Analysis of Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals

Analysis of Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals When God died, what happened to the people? Therefore neither can an animal move about in the closed as such, no more than it can comport itself toward the unconcealed. The animal is excluded from the essential domain of the conflict between unconcealedness and concealedness. The sign of such an exclusion is that no animal or plant â€Å"has the word. (Heidegger: 1992:159-60) The concealed in Heidegger is that which conceals from us it’s being. What emerges in Heidegger, in his pursuit of this clearing, is the slim line – the slippery border, between human and animal. The animal in Heidegger cannot see the sun as it rushes towards it: it can never dissocial the sun as a being. It is at once open and non-open, or rather, it operates in an ambiguity between the two fields. Man in Heidegger becomes that which is produced precisely at this border: at the moment of caesura and articulation between human and animal: it is this that passes for man, and it is this than expresses well the relationship of man to language. Man is never outside language: language is always already expressed as a radical exclusion of that which is not which operates as a fundamental category of exclusion(Agamben: 2004a: 91) The last century and a half have been full of attempts to move outside of language: to pass into new notions of subjectivity that move outside of what it is to be human. Nietzsche’s attempt to destroy traditional notions of subjectivity stands out as a crystallisation point in a process that sees Delouse, Foucault and Derrida, to name the three philosophers this dissertation will discuss, move outside notions of the human trapped within language and the creation of the subject. In doing so they criticise a notion of the subject trapped within binary constructions and the hierarchical notions of the subject that one finds in Hegel; in doing so they echo the criticism of Christianity that Nietzsche made. This dissertation will analyse the reasons for which Nietzsche attempts to destroy the traditional notion of the subject and replace it with a particularism notion of the subject: forever in astute of becoming that escapes binary configurations. We will evaluate to what extent he was successful in his enterprise, and what type of subjectivity was brought forth. In analysing the ways in which Deleuze,Foucault and Derrida take up his project, we will analyse a genealogy of thought that attempts to successively move beyond what we understands human. These three methods open up a series of liberating possibilities to philosophy and politics, and the configurations of these possibilities we be analysed. However, in the radical indeterminacy of Derrida, in the pessimistic, frantic activism of Foucault, and in the schizo-analysis of Delouse we can detect the same problem that we find in Nietzsche: at work in him is that oblivion (or as Bataille would term it, that excess) â€Å"which lies at the foundation of the biologist of the nineteenth century and of psychoanalysis† and what produces â€Å"monstrous anthropomorphization of†¦ the animal and a corresponding animalization of man† (Heidegger: 1992:152). Heidegger still believed, as none of the philosophers considered in the dissertation do, in the possibility of a good project of the polis; that there was still a good historical space in which one could find a historical destiny grounded in being. He, later in life, realized his mistake. In this, he comes toe point where his criticism of Nietzsche becomes most pointed. Nietzsche’s eulogisation of man is that which pre-empts the emptying out of value we find a man at the end of history. Nietzsche is blind to what the caesura of naming man as such might mean: in doing so, and in asserting the gelatinisation of the truth of the polis, the ambiguous border between man and animal collapses. It is precisely the â€Å"essential border between the mystery of the living being and the mystery of what is historical† (Heidegger: 1992:239) that is not dealt with by Nietzsche’s work and it is thus constantly exposed to the possibility of an â€Å"unlimited and groundless anthropomorphization of the animal† that places the animal above man and makes a ‘super-man’ (ibid:160) of it. Life becomes reified over and above the precise condition of its existence; that very condition which makes it always already in dependency on those very grounds of its existence. We will find this same problem repeated in Foucault, who in his criticism of the construction of the subject in modernity illustrates the way in which modern notions of sovereignty act directly on the bios of modern man; this is where modernity begins to act on animal life(this time where equivalence has rendered the possibility of time null)and what is at stake in the construction of the subject is the possibility of his life. Yet, Foucault, like Nietzsche, illustrates this genealogy of dependence without being able to elucidate its historical specificity, which is in its construction of a zone of exclusion at the basis of ontology itself (this can be seen in Foucault’s error in treating bio power as a modern phenomenon). This same problem is manifest in the differ and of Derrida, and in Deleuze’s notion of the organs without a body: each in turns finds itself the symptom of the radical historicism. Each proclaims this symptom a cure, without realising that the cure they offer is precisely that which is the symptom. In all these theorists what this amounts to is misunderstanding of the nature of language. Thus, while Nietzsche manages to destroy stable notions of the subject, the unstable notion he replaces them with, while apparently liberating, exists within the same binaries he seeks to destroy, and moreover, allows for the exactly the same herd instinct that he seeks to overcome. I. Why I needed to kill God I.I We see ourselves in every mirror What, in all strictness, has really conquered the Christian God? (†¦) Christian morality itself, the concept of truthfulness taken more and more strictly, the confessional subtlety of the Christian conscience translated and sublimated into the scientific conscience, into intellectual cleanliness at any price. To view nature as if it were a proof of the goodness and providence of a God; to interpret history to the glory of divine reason, as the perpetual witness to a moral world order and moral intentions; to interpret one’s own experiences, as pious men long interpreted them, as if everything were preordained, everything a