Just back from a trip to Exmouth. People joining the tour were all university students. There were two german girls, a pair of French, a group of American girls and a group of Austrians. I went with a girl from Hong Kong. She is actually on the same exchange programme as I am, and we are classmates in Hong Kong.
Wayne, an Australian man, was our tour guide and driver. He was a good man and he took care of everything including our meals. It was unfortunate that he did not have a microphone in the bus, so he could not tell us so much that he could have told.
When I was talking with him in Coral Bay, he said we were very quiet. He said it might be because we were a group of university students instead of backpackers. Backpackers were usually more sociable and talkative, according to him. We did not even have a cheering leader who could bring the people together. That's why we seperated into groups, and seemingly it was according to our own nationality.
I agreed with him. There are many kinds of university students. Apparently this group of people joining the tour was not very interesting. They did not have the intention to talk with the other people. I mean groups of people were found in our tour and they seldom talked with each other.
I believe one of the key element which makes a tour more fun is the people I am going with. It is always interesting to talk with people from places all around the world and share the experiences of touring or life. This tour lacked this sort of communications. Sometimes I felt people were not very friendly to the others, which was like a kind of self-superiority. Maybe I was too sensitive to this, so I was not very happy with this.
The other thing was the people in the tour were quite fussy. They hardly accepted a relatively poor accomodation, like they were not even willing to go to have a shower despite a sufficient supply of water. In fact some hints were already given by the flyers before the trip started. We were told to bring our sleeping bag, which meant it could be somewhere in bad condition. Nevertheless we did not really need to use it, but only the night with the poorest accomodation that we did not have any bed sheets or cover.
Perhaps I was too extreme about this, yet this was only one of the examples. I told my friend that I think the best people might be found in universities, and probably the most spoiled people as well.
Regrettably I am also one of the university students. *Winky.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Thursday, September 14, 2006
McDonaldization
I enjoy my unit of global communication very much. Today there were two groups of presentation. One of them discussed the topic of sports globalization, and another one is McDonaldization. After the tutorial class everyone is required to write a blog weekly about the lesson. I have just done it and feel excited to share my views. The following is not all I want to express, since I can only write a maximum of 250. But anyway I have written around 280 words. *Winky.
McDonaldization marks the importance of McDonald’s in the progress of globalization. McDonald’s is found in centre, and also the margin like China and Southeast Asian nations. The fast-food restaurant chain has brought its American style countries worldwide. For example, fast food was not popular until McDonald’s has conquered different continents. The clean and user-friendly characteristics attract over millions of customers everyday. Many local restaurants start to imitate Mac’s, such as its way of management as well as its convenient eating style.
It is found that the McDonald’s highest person-time of consumption is located at Hong Kong, which is my city. I think almost everyone in HK has been to McDonald’s. It becomes so popular in this busy city that people have their party there; people have their meeting there; people have their relaxing time there; as well as outliers get the food from the scraps there! This is very amazing since HK is not the only place having this phenomenon. McDonald’s influence is all over the world.
Mac’s is playing a very important role in globalization. It contributes to the globalization of our eating style, managing style and even our social lifestyle; whereas it also helps explaining glocalization. This is characterized by its invention of hybridized food. It combines the local and the American taste, and thereupon produces a new kind of glocalized food. Yet in another way the local culture is affected. Mac’s creates something new, which is not the original of the local anymore. The local culture is in some way being invaded or altered, whereas Mac’s actually develops its culture and has it improved. It becomes part of its culture while the local can hardly preserve its own.
My lecturer raised an inspiring question in the class, and this is what I used to think of as well. In terms of the media, or McDonald's, are they reflecting us or shaping us? Mac's is just one of the enormous examples. Mac's maximizes its profit by taking local culture into part of itself, because people want it. When Mac's introduces a new flavour, people accept it. I find it hard to explain. Do people want it? Or do people just buy whatever Mac's produces?
Human behaviour is hard to explain, and unpredictable. Some people are probably stronger in mind, but most people are prone to be affected. In one way Mac's can say they only reflect the choice of customers; in another way Mac's actually shapes our form of culture and lifestyle.
