pornography “shaped [their] fantasies, increased the frequency of masturbation [ and, with regard to violence,] was ‘the straw that broke the camel’s back’” (1998). Interestingly enough, every subject cited is described as “reluctant to blame his behavior on pornography, […] resist [ant to] putting sole or even primary blame for his abusive behavior on pornography” (ibid). Nonetheless, Jensen insists that the interviews reveal a causal link between pornography and sexual violence against women and children.

Scientific links between male aggression and pornography have been uncertain at best (Donnerstein et al. 1987), leading anti-porn feminists to claim that although “‘science’ has not yet conclusively shown a causal link between the use of pornography and sexual violence, […] such a link is beyond the capacity of science to determine” (Jensen ibid). There have thus been countless testimonies publicized by anti-porn feminists in which women who have been sexually abused recount their husbands and boyfriends wishes to reenact pornography. Yet as many anti-censorship feminists point out, pornography is not the source of the inequality here. Rather, as Carol reports, it is “the fact that men feel entitled to make these demands which is disgusting—not what they desire sexually” (Carol and Pollard 1993), and pinning the blame on pornography “trivialize[s] the degradation and pain of the majority of rape and abuse victims for whom pornography has been irrelevant” (Carol 1994).

…pornography is not the source of inequality here…

The arguments made by anti-porn feminism with regard to the exploitation of women in the porn industry are remarkably similar to feminist anti-prostitution arguments. Both anti-porn and anti-prostitution feminists argue that sex work is inherently harmful to women and that state action against sex work is needed to protect women from these occupations. There is an underlying assumption that the experiences of women in the sex business are uniformly negative, that they have been coerced into participating and their superiors are misogynistic males who actively enjoy using their positions to abuse them.

For example, in a description of a heterosexual scene between two partners in a particular film, Robert Jensen and Gail Dines describe the female as “one of [a] stable of women performers,” and the male as “a male pornography actor” (Jensen and Dines 1998). These descriptions reveal a sharp disparity in the way anti-porn feminists view the roles of males and females in pornography, regardless of what actually takes place.

Another argument shared by anti-porn and anti-prostitution feminists is that women are often forced by economic conditions to enter the sex industry and that the sex industry should therefore be abolished. While the former is certainly true, the latter is hardly a logical response. It implicitly suggests, “Women are not harassed, underpaid, exposed to danger, and mistreated in any other industry. This is obviously nonsense; […] there is no industry where women are not economically exploited” (Carol 1994). By singling out pornography as a source of female disempowerment, anti-porn feminists ignore the fact that women in other occupations also face gendered harassment and danger. Moreover, this line of thinking posits that women not involved in sex work have the freedom and economic stability to choose whatever line of employment they so desire. A vast number of women, particularly the poor and working classes, choose their jobs in any industry due to economic stress; pornography is certainly not unique in that respect. By singling out sex work as an industry to be destroyed rather than improved, anti-porn feminists tell disadvantaged women that they should starve to death rather than endure less than optimal working conditions, as long as their work is condemned by state morality.

The “anti-anti-porn” position is not an endorsement of pornography, nor a defense of its possibilities for female liberation, though there are cases in which we can imagine porn being “good”: e.g., for a young gay person experiencing intense hetero-normative family pressures, porn may be an outlet for exploration, experimentation, and confidence-building. However, with a critical eye on the direction of feminist scholarship, the anti-porn camp is here characterized as overly reductionist.  To focus on the exploitation of women in the pornography industry as the cause of sexual domination obscures other, more pressing gender issues.  As feminist thinkers, we must choose our words and our theory carefully.  While it may be indeed true that pornography is “bad for women,” we may lose more than we stand to gain by focusing our energies on what is, in the end, one disturbing cultural product among many.

back to top

edited by: Alexandra Tourek

Bibliography

Assiter, Alison
1989 Pornography, Feminism, and the Individual. London: Pluto Press.

Assiter, Alison, and Avedon Carol, eds.
1993 Bad Girls and Dirty Pictures: The Challenge to Reclaim Feminism. London: Pluto Press.