sign, everything sent for salvation of the soul that now belongs to the past, that has conscience against it†¦. In this way, Christianity as a dogma was destroyed by its own morality†¦. (Nietzsche: 1969:160) Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals outlines the way in which Christianity formulates its notion of the subject. The Christian super-ego is posited as salvation, as the point towards which one works. Thus, the Christian subject exists as, first and foremost, alack: it is not what it wishes to be. Yet, as Nietzsche points out, this lack is a condition and construction of the subject within Christianity: one resembles oneself and yet in order to find deliverance must become more of oneself and in doing so one finds justification for the present order of things. The Christian superegos to be found in God, and then, surprise, surprise, the Christian ego can be found placed in the soul of the body. This parallels the analysis that Foucault makes of the subject (1999, 1975). The law construct the subject as normal (and in doing so sets up an exclusion of the abnormal, or that which is not: that which has no voice – icon-human) and in this process creates a desiring-subject, who desires what the law has not given it. Yet these desires are what are created by the notion of the subject placed upon one: one is created absent, oars not that, not this, but always awaiting a day when one can be called by a proper name. It is this awaiting a proper name that Nietzsche attacks most strongly, and in this theory of language we shall see Nietzsche allows no place for such a proper name. A proper name relation, Nietzsche argues, is always a relationship between a creditor and a debtor; it is always typified by the dependence or lack, and as such prevents the possibility that of morality to be free and joyous. Nietzsche though, and is not commented on very much, reserves some tender thoughts for Christianity. It is a primal Christianity, a Dionysian Christianity, that Nietzsche can endorse. As much can be seen in the quote that started this section: Nietzsche’s criticism of Christianity should not be seen to be limited to Christianity. Rather, it extends to all relationships of debt and obligation to a structuring super-ego. It was not Nietzsche, he claims, that killed Christianity, it was Christianity itself, and Nietzsche loathes the nihilism that replaces it just as much. We can discern three criticisms of Christianity/nihilism in the quote that started this dissertation. Nietzsche elaborates that one of the structures of Christianity is the idea of a puritanical truthfulness, which has been sublimated into scientific consciousness. Nietzsche’s primary criticism of this truthfulness is that is relies upon a correspondence theory of truth: it requires an external state that can be matched in some way to an internal state (which then requires a subject to have such an internal state). For Nietzsche, consciousness created in such a way in simply ashram, an intentional lie: consciousness lies free and unbounded – it has no centre around which it can orientate itself. Furthermore, the mapping between a real world of existent things (Kant’s ding an such)and a subjective world of language is not possible. It is not possible because language only ever refers to itself. To use Saussure’s(1995:12) terminology, a sign can only have meaning within another setoff signs; it has no essential relationship to the world that is signified. A correspondence theory of truth attempts to hold up astatic a world that is in constant flux and in doing so negates the possibility of human freedom, which Nietzsche opposes to belief. The importance of this critique of the Christian subject will be returned to later in the dissertation when we consider Nietzsche’s theory of language. The second crucial critique of Christianity made in the quote that begins this dissertation is of history as possessing meaning, as divine providence being read into history as if it were a series of signs. This resembles the structural properties of psychoanalysis that Delouse(1983a, 1983b, 1984) was so devastatingly to criticise. One can read one’s entire life as a history of redemption, as Benjamin (1986:112)comments. In this reading, every moment of one’s life in which one fails, feels regret of guilt because one is not conterminous with the notion of the subject given to you, can be read as a sign of messianic moment to come: it is to deny the contingent and necessary existence one has in favour of a reified notion of being that removes life from life. Nietzsche realises that such a realisation about life is scary, and he realises that people will cling onto a Christian notion of belief even if it has no rational foundation: that is why in Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1 969) he attempts to convince people through rhetoric rather than argument. Several elements of Nietzsche’s thought here are important to note. While he attacks Christianity, in the long quote we started the section with he already observes that the technological-scientific paradigm replaces Christianity while adopting all of its tenants. As Nietzsche(1974:108) comments: â€Å"after Buddha was dead, his shadow was still shown for centuries in a cave a tremendous, gruesome shadow. God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. -And we- we still have to vanquish his shadow, too.† Science is this shadow: it refuses an engagement with the world in favour of a mystified detached observer who can sit back and observe the world rather than engage within its context. This DE contextualisation actually ends up relativizing the world. This is a radical historicism that believes the role of the pasties to come to the rescue of the future: temporality is shortened tallow only a pre sent, an immediate process of desiring-lack and sustenance. It allows for the feigned equivalence of all men, as they are all equal as subjects, and as all in this equivalence all notions of importance and goals are emptied of meaning by an effectively moribund set of values that deny life in favour of a search for authentic experience. This search for authentic experience is termed active nihilism in Nietzsche: it is an attempt to confront the emptiness of value categories with frenetic action: this is what Size (2001:48) calls the passion for the real: the passion for frenetic experience that ultimately culminates in its simulacrum. It culminates in its simulacrum because the passion for the real (as opposed to the empty appearance people inhabit) eventually becomes the passion for the real without risk – for one only risks if there is something one is willing to die for: for Nietzsche the chance and contingency of the eternal return – and thus we see the Nietzsche an concepts of passive and active nihilism end up, in late modern capitalism, becoming one. We can see that the co-existence of what we could term the correspondence theory of truth and the history as destiny theory (where everything is able tube reconciled to the present) inevitably end up in this structure of nihilism. Both of these theories rely on several underlying structures of thought that Nietzsche was also quick to criticise in Christianity. Innis analysis of the origins of Christianity, he notes (1956:112):â€Å"Christianity was from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, life’s nausea and disgust with life, merely concealed behind, masked by, dressed up as, faith in another or better life.