Eric P. Metze

Look closer.

Q: We’re all the same… essentially. Agree? Disagree? And, what evidence do you have to support your answer?

A: We have more in common with one another than anything else in the entire Cosmos. The genetic differences between every living human is less than the difference between Chihuahuas and Huskies. We all have the same biological heritage and we all float on the same tiny ball in an unimaginably vast ocean of space. If you consider all of the various forms of matter and the possibilities of existence, you can begin to see just how much we truly have in common. One person may like lasagna with meat, one person may like it without meat, but every person that ever existed would eat a bowl of it if they were hungry.

Looooong before the words “Christmas,” “Hannukah,” “Kwanzaa,” and “Festivus” ever entered humanity’s vocabulary, we have been celebrating the winter solstice. And why not? Without modern technology and capitalism making us fat, warm, greedy, and complacent, we’d be hunkered down in our holes, caves, and huts trying to make it through the brutal winters.

As many people have said, this is a time for giving. It is a time to appreciate all the things we could be living without, like food, shelter, and each other. And so, with the shortest day and longest night of the year at hand, take time to consider just how lucky we are to be here at this time in history. Whatever you call this time of year, try to remember why exactly why we celebrate it.

Rainfall has historically been something to look forward to, but India recently has learned firsthand the lesson about having too much of a good thing. As the death toll continues to rise, the rain continues to fall, and the pressures it puts on the people of the region create several social problems. This natural disaster is perhaps a product of an increasingly-unstable environment; every disaster is a reminder of what may come next. It would not have been quite a problem if the area in which it occurred did not suffer from overpopulation, but this fusion of urbanization and erratic weather only compounded the problems.

Increased urbanization, and to a lesser degree the affect of our species on the environment, has led to a disturbing death toll in flooded regions of India. Much of the regions that were affected were in low-lying areas, and were susceptible to this kind of weather. The fact that it happened only proves the dangerous state the locals exists in. If large numbers of people are inadequately housed or protected in these areas, they are much more likely to suffer serious consequences, even by those things that are caused by people in other parts of the world. The connectedness we share with everyone across the world is emphasized when our indirect actions directly affect the lives of others we believe have no connection to us. Though the people of Mumbai and surrounding areas must solve the problem of overpopulation and urbanization themselves, the rest of the industrialized world must do what it can to reduce events like these through responsible energy consumption.

Mumbai, the official name for the city hardest hit by these floods, is more commonly known to Americans as Bombay (4). Hundreds of people have died in Mumbai this past week because of landslides, drowning, electrocution in flooded streets and even suffocation in their cars (6). Mumbai was hit by 37 inches of rainfall on the 26th of July, which was the heaviest downpour in a century (2). Approximately 25,000 sheep and goats, and 2,500 buffaloes also drowned in Mumbai (1). The majority of deaths occurred (and continue to occur) in the lowest-income regions of the cities, where a third of the 12 million people of Mumbai live (3). 60,000 or more villagers are living in temporary camps outside of Mumbai (5).

Because Mumbai is known for its intense economic power, many people seem to be ignoring their plight on the basis that they have the resources to handle the crisis. Locals insist, however, that this is not the case. P. Unnikrishnan of Action Aid International said that the, “media portray Mumbai’s economic might and think receding waters are good. The ground situation is entirely different. Relief materials are only reaching isolated places” (5). The threat to the people is not seen as a threat to the nation’s economy because it is seen as a short-term problem. Consequently, much-needed aid is not getting to those who require it (3). One major problem facing both city officials and locals is the tendency for the suddenly-homeless to wander back to their neighborhoods. Though they do this because they have nowhere else to go, it still creates problems for the local government. It puts more individuals at risk and stresses the already thin emergency response (1).

The Indian government has been criticized for the way they have handled this crisis. Though it was an unavoidable natural disaster, the death tool has led many to ask if it could have been better handled. The response often cited in defense of the government is the absolutely unprecedented amount of rainfall. With over three feet of rain pouring on the city in a single day, it is unlikely that any government could have prevented such an event. Officials contest that their response has been adequate, especially given the unusual nature of the weather (3). The United States has given no official response to this particular issue, though they are undoubtedly aware of it. President Bush does not see a connection between this and global warming, but he is sure that the rain hates freedom.