Since I don't like McDonald's, I could hardly say this phenomenon is good. However there are many points of views. We can explore and think more.
ps. I just told my friend that even though all this are thought-provoking, they are not very useful in reality. At least it has no obvious influence with my future. Reality is harsh.
McDonaldization marks the importance of McDonald’s in the progress of globalization. McDonald’s is found in centre, and also the margin like China and Southeast Asian nations. The fast-food restaurant chain has brought its American style countries worldwide. For example, fast food was not popular until McDonald’s has conquered different continents. The clean and user-friendly characteristics attract over millions of customers everyday. Many local restaurants start to imitate Mac’s, such as its way of management as well as its convenient eating style.
It is found that the McDonald’s highest person-time of consumption is located at Hong Kong, which is my city. I think almost everyone in HK has been to McDonald’s. It becomes so popular in this busy city that people have their party there; people have their meeting there; people have their relaxing time there; as well as outliers get the food from the scraps there! This is very amazing since HK is not the only place having this phenomenon. McDonald’s influence is all over the world.
Mac’s is playing a very important role in globalization. It contributes to the globalization of our eating style, managing style and even our social lifestyle; whereas it also helps explaining glocalization. This is characterized by its invention of hybridized food. It combines the local and the American taste, and thereupon produces a new kind of glocalized food. Yet in another way the local culture is affected. Mac’s creates something new, which is not the original of the local anymore. The local culture is in some way being invaded or altered, whereas Mac’s actually develops its culture and has it improved. It becomes part of its culture while the local can hardly preserve its own.
My lecturer raised an inspiring question in the class, and this is what I used to think of as well. In terms of the media, or McDonald's, are they reflecting us or shaping us? Mac's is just one of the enormous examples. Mac's maximizes its profit by taking local culture into part of itself, because people want it. When Mac's introduces a new flavour, people accept it. I find it hard to explain. Do people want it? Or do people just buy whatever Mac's produces?
Human behaviour is hard to explain, and unpredictable. Some people are probably stronger in mind, but most people are prone to be affected. In one way Mac's can say they only reflect the choice of customers; in another way Mac's actually shapes our form of culture and lifestyle.
Since I don't like McDonald's, I could hardly say this phenomenon is good. However there are many points of views. We can explore and think more.
ps. I just told my friend that even though all this are thought-provoking, they are not very useful in reality. At least it has no obvious influence with my future. Reality is harsh.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Education
My body is terribly pathetic, as I get sick monthly. Anyway.
Education - there is always an issue in almost every country. For instance, the system does not work well; the syllabus is not appropriate; the teaching staff is not qualified and so on.
I enjoyed a presentation in my tutorial class about the education in Western Australia. I am not very familiar with the educational system, so I can only provide a little information about it. In Australia, most states basically use an approach called "outcome-based education (OBE)". It has just been introduced in Western Australia. Some problems thus arise and lead to discussion and arguments.
OBE, by definition, is "to start with a framework and a set of expectations about the desired learning results. The curriculum and the organisational forms that are appropriate for achieving those results can then be built." (Brian Devlin, 2000, http://www.ntu.edu.au/education/ntier/newsletter/OBE.html)
It is actually quite similar to Hong Kong's previous system, which is target-oriented. This is probably because Australia and Hong Kong are deeply influenced by the British. In Britain the term attainment target’ is said to be a similar idea (Brian Devlin, 2002). However I am not certain whether Hong Kong is still using this system, because it has been criticised seriously.
The arguments about OBE include the fact that it ignores the processes. It teaches people to achieve the target by means of anything. In my class, some classmates expressed their views after the presentation that students might have learnt nothing. Students are able to promote to the next grade, but they are not actually capable of all the subjects they are doing. Probably some students are doing very well with only one subject, whereas they are not up to the standard in the other subjects. One of my classmates, who has been a teacher, said some students simply could not write a readable sentence. The students have the ideas in their mind, but they just cannot write them down.
This is all I want to talk about the problem of the education in Australia. In United States, there is a debate over the educational policy, despite its model being imitated widely. I read a news article few weeks ago, and it said the long-favoured United States' education is declining in world's position. The younger generation will probably face a problem of insufficient education when they are compared with people overseas. I have just found another article talking about the American education's image abroad in crisis (Business Wire, 2006, http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?
ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20060913005261&newsLang=en).
In Hong Kong, education controversies hardly stop. Debates on 3-3-4 secondary/tertiary system, the quality of teachers and what approach is appropriate are endless. It seems that people can hardly invent or develop a perfect system, especially when a reform of education involves politics and the society. Apparently it is quite impossible and too complicated to reform.
I think as well as the aboves, it is partly because the world is always transforming. Education is a long-term project, and thus maybe it can hardly follow the steps of the world. When people start a system for the contemporary world, the world has changed already. We can only maximize our interest and do our best within the constraints.
To develop this more from the issue, I would say this is probably applicable to many social issues. The world is unsettled without a constant form; until people find out solutions, new matters arise. It is interesting - when we are pushing the world to move further, we have to be chasing the world's step. We straighten out troubles, and then we create troubles. Surely it is not only about negative, some positives are brought at the same time.
It sounds like a kaleidoscope. This makes our lifes colourful and exciting. I don't think people can live without big or small troubles, as we will probably feel dull eventually.
Education - there is always an issue in almost every country. For instance, the system does not work well; the syllabus is not appropriate; the teaching staff is not qualified and so on.
I enjoyed a presentation in my tutorial class about the education in Western Australia. I am not very familiar with the educational system, so I can only provide a little information about it. In Australia, most states basically use an approach called "outcome-based education (OBE)". It has just been introduced in Western Australia. Some problems thus arise and lead to discussion and arguments.
OBE, by definition, is "to start with a framework and a set of expectations about the desired learning results. The curriculum and the organisational forms that are appropriate for achieving those results can then be built." (Brian Devlin, 2000, http://www.ntu.edu.au/education/ntier/newsletter/OBE.html)
It is actually quite similar to Hong Kong's previous system, which is target-oriented. This is probably because Australia and Hong Kong are deeply influenced by the British. In Britain the term attainment target’ is said to be a similar idea (Brian Devlin, 2002). However I am not certain whether Hong Kong is still using this system, because it has been criticised seriously.
The arguments about OBE include the fact that it ignores the processes. It teaches people to achieve the target by means of anything. In my class, some classmates expressed their views after the presentation that students might have learnt nothing. Students are able to promote to the next grade, but they are not actually capable of all the subjects they are doing. Probably some students are doing very well with only one subject, whereas they are not up to the standard in the other subjects. One of my classmates, who has been a teacher, said some students simply could not write a readable sentence. The students have the ideas in their mind, but they just cannot write them down.
This is all I want to talk about the problem of the education in Australia. In United States, there is a debate over the educational policy, despite its model being imitated widely. I read a news article few weeks ago, and it said the long-favoured United States' education is declining in world's position. The younger generation will probably face a problem of insufficient education when they are compared with people overseas. I have just found another article talking about the American education's image abroad in crisis (Business Wire, 2006, http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?
ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20060913005261&newsLang=en).
In Hong Kong, education controversies hardly stop. Debates on 3-3-4 secondary/tertiary system, the quality of teachers and what approach is appropriate are endless. It seems that people can hardly invent or develop a perfect system, especially when a reform of education involves politics and the society. Apparently it is quite impossible and too complicated to reform.
I think as well as the aboves, it is partly because the world is always transforming. Education is a long-term project, and thus maybe it can hardly follow the steps of the world. When people start a system for the contemporary world, the world has changed already. We can only maximize our interest and do our best within the constraints.
To develop this more from the issue, I would say this is probably applicable to many social issues. The world is unsettled without a constant form; until people find out solutions, new matters arise. It is interesting - when we are pushing the world to move further, we have to be chasing the world's step. We straighten out troubles, and then we create troubles. Surely it is not only about negative, some positives are brought at the same time.
It sounds like a kaleidoscope. This makes our lifes colourful and exciting. I don't think people can live without big or small troubles, as we will probably feel dull eventually.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Regional broadcast; control
Obviously I am not very organized; when I want to write a blog, usually it includes different things, which can be very different from each other. Besides, sometimes I simply forget what I want to write when I am writing. This is probably brought by my nervous disposition.
1. Regional broadcast
Compared with Hong Kong, Perth, where I am now down under, is a regional city and far less internationalized. It is a very spread-out city, with around 1.3 million people only. It is full of local culture that Billabong and Roxy are everywhere and only a few international brands are found.