† Christianity was always underlined by a series of binary logics: this is not the right life: this one is better; hate: love, God: Satan. It is this binary thinking that comes in for a huge amount of criticism from Nietzsche. It is these binaries that ignore that the world is in astute of becoming, that it is forever in a state of flux. Nietzsche notes (1966:12): â€Å"it may be doubted, firstly whether there exists any antithesis at all, and secondly whether these popular evaluations and value anti-thesis, on which the metaphysicians have set their seal, are not perhaps foreground valuations, merely provisional perspectives. â€Å"Therefore, Nietzsche’s criticism is not simply of our values, as we have seen in the previous paragraphs, but of the way in which our values are constructed. Nietzsche’s theory of language illustrates that each of the terms in binary series is dependent on the other. Butler (1990,1993) undertakes similar enterprise inspired by Nietzsche when she investigates the dependency of the category women on the category man and vice versa. Power is exercised, Nietzsche understands, in the formation of the very categories themselves, not merely in the ascription of certain people to good and certain people to bad. It is a mistake to fight for the category of lack, because the detestable thing is the very category: by fighting against the lack (e.g. of women for rights) one is accepting the terms of the herd mentality; that one must accept the givens of the situation and its binary categories. This is why a genealogy of morals is necessary, to (Butler: 1990:ix)â€Å"investigate the political stakes in designating as an origin and cause those identity categories that are in fact the effects of institutions, practices, discourses with multiple and diffuse points of origin.† Such pursuit unseats the claim of a binary logic to an objective reality: they show them as temporal formations that constitute a world for the subject. However, such a world is always shot through with lack. One can illustrate this using Alcan’s (1981) theory of mirrors, which he derives from Nietzsche’s view of the subject. In Alcan’s view, one is never identical to the role one has been assigned in life. The social formation of life (which is an appearance) is full of inconsistency and incompleteness. As Christina Wolf (1980:151) comments in her novel: Nelly couldn’t help it: the charred building made her sad. But she didn’t know that she was feeling sad [my emphasis], because she wasn’t supposed to feel sad. She had long ago begun to cheat herself out of her true feelings†¦.Gone, forever gone, is the beautiful, free correlation between emotions and events†¦. It wouldn’t have taken much for Nelly to have succumbed to an improper emotion: compassion. But healthy German common sense built barrier against it: anxiety. The character Nelly feels the dissonance between the world she is in and the world she experiences: she experiences anxiety over it. Such anxiety is the mark of the problem of binary categorisation. This categorisation does not resemble the world, which is in flux, but it places over it a series of categories that are power relationships designed to constitute you as a subject. We can perhaps draw a parallel here between what Nietzsche analyses in his philosophy of language as the productive power of the grammar of an age and what Laplace(1989:130), following Alcan, calls the source-object of drives. These unconscious formations are an encounter between an individual whose psycho-somatic structures are situated predominantly at the level of need, and signifiers emanating from an adult. Those signifiers pertain to the satisfaction of the child’s needs, but they also convey the purely interrogative potential of other messages—and those other messages are sexual. These enigmatic messages set the child the difficult, or even impossible, task of mastery and symbolization and the attempt to perform it inevitably leaves behind unconscious residues†¦. I refer to them as the source objects of the drives. What one must be careful to do here is to distinguish between the early Nietzsche and his later work. In early work such as the Birth of Tragedy (1956), Nietzsche can still talk about an essential essence that the Christian or Apollonian reasoning hides. In his later work he fully endorses the view that consciousness is but surface: a radically anti-essentialist position that refuses the possibility of an outside of language or of consciousness. There is then, no real that one can break through the appearance to get to, as one might in psychoanalysis. However, that does not necessarily mean the psychoanalytic reading were doing here is incorrect. Laconia analysis departs from the Freudian analysis that Delouse criticizes in its conception of the subject. For Nelly, the character in Wolf’s novel, the state fore-anxiety might be referred to as true, but a sense of what it is would be to call it uninhibited: free from the strictures of power. In the later Nietzsche, the ability t o escape the possibility of the subject is ambiguous. What Nelly asks for is not an absolute escape, as Laplace does not ask that the child can master the symbolization of his parents and escape the drives. Rather, what is inferred is continual tension and thrust against that which claims to be objective and masks desire, put in a Delusion idiom: it is the consistent schizoid refusal to stasis. As such, it parallels the construction of the subject in Foucault. Like Nietzsche and Butler, Foucault performs a genealogy. Like the later Nietzsche, Foucault realizes the impossibility of breaking through language. One is always already constructed as a subject: any attempt to break out of this trap relies on an exterior moral framework that simply replicates the binaries of an existing power discourse. Foucault (1979:178) notes that â€Å"discourse creates the object of which it speaks.