Many people maintain that the government could not have anticipated this kind of flooding, but there are still those who (perhaps rightfully) find reason to complain. Food and clean water are the most important things to those affected by the flooding, and they desperately need more of it to come their way. As with any considerable social problem, many people are also asking why the aid is not flowing freely to them. In a matter of life and death, though, they can hardly be considered greedy.

Though the vast majority of Americans will not be directly affected by this event, some people will be. Either by family connections or personal interests, not even the fact that this happened on the other side of the planet will keep some people separate from the ordeal. These are the people most likely to be seen asking their fellow Americans to help in the aid effort, which will (though minutely) increase awareness of the issue.

One perspective that may be stressed is the ecological factor. Was this event, something that was extremely disastrous and equally unusual, the result of natural causes or is human activity somehow to blame? This is not an appeal to the deities for possible transgressions on the part of humanity, but a serious question raised by scientists in relevant fields of research. The ecosystem tends to be stable, and sudden instability should is seen as a sudden break from the norm. Far from being a freak occurrence, the flooding in India could be yet another red flag in our handling (or rather, our mishandling) of the environment.

The media has been very balanced in covering the actual events in the past couple weeks. The significant death toll, the fact that it happened to a prosperous country, and the particularly gruesome facts about how people died have appeared in virtually the same manner throughout all of the sources I looked through. The only true differences were in their perspectives, and it was usually based on the publication in which it appeared. The BusinessWeek article, not surprisingly, talked about the losses the country suffered in terms of prospective economic outcomes, while the BBC article focused on the human tragedy created by the flooding. Very few articles, it should be noted, mentioned the potential correlation between this event and human impression upon the environment, though there were a few mentions of it.

To the issue of problems created by urbanization of the area, only local changes will effectively resolve how to handle a major flood such as this. Fortunately, this kind of catastrophe is rare, and future problems will be much easier to deal with. As for the deeper, more elusive cause of the flooding itself, we should look to the skies, literally. If it is revealed that we have had no impact on the environment, and this was just a freak incident, then there is nothing to worry about as there is nothing we can do to prevent it. However, if it is later discovered that this downpour (and other weather events like it) are indeed the result of our interaction with the environment, then all humans share a duty to confront these issues and solve them quickly and appropriately.

List of Works Consulted
1. “India Monsoon Death Toll Rises to 910.” Fox News. <http://foxnews.com/>
2. “India’s Rains May Ease, Bringing Relief to Flood-Hit Mumbai.” Bloomberg.com. <http://bloomberg.com/>
3. Mahapatra, Rajesh. “Bombay floodings batter country’s image.” BusinessWeek Online. <http://businessweek.com/>
4. “Monsoon death toll in India about 1,000.” Science Daily. <http://sciencedaily.com/>
5. “Mumbai struggles back to normal.” BBC News. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/>
6. “Torrential rains pound Mumbai.” CNN. <http://cnn.com/>

Since we are very young we are bombarded with images and ideas of romance. It is an important factor in our society and one that affects and reciprocates specific ideas about how relationships are supposed to form. There are problems inherent in this method of choosing mates, however, and they go beyond the purely superficial. It could be argued that romance is an excellent indicator of a successful marriage, but evidence for this is hard to come by.

Television, movies, books, magazines, and even rumors often speak of romantic love between people. As children we learn to love our parents, as teenagers we learn to love the feelings associated with flirting and sexual activity, and as adults we learn to love people in the most real sense. Until that time when we are old and mature enough to truly understand these feelings are we able to put it into perspective, and sometimes not even then. It is a culturally-derived idea that romance is the truest path to love, and this very well may be the case. But years or decades before this is even possible, we are pressured by our society to put romance ahead of all other factors when choosing a mate or a spouse.