This partly reveals how the broadcast here is like. Perth is in Western Australia (WA), the biggest state in Australia, so the broadcast covers I think the whole WA.
Being the Aussie biggest state, however, does not mean having a good quality. I do not mean to harshly criticize the broadcast, yet it is very much different from my home city that is very business-like.
The quality in technical aspect is very considerable. One time when I was watching SBS, a commerical TV channel, I found very interesting that the sound is faster than the action on screen. The presenter was like chasing the action induced by the sound. It made me think that the sound and the action are very seperated from each other. I have never found this in the TV programmes in HK lest it is some kind of comedies or funny shows.
This is not the only discovery. I don't remember what channel I was watching, but it was a news bulletin. The anchor was always watching his left-hand side to read the news. He could hardly look at the camera to face the audience. In HK it only happened very long time ago. I did a course about broadcast journalism in my home university last year and I had the chance to be an anchor in my school's studio. I could just look at the camera because the script was just reflected in front of the camera. I did not have to look at anywhere else. This technique is in my school, and so I expect it is just a simple trick. Thus no wonder I feel strange to have found this in the news programme here.
It is only my opinion, but not criticism.
Then it is the time to jump to the content of the news bulletin. To me it is an interesting finding because it puts more than three quarters of time on regional or national news. In Hong Kong I can have at least two or three pieces of international news; here sometimes I can only watch one piece. I can hardly know from the news bulletin about the war in Lebannon or the nuclear development in Iran. If I were a permanent resident, I would have hardly known what is happening in the rest of the world from the TV. Trivial matters are able to contribute to the news content.
I think this is under the influence of proximity and the nature as a regional city. Perth is definitely not a cosmopolitan city and people are not very city-like. Some Australians told me this is a place where the country is found in the city. A big country part can be found just next to those high-rise buildings.
Just in the beginning of my words I said WA is very localized. It is also shown by the sports news. Much emphasis is put on the Australian football, a kind of sports which is only popular in Aussie. Other sports like basketball or soccer only occupy a short time of broadcast.
Whatsoever, it is quite interesting.
2. Control
My doubt is whether the restrictions we impose on ourselves, for the sake of ourselves, are really doing good to ourselves, or limiting our freedom increasingly.
There is a controversial issue over the ban of junk food. In Denmark, a legislation bans to sell food that contains industrial produced trans fatty acids. It is said that trans-fatty acid does not have any taste and have no influence on the price or availability of junk food. In Australia some people advocate the idea of banning the fat as well. Other places in most countries usually encourage people having a healthy diet and stop eating junk food.
I am surprised to hear that obesity is regarded as a global problem. Last time in my tutorial lesson we discussed obesity. We do not know how the surveys and statistics came out this conclusion. Obesity is a healthy problem, but we are hardly convinced how serious the problem is getting to be. The definition of obesity is too simplified by the health index BMI, but then suddenly many people come out and tell us we are too fat and our life is threatened by obesity. Thus we have to carry out some measures and control it.
It doesn't sound scientific or objective to me. Also I can hardly imagine if the society restricts the food in this way. I can understand some harmful substances or ingredients are banned, but I am not quite sure if it is good to control the junk food market. There is a suggestion in Aussie that the government should control the advertising of junk food.
This is an example of my doubt about control. I am confused about what is good to us -
a. Our consumption behavious is sometimes influenced by advertisments, but this is not absolute.
b. We can choose what we want to eat, and currently we are in fact always told about the negative impacts of junk food. I guess most customers in McDonald's understand before they go into the shop and buy what they want to eat.
c. When we have sufficient knowledge about the harms, I consider we are free to decide what we want. If I choose to eat junk food, that is my own choice because I choose to let my favourite overwhelm the harms.
These are the matters in my mind, and I would say I am objective to make these conclusions. In so-called a free and liberate community, I am not certain whether imposing more and more restrictions like smoking ban contradicts to our philosophy of freedom.
All in all, what is the genuine utopia we are seeking? From absolute to democratic rule, from communism to capitalism, what is our society actually transforming to?