† Discourse gives rise to a subject, and an attempt to break out of the subject through a call to a value (such as revolutionary purity, truth) falls into the same power trap as existing political discourse. What Foucault and Nietzsche both call into question is the notion of valorisation itself: that which always assumes a dichotomousbinarisation. However, rather than placing their project within an appeal to the real outside of language, both claim the most one can does attack language thro ugh language. This task means to constantly reveal that which appears as objective as actually a temporally structured mask of power. Thus for Foucault (1984:217): The real political task in a society such as ours is to criticize the working of institutions which appear to be both neutral and independent; to criticize them in such a manner that the political violence which has always exercised itself through them will be unmasked, so that one can fight them. This task has no end or limit: indeed, an end or limit is part of the notion of the structure of power; that there is this goal that you must attain, that you are not this, though at a certain point you may indeed attain it. We can see such notions of end goal rely on the interpretation of history as divine providence (or in the secular historicist version, history being called to the rescue of the present)that Nietzsche was so quick to criticise as ignoring the contingency and chance of existence. Both of these parallel Deleuze’s criticism of hierarchical structure as that which inhibits desire and presses it into the service of power. What this entails is not simply the refutation of God at the centre of the world, defining the notion of our being. It is a refutation of a centre of the world. Secularism simply replaces God with man, and declares that the self-autonomous mains that which defines our values, when we do not act in a way accorded to by the hegemony, then it is u s who are lacking. Thus, Nietzsche(1962:346) makes a comment much like Marx when he says â€Å"we now laugh when we find ‘Man and World’ placed beside one another, separated by the sublime presumption of the little world ‘and.’ Thus, in Nietzsche it is not simply Christianity but its zombie replacement rationality that needs to be criticised. Foucault continues this task in The Order of Things (1994), attacking the Human account of causality and truth than requires a one to one mapping between things and their referents. This criticism is possible because, as Nietzsche notes (1968:616) â€Å"the world with which we are concerned . . .is not a fact . . . it is in flux, as something in a state of becoming, as a falsehood always changing but never getting near the truth: for—there is no truth.† This is the strongest statement of Nietzsche’s project. He wants to undermine the notion of truth and reveal it for a set of power constructions and particularities. With the notion of truth, the notion of the proper name (the proper place for the human subject) becomes impossible, and what opens up is decentred multitude of consciousness like that which Delouse (1980:332) outlines in Mille Plateaux . This project would have what is productive as that which is nomadic, which refuses all forms of hierarchy in favour of that which is additive. To carry out such project it is necessary to destroy the possibility of belief. I.II Our beliefs are our weakness If there is today still no lack of those who do not know how indecent it is to believeor a sign of decadence, of a broken will to livewell, they will know it tomorrow. (Nietzsche: 1990:3) For Nietzsche, belief requires something outside of oneself. Indeed, belief can be understood as the opposite to freedom in Nietzsche’s thought. To believe in something is to believe in what that thing has made you into: it is to believe that one has something internal (belief) that can be referred to the world. As Nietzsche notes (ibid:347): Once a human being reaches the fundamental conviction that he must be commanded, he becomes a believer.’ Conversely, one could conceive of such a pleasure and power of self-determination, such a freedom of the will that the spirit would take leave of all faith and every wish for certainty, being practiced in maintaining himself on insubstantial ropes and possibilities and dancing even near abysses. As we have noted above, it is not enough to simply get rid of God. What happens to the people after we get rid of God? They run together, as a herd, scared, into other formations of command, such as nationalism. It is interesting to note here Foucault’s comment, that the challenge of nationalism (1994:228) was to â€Å"establish a system of signs in congruence with the transcendence of being.† It was to believe in a new grammar that replaced the old certainties of life with new certainties: the certainty of the glory of the death of the unknown soldier for the transcendent nation. That is why Nietzsche says,(1990:15): â€Å"we are not getting rid of God because we still believe in grammar.† Nietzsche’s real challenge is almost a challenge against language: it is an attempt to consistently run up against the limit of language and refute its hegemonic possibilities (e.g. in the distribution of tenses) at every turn. A grammar forces one to give lie to a real ity: the only such lies Nietzsche thinks are acceptable are innocent lies, those lies that enable communication in contingent fashion, that are not totalising and do not exceed the moment of their own expression. What happens with the new certainties is that they still rely on a concept of will. They ask one to partake in a world in which one is necessarily excluded (you are not this, yet†¦). For Nietzsche (1924:14),to believe in the will is to believe â€Å"every individual action is isolate and indivisible .† Thus runs counter to the idea of flux Nietzsche takes from Heraclitus. Actions are not simply formed but are always already part of a social world that means individual isolatable action is impossible. As is thinking. Thinking (Nietzsche: 1968:477)â€Å"as epistemologists conceive it, simply does not occur, it is a quite arbitrary fiction, arrived at by selecting one element from the process and eliminating all the rest, an artificial arrangement for the purpose of intelligibility.