Not everyone in our culture puts the same emphasis on romance, but a significant percentage of it does. Because it is and has been such an important aspect of our culture, we find its influence in the practices and rituals of modern life. Young women are particularly targeted by this, which can be witnessed by simply turning on a television. Most women used in advertisements, especially for products that closely relate to grooming and appearance, are young and seemingly attracted to the most superficial aspects of a man (229). The great influence this idea has over our society is also bolstered by its own success, allowing this shallow approach to mating to flourish with very little true resistance. Even people who have a very pragmatic view of the world can find themselves uncontrollably distracted by a pretty face.

It is undeniable that certain people may seem attractive to us (both on the physical and personal level), but this does not mean that we should necessarily marry them. This method of choosing a mate is highly unstable in that it forces people to focus on aspects of a mate that are irrelevant to the continuation of the relationship or the biological “success” of reproduction. Anyone can fall in love. Furthermore, because our society has a proclivity towards attractive people, young adults are often taken advantage of. From something as harmless as putting their face in a commercial to something like dancing nude at a strip club, our physical and other basic urges are used to serve purposes that have nothing to do with mating or marriage.

Though we may not be able to deny our instinctual attraction to certain things–or, to be more precise, people–this does not mean that romantic interest can accurately gauge the potential success of a relationship. Romance is a product of our passion which is a product of our ancient biological heritage, and as real as it may seem or actually be, that is all it is. It is like our urge to smash something when we are angry. Sometimes it is impossible to stop ourselves from bursting out (to whatever degree). Before, during, and afterwards we know that it changes nothing (except, maybe, the object we struck), yet we feel the urge to do it anyway. Romantic passion is the same kind of urge, and has just as much ability to affect the future as any other urge: none. To some cultures, the idea of leaving something as important as marriage up to young people is considered foolish (230). In our culture, we can only hope that the romance lasts as long as it can, and that a more realistic bond is formed during that time.

From a very early age our culture unconsciously trains us to seek romance (once we are old enough). We find it in many aspects of our lives, and it influences us all. Though this is not necessarily a bad concept, it is not a very good set of criteria to base lifelong partnerships on. Romance is real, and its effects are real, but it alone does not ensure a positive outcome. It is, as Antoine de Saint-Exupery, said in The Little Prince, “Experience shows us that love does not consist in gazing at each other but in looking together in the same direction.”

List of Works Cited:
Haviland, William A. (2002). Cultural Anthropology (10th edition)
Merriam-Webster Dictionary (www.merriam-webster.com)

It was generally held for a long time that hunting, the act of stalking live prey and then killing it, contributed a great deal to our natural aggressive tendencies. After all, it seems perfectly natural to imagine how this ruthless ability to assault another living creature would serve our ancestors capture much-needed food. The problem with this idea is that our aggressive nature, which is undeniably real, comes from a much older part of our biological heritage.

The aggressive part of our behavior comes from a much older section of our brain, one that has been in our family line long before primates had even evolved. In fact, it was the development of our highly evolved primate brains that developed in tandem with our ability to hunt. We were able to band together as a group, to hunt far more effectively than we could as individuals. Learning to cooperate was more than a short term advantage, though. This cooperation led to an evolved sense of society, which is the hallmark of culture.

Communication was the most important adaptation from learning to hunt more effectively. From simple noises to more complex sounds to language, we had to develop a way of letting everyone in the hunting pack know that the prey was nearby or that danger lurked ahead. The better we communicated, the better we hunted, and the more likely it was that we would survive. Though we humans sometimes do not act like it, cooperation through language has been one of the greatest advances in all of human evolution. And it was directly related to our time learning to hunt as a group.

A natural byproduct of our evolving brains and societies was our ability to think ahead, plan for attacks, and even make alternate decisions based on the given situation. As we became more successful with these abilities, we were able to use them more effectively. Eventually our heightened intelligence became so evolved that it far surpassed its survival value. Now we are able to use our intelligence in ways our ancestors simply could never have imagined. We can plan ahead as individuals, as nations, and as a species, reflecting on the past, thinking about the present, and planning for the future.