---
Originally I want to discuss sex and prono as well, but this is such a soft topic that I lose my interest to express my view after the above interests. However that is also very interesting that I may do it next time.
1. Regional broadcast
Compared with Hong Kong, Perth, where I am now down under, is a regional city and far less internationalized. It is a very spread-out city, with around 1.3 million people only. It is full of local culture that Billabong and Roxy are everywhere and only a few international brands are found.
This partly reveals how the broadcast here is like. Perth is in Western Australia (WA), the biggest state in Australia, so the broadcast covers I think the whole WA.
Being the Aussie biggest state, however, does not mean having a good quality. I do not mean to harshly criticize the broadcast, yet it is very much different from my home city that is very business-like.
The quality in technical aspect is very considerable. One time when I was watching SBS, a commerical TV channel, I found very interesting that the sound is faster than the action on screen. The presenter was like chasing the action induced by the sound. It made me think that the sound and the action are very seperated from each other. I have never found this in the TV programmes in HK lest it is some kind of comedies or funny shows.
This is not the only discovery. I don't remember what channel I was watching, but it was a news bulletin. The anchor was always watching his left-hand side to read the news. He could hardly look at the camera to face the audience. In HK it only happened very long time ago. I did a course about broadcast journalism in my home university last year and I had the chance to be an anchor in my school's studio. I could just look at the camera because the script was just reflected in front of the camera. I did not have to look at anywhere else. This technique is in my school, and so I expect it is just a simple trick. Thus no wonder I feel strange to have found this in the news programme here.
It is only my opinion, but not criticism.
Then it is the time to jump to the content of the news bulletin. To me it is an interesting finding because it puts more than three quarters of time on regional or national news. In Hong Kong I can have at least two or three pieces of international news; here sometimes I can only watch one piece. I can hardly know from the news bulletin about the war in Lebannon or the nuclear development in Iran. If I were a permanent resident, I would have hardly known what is happening in the rest of the world from the TV. Trivial matters are able to contribute to the news content.
I think this is under the influence of proximity and the nature as a regional city. Perth is definitely not a cosmopolitan city and people are not very city-like. Some Australians told me this is a place where the country is found in the city. A big country part can be found just next to those high-rise buildings.
Just in the beginning of my words I said WA is very localized. It is also shown by the sports news. Much emphasis is put on the Australian football, a kind of sports which is only popular in Aussie. Other sports like basketball or soccer only occupy a short time of broadcast.
Whatsoever, it is quite interesting.
2. Control
My doubt is whether the restrictions we impose on ourselves, for the sake of ourselves, are really doing good to ourselves, or limiting our freedom increasingly.
There is a controversial issue over the ban of junk food. In Denmark, a legislation bans to sell food that contains industrial produced trans fatty acids. It is said that trans-fatty acid does not have any taste and have no influence on the price or availability of junk food. In Australia some people advocate the idea of banning the fat as well. Other places in most countries usually encourage people having a healthy diet and stop eating junk food.
I am surprised to hear that obesity is regarded as a global problem. Last time in my tutorial lesson we discussed obesity. We do not know how the surveys and statistics came out this conclusion. Obesity is a healthy problem, but we are hardly convinced how serious the problem is getting to be. The definition of obesity is too simplified by the health index BMI, but then suddenly many people come out and tell us we are too fat and our life is threatened by obesity. Thus we have to carry out some measures and control it.
It doesn't sound scientific or objective to me. Also I can hardly imagine if the society restricts the food in this way. I can understand some harmful substances or ingredients are banned, but I am not quite sure if it is good to control the junk food market. There is a suggestion in Aussie that the government should control the advertising of junk food.
This is an example of my doubt about control. I am confused about what is good to us -
a. Our consumption behavious is sometimes influenced by advertisments, but this is not absolute.
b. We can choose what we want to eat, and currently we are in fact always told about the negative impacts of junk food. I guess most customers in McDonald's understand before they go into the shop and buy what they want to eat.
c. When we have sufficient knowledge about the harms, I consider we are free to decide what we want. If I choose to eat junk food, that is my own choice because I choose to let my favourite overwhelm the harms.
These are the matters in my mind, and I would say I am objective to make these conclusions. In so-called a free and liberate community, I am not certain whether imposing more and more restrictions like smoking ban contradicts to our philosophy of freedom.