† This process of intelligibility constructs a world in which one is dependent on the process of selection: thought, like and will, becomes a tool to be used: a means-end relationship that requires the a priori separation of subject and object, thought and world, that Nietzsche so convincingly refutes. He notes (1990:54) that â€Å"the man of faith, the believer of every sort is necessarily dependent mansuch as cannot out of himself posit ends at all. The ‘believer does not belong to himself, he can be only a means, he haste be used, he needs someone who will use him.† In the hands of God, or secularism, agency is always placed outside yourself in the objective world that you lack. The weak believer who does not think that he wills(which is already a mistake) at least (ibid: 18) â€Å"puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already (principle of â€Å"belief†).† To change this it is not enough to attack reason (as Adorn and Horkheimer do in The Dialectic of Enlightenment [1972]) but to attack the notion of the instincts. Instinct, while normally associated with that which is most natural, is in Nietzsche a product of discourse and habit over centuries, it is an unthinking subjectivity masquerading as the natural order of things. It is given by the law, and (Nietzsche:1990:57) â€Å"the authority of the law is established by the thesis: God gave it, the ancestors lived it.† To free habit, as we noticed earlier, requires not an attack on reason but an attack on habit, on unreflexive action: we need to liberate man from cause and effect. This task requires that man be liberated from the notion of the name. As Nietzsche (1956:20) claims: The lordly right of giving names extends so far that one should allow oneself to conceive the origin of language itself as an expression of power on the part of the rulers: they say this is this and this, they seal everything and event with a sound, as it were, take possession of it This feat requires a liberation from language. Here Nietzsche is at his most powerful, for he realises that it is in the very nature of language itself that the origin of power lays. Indeed, there is strong correlation between the attack on the sovereign in Nietzsche and Foucault and Saussaurian linguistics. In both the argument relies on the non-relation between signs and what they represent, and yet the continued claim of signs to be coterminous with what they represent, taking possession of it. Against this, Nietzsche wants to liberate us from names (1990:8). That no one is any longer made accountable, that the kind of being manifested cannot be traced to a cause prima, that the world is a unity neither as sensorium nor as spirit, this alone is the great liberation. This flux of things, clearly prevents the emergence of a subject: consciousness here, and for Nietzsche’s thought as a whole has, has no predetermined pattern. What we need to fight, for Nietzsche, is the giving of the pattern, the idea that the whole is no longer whole(1974:22). What is the sign of every literary decadence? That life no longer dwells in the whole. The word becomes sovereign and leaps out of the sentence, the sentence reaches out and obscures the meaning of the page, the page gains life at the expense of the wholethe whole is no longer a whole. I.III The Grammar of the Age, or how I learned to love the Word Life (Nietzsche: 1990:11) is a â€Å"continuous, homogenous, undivided, indivisible flowing.† For it is not the world that is simple and exact(what one could call the assigning of the world to the word: or to its lieu proper), rather through words we â€Å"are still continually misled into imagining things as being simpler than they are, separate from one another, indivisible, each existing in and for itself.† When Nietzsche writes this, he has abandoned the distinction between the apparent and the real world. There is no ideal for (ibid: 6): â€Å"with the real world we have also abolished the apparent world.† Such a world allows no notions of predestination, and no correspondence theory of truth. Anyone who speaks of such things is a liar (ibid: 38): One must know today that a theologian, a priest, a pope does not merely err in every sentence he speaks, he liesthat he is no longer free to lie innocently, out of ignorance. The priest knows as well as everyone that there is no longer any God, any sinner, any ‘redeemerthat free will, moral world-order are liesintellectual seriousness, the profound self-overcoming of the intellect, no longer permits anyone not to know about these things. What do we replace this met discourse with? We cannot replace it with a singular subject: a new revolutionary ideal or perfect subject, for this would be to become but another priest. Nietzsche (1968:490)argues: â€Å"the assumption of one single subject is perhaps unnecessary; perhaps it is just as permissible to assume a multiplicity of subjects, whose interaction and struggle is the basis of our thought and our consciousness in general? . . . My hypothesis: the subject as multiplicity. . . The continual transistorizes and fleetingness of the subject.† This is precisely what Delouse echoes half a century later when he claims (1983a: 5): â€Å"production as process overtakes all idealistic categories and constitutes a cycle whose relationship to desire is that of an imminent principle.† This multiplicity, one might ask: how does one get there, and what does one do when one is multiple, when one is the Dionysian figure who Nietzsche claims (1956:45) is in constant state of becoming, who is â€Å"the nominal â€Å"I† that is always becoming and his intoxicated state sounds out the depth of Being.† In one sense for Nietzsche this is an idle question: one cannot assume multitude is something in itself, indeed (1968:560): â€Å"that things possess a constitution in themselves quite apart from interpretation and subject

Supply and Demand of Labor in the US