Best, Joel
1990 Threatened Children: Rhetoric and Concern about Child-Victims. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Berger, Ronald J., Patricia Searles, and Charles E. Cottle.
1991 Feminism and Pornography. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Carol, Avedon
1994 Nudes, Prudes, and Attitudes: Pornography and Censorship. Cheltenham: New Clarion Press

Dines, Gail, Robert Jensen, and Ann Russo
1998 Pornography: The Production and Consumption of Inequality. New York: Routledge.

Donnerstein, Edward, Daniel Linz, and Steven Penrod
1987 The Question of Pornography: Research Findings and Policy Implications. New York: The Free Press.

Rodgerson, Gillian, and Elizabeth Wilson, eds.
1991 Pornography and Feminism. London: Lawrence and Wishart Limited.

The Right to Die:
A Plan for the Worst

by:  By: Katelin Davis

Dear Mother and Father,

If  the time should ever come that you are forced to choose whether to lay
me, your child, beneath the Earth or to sustain my life, know that I cherish my life up
until the point that you know I am no longer coming back. With this caveat, I submit
to you my “living will,” to guide you in the event of  my incapacitation.

First, I want you to fight like hell to save my life. I want you to fnd the
best  doctor,  surgeon,  expert,  and  facility  available  if   there  is  any  chance  for my
survival. If  I am in a vegetative state, I want you to stand next to my bed and plead
with my unconscious mind to pull through if  you felt that there is any way that I
can for the sole reason that I still have a life to live. There are people across the globe
I want to touch and challenges I want to face. I want you to use every bit of  your
energy to save my life until you knew for certain that my feeding tube is in my vein
for good.  I want you to promise that signing off  to a “do not resuscitate” (DNR)
will be your last resort.

Your loving daughter,
Katelin

I required roughly fifteen different leads, a few medical and personal journals, a trip to the death and dying section of Borders, and a call to my grandmother to tap into the complex and controversial realm of euthanasia. Still, upon sitting down to write this article on the ethics of assisted death, many preconceived notions littered my mind: the bureaucratic red tape, Dr. Kevorkian’s local legacy, the ghost of Terri Schiavo.  Even after my research, I admit that I cannot approach the issue unless I were to experience it deeply, unless I had some kind of channel into the minds of those who have decided whether to die.

In lieu of imagining the unimaginable, and as an alternative to exploring politicized viewpoints (see: “Obama’s death panels”), I choose to present a clear account of the facts. Before I begin, I feel that I must say unequivocally that families have a responsibility to confront what is a pink elephant in the rooms of their aging.  Our elderly’s preferences regarding death and sustaining life via medical procedures are idiosyncratic, and we owe it to them to offer a meaningful opportunity for discussion.

First, let’s talk legal: Unless certain actions are taken before a patient is in critical condition, dying with dignity may not even be an option.  Above all, exploring the possibilities of a durable medical power of attorney is the first step in giving the right to death to your loved ones. This allows another person, close to the patient, to make decisions regarding life support after his or her loved one is no longer able to decide for himself or herself.

To own the right to your death, one must have a living will that describes the medical practices that can be carried out once he or she is incapacitated.

Next, to own the right to your death, one must have a living will that describes the medical practices that can be carried out once he or she is incapacitated. Such a living will (like mine, above) would include such stipulations as how long you would like to be kept on life support before letting you pass away or whether you want to be resuscitated in the event of collapse.

Third, how can one exercise the right to die? Euthanasia is not exclusively defined by an injection of chemicals to force death upon someone. Passive euthanasia can be a decision to not fight off pneumonia or to not use a certain medication. By letting life take its course and not interfering with the body’s mechanisms, the patient and the family can end suffering without treading into the murky territory of “assisted suicide.”  Even today, the United States Supreme Court has upheld one’s right to deny life-sustaining care as a protected form of dying.

By letting life take its course and not interfering with the body’s mechanisms, the patient and the family can end suffering…

Finally, where can you choose to die?  Right now, euthanasia is not a widely accepted medical practice in the United States; however, one state, Oregon, has passed legislation securing the right to die, and other countries like the Netherlands protect this right.