All in all, what is the genuine utopia we are seeking? From absolute to democratic rule, from communism to capitalism, what is our society actually transforming to?
---
Originally I want to discuss sex and prono as well, but this is such a soft topic that I lose my interest to express my view after the above interests. However that is also very interesting that I may do it next time.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Many things.
I've got a lot of ideas at this moment, but I wonder if I could write them all before I have already forgotten them.
Environmental issue - there are many storms this year. My friend in Hong Kong told me there were three typhoons in a week or two. Hurricane Ernesto and John are now in the America, despite one in the East and one in the West. Flash floods, mudflows and landslides are found in Nepal and Cambodia. I know there are many natural disasters in other parts of the world, but the aboves are what I realize by now.
I was talking with my friend few days ago about the end of human life. Long time ago I read a news that our power resources could only provide us for 30 years more. Then we talked about how man might disappear from the history. My friend said it might be like some disaster movies. I do not want to elaborate much, yet the fact is now out there - we have increasing storms every year. We also have frequent volcanic eruptions, tsunami and earthquakes. We then have desertification whereas floods happen in many places. Global warming is well-known and is obviously affecting our life and our environment. All this looks a signal to us that we are in serious danger.
What can we do for it? We are talking about sustainability and are always discussing what we should do, but we do not often work out - or when we attempt to some people withdraw. California passed a law to restrict the gas emission; my city signed an agreement with Guangdong government to control the air quality. Some people are doing, but it is not enough. California is part of the US, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, the governor of California said the president did not carry out any policies to preserve the environment. It sounds like Arnold is working alone and the state is not very supportive. My city tries to reduce the air pollution from the factories in South China, but it does not cope with the problem of air-conditioners. This city has too many air-conditioners that heat the city. My view is not board enough to tell the things happen all around the world, but they are enough to reveal part of the truth, at least for me.
However the problem is too complicated that it's like impossible to have it solved. It involves social, political and other factors. Our technology is not enough for us to survive. It develops everyday, but our pace of destroy is much faster than the possible solution invented. Notwithstanding pessimism, the conclusion of my friend and I is we cannot help our death at all. I do not want to say this and I hope it would not be like this. Meanwhile I think everything has their end. Human would be gone someday, as most things cannot survive forever.
Religion issue - this is really my personal opinion that does not mean to harm anyone. Wars persist, partly due to the conflicts between races and religions. A piece of news said the Islamic called for an embracement of them by Christians. Then I think of the facts - some Muslims struggle for their interest and freedom by means of terrorism; the US suppressed them by invasion of Iraq and declaration of the Terror War. They use violence to solve the "problem", and I do not understand they cannot accept or tolerate the others. There may be many reasons - the temptation of power, the interest of profits, or the genuine liberty and freedom.
Nonetheless, what is liberty and freedom? Can we have them genuinely? We impose laws and regulations, and so we have to follow. In other words, we limit our freedom. We claim they are for the sake of ourselves, yet it is also really limiting ourselves. We need these rules to maintain stability. Most of the time what we call freedom or liberty is more like to happen only in utopia or heaven. And if it truly exists, people may find it bored. Man are sometimes contradictive.
My "intelligence" is not able to help understand the war philosophy anyway.
The book - I am still reading The Authority and the Individual. I have just read about the discussion of self-respect. Russell, the writer, said it is a virtue of minority. He talked about something I am very interested as well - "one of the most revolting features of tyrannies is the way in which they lead the victims of injustice to offer adulation to those who ill-treat them." He quoted the example of the Czar Nicholas period. What I think of is the 1937-1945 Japanese invasion of China. Millions of Chinese were killed. I read something before and it told me there was such a horrible case: in a place four Japanese soldiers killed 25 Chinese (I am not sure about the number of Chinese, but this is the number I remember anyway), and the Chinese did not try to fight or resist. They kneeled to wait for their death. Under certain degree of fears, people tend to stop asking or resisting. Instead they follow all rules blindly. I am not sure if it is true, but I have such a thought.