Supply and Demand of Labor in the US Melanie Canady I choose to do my research paper on the supply and demand of labor in the United States. I will attempt to illustrate the change in supply and demand in the labor market over the last 10 years. I will also explore the different effects and share many views on how this has played a significate role on the economy in the United States. Supply and Demand is categorized as the forces that make the economy work. The supply of labor is defined as the number of workers who are willing and able to work. The labor demand is the number of employers who are willing and able to hire those workers. Supply and demand of labor differs based on the jobs or occupations that are available. Over the last 10 years the supply and demand of labor in the United States has dropped significantly, while other countries has increased, this is because US based companies are moving jobs or operation overseas, because of different types of incentives that they are taking advantage of in order to make their busine ss more profitable. Since 2000 the labor market has been declining, therefore causing increasing poverty in the United States. This is because of our weak and unequal labor market which began before the great recession. This rising inequality is because of the declining average earnings and the number of workers with the below average wages have grown over the years. There have been many groups affected by this inequality, but one group that has the greatest impact is less educated men. We have seen that this group has experienced a decline in their earnings in the past decade. Because of this it has reduced the income in their families and therefore caused much higher poverty numbers. Why has this happened? First of all today’s labor market puts a greater premium on workers education levels and skills than it did a generation ago (Holzer). With the growing technology advancements in our economy it has reduced the demand for the less skilled workers especially in production workers in the factori es. The supply of well educated workers has not kept up with the growing demand. There has been a gap in the percentage of young people earning some kind of college education. Many years back when factory work in the United States was in high demand, there was jobs available and they paid a decent salary. Obtaining a college education was the last thing that was thought of. As companies moved away to other countries, we all experienced a decline in earnings because we had to accept jobs that was available, and without some kind of college education the jobs were a few to none. We can see that the well-paying production and clerical jobs are going away, therefore making the way for jobs requiring some technical training or work experience. In order to improve the labor market we need to improve our education and work-force system and to develop a skilled workforce. This will help to eliminate the high levels of poverty and inequality in the United States. The United States must continuously improve the workforce to be able to compete with other nations. We need to develop a strong workforce and employers need to be able to offer a good pay scale. The demand of labor had decreased in the United States because business value short term profits over making the workforce more efficient. The federal government must address the unemployment and underemployment that we have facing in the United States and to realize that the United States is stuck in the worse economic and social crisis since the Great Depression. It is clear that the labor market had failed to generate enough jobs to support the growth. The demand of labor is just like any like any other goods or service, it can be classified as both supply and demand. Labor is considered to be elastic if the wage increase causes a decline in the rate of employment and it is inelastic if the employers do not decrease employment to respond to the wage increase. If the supply of labor becomes more limited, especially with highly skilled workers, the cost of employing these workers rises. The labor in these skilled jobs may become less elastic, because these jobs cannot be easily filled. The demand of labor is declining in the United States because employers are becoming more focused on profits than investing in the workers. The labor market failure is a result of our government not asking the United States corporations or their leader to help build the productivity in American instead they are providing benefits for them move to other countries or off shore. For a business in the United States it make economic sense for them to close a plant or a business and send jobs offshore where they will perform more efficiently and at a lower cost. They will not invest in the workers in the United States to make them more efficient in supplying the up to date equipment or providing training that will lead to accomplish the goal of the business. America has a two dimensional job crisis: a persistent deficit in the number of jobs that are being created and an insufficient percentage of high quality job. (Kochan) One of the job crisis that the United States economy faced was that they needed 7 million jobs to get back to the levels that was reported before the great depression and another 5 million to account for the growth in the same time period. The President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness estimates that there will be a need for 20 million jobs by the year 2020. With these number the United States economy has never created jobs at this rate, therefore setting America up for a serious job deficit for the rest of this decade. The second job crisis that was evidential was that employment benefits represented a key to job quality. Going back to at least World War II, the United States workforce relied on the business to providing health care and retirement benefits. Since the 1980’s this benefit had been shrinking. Employer-provided benefits has been proven to be a play big factor in the workforce in the United States for decades. This benefits gives an employee job satisfaction. In lieu of the employer provided benefits such as health care, pension plans and 401k plans declining, the workers are reporting that they are not satisfied with their jobs anymore. Being provided these benefits has proven to be a piece that has given workers the motivation to perform their jobs at the highest level. That is being proficient and efficient that exceed the level that the business is asking for to be able to achieve the goals of the company. To be able to create 20 million high quality jobs in the United States by year 2020 we must pull together business, labor and government representatives to develop a plan of action. This group needs to determine which issues should be tackled first and what resources will be required. First they should determine what to do to jump start job growth, with this determination it will prevent the jobs and economic crisis from worsening. Another discussion that would be of interest would be to find a way to recapture the lost manufacturing. Some manufacturing jobs could be recaptured if businesses would take into account the total cost of producing goods offshore and shipping back to the United States. The HBS summit should make a proposal on what should be done to bring home millions of jobs over the next several years. Many business