I hope in this short review to have condensed the facts and eliminated some misunderstandings surrounding euthanasia.  To be clear: human life is awe-inspiring; it is all we have. Every day we strive to make our lives meaningful and to cherish our loved ones before they leave this world.  Yet the ability to make informed decisions about alleviating suffering and ending life when it no longer meets its own definition deserves some space.  My advice to you: think about your worst-case scenario, and start planning.

back to top

A Modest Proposal:
Mandatory Euthanasia

by: Avni Mehti and Clark Baxtresser

Currently, the vast majority of health care costs belongs to the elderly; this money goes towards keeping them alive despite severely reduced qualities of life, and there exists a huge imbalance in the amount of money spent across age groups. We are essentially providing care for those who have already had a long life while jeopardizing the potential benefits available to those who still may lead full lives.  Are we throwing money towards a group of people that should, more than anyone else, accept their mortality because we, as a society, cannot accept our own imminent demise?  Pause to consider; meanwhile, babies are dying as our elderly keep breathing.  Is this logical?

We are essentially providing care for those who have already had a long life while jeopardizing the potential benefits available to those who still may lead full lives.

We do not think so. Imagine a world in which death was considered just as natural as life, one in which we did not accept religious or moral claims as ultimate truths, and one in which we could recapture the philosophy implied by social contract theory: that a healthy society is dependent upon strict obedience to a belief in something larger than the individual. Imagine a world in which health and prosperity are available to everyone, regardless of race or class.  We argue that this world is within our reach if no one were to live beyond the age of 65.  In short, we propose mandatory euthanasia.

“Mandatory” might sound scary to some, but what is truly scary is the unknown.  Death is the ultimate unknown.  Yet compulsory euthanasia allows death to be controlled and changes our entire perception of what it means to live.  In effect, people could come face to face with their inevitable mortality early in their lives, and all children would be raised to be aware of their lifespan, but why? We seek to normalize death, to reduce its reputation for torment to harmless banality, and to improve quality of life for all.

Specifically, mandatory euthanasia gives new value to life. When the prospect of death is a mere mystery in the distant future, we are psychologically conditioned to believe that we will live forever. This mentality is dangerous, for it allows one to lose sight of obtaining happiness and satisfaction in the present.  “Life” today is a too easily procrastinated chore, a reality deferred to a future date.  As we try to keep each other breathing for as long as possible, beyond monetary calculations, there are such qualitative costs involved. The more we focus on prolonging life, the less life is actually lived. In many cases, we are artificially manipulating what should be the most natural thing in the world: the transition from life into death.

Although this sounds radical, we have become accustomed to far more disturbing realities: witness the crippling, surreal poverty of our international neighbors.  Indeed, the blindness driving our inaction on human rights questions mirrors our cowardly relationship to death.  Perversely, people see death as the final opportunity to reconnect; sons and daughters fly home to see their dying parents because there is no time left, but where were they before? The status of “death” is as sad a commentary on ourselves as our ”discovery” of Haiti’s poverty after the hurricane struck.  Why can’t we learn to see what is front of us before it demands our attention, why can’t we start making it better?

Think about yourself: it surely would be a blessing to have the opportunity to say goodbye to one’s family and friends in advance. They could even be present at your moment of departure. Funerals could develop from their current somber mourning standard into a joyful celebration of an individual’s 65 years on Earth. In fact, the party could happen before one’s actual death. It is a common fantasy to be present at one’s own funeral, and knowing when you will die opens that possibility.

For stubborn number-crunchers among you, we can identify many benefits that would accrue to a society enforcing mandatory euthanasia: Overpopulation pressures would disappear.  Hospitals would have far more room and time to devote to younger, healthier clientele with more promising life prospects. Nursing homes could be converted into schools, parks, or businesses to meet changing demand. Global warming could be successfully abated as fewer elderly drive and consume!

… money spent on elderly health care could stimulate the economy and fund social programs…

Yet most importantly, the money spent on elderly health care could stimulate the economy and fund social programs: rather than simply extending questionably valuable forms of life, we could begin addressing the innumerable problems that everyday cheapen its quality.

Of course, we know that such a change may be a long way off, but please, for a moment, imagine how your life would be affected if you knew, without a doubt, that it was to end at a specific point in time. What would you do differently? How would you think differently?  You may be surprised at what you discover.

back to top

edited by: Chris Koslowski