Now I turn into quite different subject discussed in the book. It is about managerial issue in an organization, such as a big company, the government or a society. And the frustration is very simple - the opinions down can hardly get to the top. When people in the low strata have complains, they have to pass through all the stratas to the top. It takes a long time, and the complains are usually supressed in the middle before it can reach the top. The writer suggested that small groups and small companies can help solve the matter, since everybody in small groups know each other and they are able to talk with each other directly. Opinions reach everyone and things get easy.
Apparently it is a good idea, but it is also idealistic.
I think of the optimum in economics, and in reality we can never know what optimum is. It is hard to control things to optimum. Similarly it is hard to realize the writer's idea. Man is very unpredictable. Even if the small-group idea is realized, some new problems will arise. Like we could never know what the best is.
I think that makes life interesting. We are not perfect.
I almost forget one interesting thing in the book (This book really has many interesting things). It says equality by itself is not enough to make a good society. A little demonstration - it does not mean good when everyone is a slave. Everyone is a slave, which means everyone is as low as one another, but it is not good despite the equality. The following is thought-provoking:
"...if liberty is as much valued as democracy, and it is realized that a society in which each is the slave of all is only a little better than one in which each is the slave of a despot. There is equality where all are slaves, as well as where all are free."
I have never thought about equality deeply. It is important but I have never thought whether it is enough to make a good society.
I guess it is interesting to think about how a good society is like, and I wonder whether it would exist one day before the human history comes to the end.
A new law in Cambodia - the last issue I want to talk about. I would make it brief as it is too obvious to find it ridiculous.
This is the piece of news:
Cambodia's parliament passed a law on Friday which could send adulterers to jail for up to a year.
A law about adultery is used to reduce corruption. Does it make sense? It is very unbelievable. The news revealed how backward, illiterate and conservative the country is.
Yet it is still a good country, despite the people at the top. Well the "low" people can hardly reach the "top" - sounds familiar.
ps. I hope my English would not be too poor to understand. I want to improve but I always fail. I am very frustrated.
Environmental issue - there are many storms this year. My friend in Hong Kong told me there were three typhoons in a week or two. Hurricane Ernesto and John are now in the America, despite one in the East and one in the West. Flash floods, mudflows and landslides are found in Nepal and Cambodia. I know there are many natural disasters in other parts of the world, but the aboves are what I realize by now.
I was talking with my friend few days ago about the end of human life. Long time ago I read a news that our power resources could only provide us for 30 years more. Then we talked about how man might disappear from the history. My friend said it might be like some disaster movies. I do not want to elaborate much, yet the fact is now out there - we have increasing storms every year. We also have frequent volcanic eruptions, tsunami and earthquakes. We then have desertification whereas floods happen in many places. Global warming is well-known and is obviously affecting our life and our environment. All this looks a signal to us that we are in serious danger.
What can we do for it? We are talking about sustainability and are always discussing what we should do, but we do not often work out - or when we attempt to some people withdraw. California passed a law to restrict the gas emission; my city signed an agreement with Guangdong government to control the air quality. Some people are doing, but it is not enough. California is part of the US, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, the governor of California said the president did not carry out any policies to preserve the environment. It sounds like Arnold is working alone and the state is not very supportive. My city tries to reduce the air pollution from the factories in South China, but it does not cope with the problem of air-conditioners. This city has too many air-conditioners that heat the city. My view is not board enough to tell the things happen all around the world, but they are enough to reveal part of the truth, at least for me.
However the problem is too complicated that it's like impossible to have it solved. It involves social, political and other factors. Our technology is not enough for us to survive. It develops everyday, but our pace of destroy is much faster than the possible solution invented. Notwithstanding pessimism, the conclusion of my friend and I is we cannot help our death at all. I do not want to say this and I hope it would not be like this. Meanwhile I think everything has their end. Human would be gone someday, as most things cannot survive forever.
Religion issue - this is really my personal opinion that does not mean to harm anyone. Wars persist, partly due to the conflicts between races and religions. A piece of news said the Islamic called for an embracement of them by Christians. Then I think of the facts - some Muslims struggle for their interest and freedom by means of terrorism; the US suppressed them by invasion of Iraq and declaration of the Terror War. They use violence to solve the "problem", and I do not understand they cannot accept or tolerate the others. There may be many reasons - the temptation of power, the interest of profits, or the genuine liberty and freedom.