that moved jobs offshore came under attack by many because it seem to be a slap in the face for many that lost their jobs to other countries. This caused the government to establish programs that helped the American people to overcome some of the obstacles that they faced with losing their jobs. The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) is the primary Federal program that supports workforce development (Congressional Digest). This program provides education and training services for people that has lost their jobs because of layoffs or the closing of a business. This program also will help prepare a person for the next chapter in their lives by allowing them improve their skills and prepare them for skilled jobs by providing them with secondary and postsecondary education, on the job and employer-provided training. It also will provide funding for on the job training and employment services. This means that they will pay for the persons training to a company that will potentially hire them for a position. The Federal government provides workforce development activities through WIA’s programs and other programs designed to increase the employment and earning of workers (Congressional Digest). The programs that are offered are job search assistance, career counseling, occupational skill training, classroom training or on-the-job training (Congressional Digest). The WIA programs are funded through the state and federal and it administer by the U.S. Department of Labor and is available to unemployed or under employed individuals. In 2012 the programs funds was $4.9 billion dollars, this included $2.6 billion for state grants that was obtained for young, adult and dislocated worker training. WIA Title 1 programs provide employment and training services and also a One-Stop system. This system is required by each state and includes a core service and access to an intensive training service, provide programs and activities that are carried out by a One-Stop partner, and provide access to all labor market information, job search, placement, recruitment and labor exchange services that are authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act. Each state is required to have a One-Stop center that is accessible either remotely or electronically. In order to fill the gap, businesses needs to find a way to attract and help develop a skilled workforce for today’s labor market. Although there are programs in place to assist and help to develop these skills, businesses should also help. If businesses would get involved it will show that they are committed to helping with the job shortage and skills development. Although community colleges offer vocational programs to fill specific jobs, if the businesses would work with the college to develop programs that is specific to their business it would help them obtain a better workforce. This year there will be about $450 million in grants available to help promote and develop a skilled workforce this year. We are in an economy that simply needs to create and get more jobs. The lack of job growth is killing the United States. We are encouraging the young people to go to college and to get their education, but they are graduating and not able to find work. This is because there is a no jobs to offer them after graduation. The United States government should stop and take a look at what is in the United States instead of looking abroad. There is a Work Cited Kochan, Thomas A. A Jobs Compact For Americas Future. Harvard Business Review 90.3 (2012): 64-72. Business Source Complete. Web. 1 Nov. 2014 Workforce Investment Act Overview. Congressional Digest 93.3 (2014): 2. MAS Complete. Web. 1 Nov. 2014. HOLZER, HARRY J. Upgrading Skills, Upgrading Opportunity. American Prospect 23.6 (2012): 26. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 1 Nov. 2014 HIGGS, ROBERT. Worrisome Changes In U.S. Labor Force And Employment Since 2007. Independent Review 18.3 (2014): 471. MasterFILE Complete. Web. 1 Nov. 2014 Bridging The Skills Gap. Smart Business Pittsburgh 21.4 (2014): 20. Business Source Complete. Web. 2 Nov. 2014. Mankiw, Gregory. â€Å"Principals of Microeconomics† How Market Works Seventh Edition Chapter 4

Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals and the Media - Lesbians on TV :: Media Argumentative Persuasive Argument

Lesbians on TV: Illusion of Progress   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   When television first appeared back in the 1940's, times were very different.   What we would consider completely normal today would have seemed quite taboo just a few decades ago. For example, in 1953, Lucille Ball was not allowed to say the word "pregnant" while she was expecting baby Ricky and it wasn't until the 1960's show Bewitched, that we saw a married couple actually sharing the same bed.   Considering how conservative the television networks were back then, it is not hard to deduce that something as controversial as homosexuality would be far from discussed or portrayed at any level.   It was only in 1973 that television premiered its first homosexual character.   Over the next three decades the emergence of gay and lesbian characters in television has increased and decreased as the times have changed. Due to the resurgence of conservatism that came back in the early 1980's, homosexual topics were again reduc ed to a minimum.   Since that time though, as many people can see, there has been a rise of gay and lesbian characters on television. One might think after a first glance at the previous sentence that there has been progress among gay and lesbian communities to have a fair representation in the media.   However, if one looks hard at the circumstances surrounding their portrayal, many people may start to believe that if there has been any progress then it has been quite minimal.   In the 1990's there has been what is called a "normalized movement"(Warner 41).   This so-called movement has permeated into all aspects of the Gay and Lesbian movement's agenda.   It has become increasingly clear in the realms of the media such as television, movies and magazines.   The major objective for the proponents of this movement is to make the homosexual seem "normal."   This would be done by not focusing on the sexual nature of the homosexual.   Since their sexual behavior is considered deviant by society, any outward expression of it will be looked down upon.   So, it has been the goal of some leaders of the movement as well as those who control the media outlets to separate the identity and sexuality of the homosexual as far as possible.