Nonetheless, what is liberty and freedom? Can we have them genuinely? We impose laws and regulations, and so we have to follow. In other words, we limit our freedom. We claim they are for the sake of ourselves, yet it is also really limiting ourselves. We need these rules to maintain stability. Most of the time what we call freedom or liberty is more like to happen only in utopia or heaven. And if it truly exists, people may find it bored. Man are sometimes contradictive.
My "intelligence" is not able to help understand the war philosophy anyway.
The book - I am still reading The Authority and the Individual. I have just read about the discussion of self-respect. Russell, the writer, said it is a virtue of minority. He talked about something I am very interested as well - "one of the most revolting features of tyrannies is the way in which they lead the victims of injustice to offer adulation to those who ill-treat them." He quoted the example of the Czar Nicholas period. What I think of is the 1937-1945 Japanese invasion of China. Millions of Chinese were killed. I read something before and it told me there was such a horrible case: in a place four Japanese soldiers killed 25 Chinese (I am not sure about the number of Chinese, but this is the number I remember anyway), and the Chinese did not try to fight or resist. They kneeled to wait for their death. Under certain degree of fears, people tend to stop asking or resisting. Instead they follow all rules blindly. I am not sure if it is true, but I have such a thought.
Now I turn into quite different subject discussed in the book. It is about managerial issue in an organization, such as a big company, the government or a society. And the frustration is very simple - the opinions down can hardly get to the top. When people in the low strata have complains, they have to pass through all the stratas to the top. It takes a long time, and the complains are usually supressed in the middle before it can reach the top. The writer suggested that small groups and small companies can help solve the matter, since everybody in small groups know each other and they are able to talk with each other directly. Opinions reach everyone and things get easy.
Apparently it is a good idea, but it is also idealistic.
I think of the optimum in economics, and in reality we can never know what optimum is. It is hard to control things to optimum. Similarly it is hard to realize the writer's idea. Man is very unpredictable. Even if the small-group idea is realized, some new problems will arise. Like we could never know what the best is.
I think that makes life interesting. We are not perfect.
I almost forget one interesting thing in the book (This book really has many interesting things). It says equality by itself is not enough to make a good society. A little demonstration - it does not mean good when everyone is a slave. Everyone is a slave, which means everyone is as low as one another, but it is not good despite the equality. The following is thought-provoking:
"...if liberty is as much valued as democracy, and it is realized that a society in which each is the slave of all is only a little better than one in which each is the slave of a despot. There is equality where all are slaves, as well as where all are free."
I have never thought about equality deeply. It is important but I have never thought whether it is enough to make a good society.
I guess it is interesting to think about how a good society is like, and I wonder whether it would exist one day before the human history comes to the end.
A new law in Cambodia - the last issue I want to talk about. I would make it brief as it is too obvious to find it ridiculous.
This is the piece of news:
Cambodia votes to pass adultery law; opposition walks out
Cambodia's parliament passed a law on Friday which could send adulterers to jail for up to a year.
The vote prompted a walkout by opposition lawmakers who said the law carried echoes of the Khmer Rouge and the Taliban in a country which should be tackling poverty and corruption instead of legislating about morality.
But the government argued the law would help reduce pervasive corruption by removing the temptation for officials to steal from state coffers to maintain mistresses as well as halting what it called a decline in morality.
"This law is also aimed at reducing corruption, because when government officials have more women, they seek more financial sources to support their girls," National Assembly Chairman Heng Samrin said.
Sam Rainsy, chief of his eponymous opposition party, was not impressed.
"The government wants to distract the public from the important issues of poverty and the culture of impunity," he said of a country where 35 percent of the 14 million population live on less than US$1 a day and the powerful rarely face justice.
Many married Cambodian men keep mistresses if they can afford them and the government argued that making adultery a criminal offense would help shore up the family.
Some wives resent the unfaithfulness of their husbands to the point of violence.
A law about adultery is used to reduce corruption. Does it make sense? It is very unbelievable. The news revealed how backward, illiterate and conservative the country is.
Yet it is still a good country, despite the people at the top. Well the "low" people can hardly reach the "top" - sounds familiar.
ps. I hope my English would not be too poor to understand. I want to improve but I always fail. I am very frustrated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)