Self-Discovery in Shakespeares King Lear :: King Lear essays

Self-Discovery in King Lear      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Halfway down   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Hangs one that gathers samphire, dreadful trade!   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Methinks he seems no bigger than his head:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The fisherman that walk along the beach   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Appear like mice.      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Although this quote from Shakespeare's King Lear is made by Poor Tom to his unknowing father Gloucester about the terrain far below them, it accurately summarizes the plight of the mad king.   Lear is out of touch with his surroundings, riding high upon the wave of power associated with the monarchy: even those closest to him are out of   reach, viewed with a distorted lens.   It is through this lens of madness that Lear views his friends and family, and thus he is stripped of everything before he can realize the folly of his judgment. Reduced to a simple man, Lear is forced to learn the lessons that God's anointed is already supposed to know. This is the purpose of the secondary characters of King Lear; they serve to show the many complex facets of Lear's complex personality, as they force him to finally get in touch with his self-conscious.      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   For example, the Fool, oddly enough, acts as the voice of reason for the out-of -touch King.   He views events critically and thus seems to foreshadow situations that an ignorant Lear is completely oblivious to. This is evident in act 1, scene 1, when a prodding Fool asks the king if he knows the difference between a bitter fool and a sweet fool.   When Lear admits that he does not, the Fool attempts to lay it all out in front of   him:      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   That lord which councelled thee   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   To give away thy land,   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Come place him here by me;   Ã‚  Ã‚     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Do thou for him stand.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The sweet and bitter fool   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Will presently appear;   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The one in motley here,   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The other found out there.      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The Fool attempts to show the king the folly of his ways. He is essentially calling Lear a bitter fool, insinuating that his foolishness will be the cause of such bitterness. This comment is taken lightly, but only because the Fool is a satire of the king himself, and thus is the only one allowed to criticize him. Lear has a preconceived notion that he will be able to give up all of his land and his throne, and yet still somehow hold on to the power that he is so accustomed to.      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Alas, the king does not listen.   He continues to believe he still has the power that he has long since conceded. He does not believe that by deviding the

Metaphysical Conceit in the Poetry of John Donne Essay examples -- Bio

Metaphysical Conceit in the Poetry of John Donne      Ã‚  Ã‚   Many of John Donne's poems contain metaphysical conceits and intellectual reasoning to build a deeper understanding of the speaker's emotional state. A metaphysical conceit can be defined as an extended, unconventional metaphor between objects that appear to be unrelated. Donne is exceptionally good at creating unusual unions between different elements in order to illustrate his point and form a persuasive argument in his poems. By using metaphysical conceits in "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning," Donne attempts to convince his love (presumably his wife) that parting is a positive experience which should not be looked upon with sadness. In the first stanza, Donne compares the speaker's departure to the mild death of virtuous men who pass on so peacefully that their loved ones find it difficult to detect the exact moment of their death. Their separation must be a calm transition like this form of death which Donne describes. The poet writes, "let us melt, and make no noise"(line 5). Cavanaugh explains that the word "melt" refers to a change in physical state and says that "the bond of the lovers will dissolve quietly like the soul of a dying man separating from his body"(par. 5). I do not entirely agree with Cavanaugh's idea that the lovers' bond will dissolve, but I do agree that there is a change in physical state. The bond will still be present, only altered because of the absence of a physical presence. The next conceit that is used by Donne is based on the Ptolemaic view of the universe as being divided into moving spheres. This obsolete fact would only be known by individuals who were well educated, as Donne obviously was. Donne's allusion to the studies... ...Donne, it can be seen that although every poem is unique, there are specific elements that are common in all of them. Works Cited Abrams, M.H., ed. The Norton Anthology of English Literature. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1993. Cavanaugh, Cynthia A. "The Circle of Souls in John Donne's A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning." The Luminarium. 1999. ( 3 December 1999) Donne, John. "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning." Abrams, 1093-1094. Donne, John. "A Valediction: Of Weeping." Abrams, 1089. Donne, John. "The Indifferent." Abrams, 1085-1086. Donne, John. "The Flea." Abrams, 1090-1091. Mourgues, Odette De. Metaphysical, Baroque and Precieux Poetry. Folcroft, PA: The Folcroft Press, Inc., 1969. "Venus, of Greek Religion." The 1997 Canadian Encyclopedia Plus. CD-ROM. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart Inc., 1996.

Lynching: Black People and New York Essay

The titles of the works are â€Å"The Lynching†, â€Å"Bitter Fruit of the Tree†, and â€Å"Song for a Dark Girl†. These poems were written by Claude McKay, Sterling Brown and Langston Hughes. The genres for these works are horror, realistic fiction, and poetry. â€Å"The Lynching† was published in 1920, â€Å"Bitter Fruit of the Tree† was published in 1939, and â€Å"Song for A Dark Girl† was published in 1927. These poems are all relevant to the essay because they are about lynching and their experience on it. Each poem describes the horrors of lynching and how each of the characters’ beliefs and perspective comes into play. The word â€Å"lynching† roughly means to falsely execute an individual in a mob. It is a terrible crime that happened during the 19th century in southern states. They did these heinous crimes to African Americans because they wanted to have white supremacy over them. They performed many different kinds of execution all in public to strike fear in hearts of blacks. But they did not only murder African Americans, they also lynched some specific white people too. The most likely killed whites that sympathized with the black community. The police didn’t little to nothing to prevent or stop the unjust killings. In fact most of the time, the officers participated in them. Enforcing lynching laws was nearly impossible, and so people didn’t dare to try and stop them in fear of becoming victims themselves. Because of these outbreaks of unreasonable murders, many people was killed and many loved ones were lost. These poems are a few examples of how each of the authors viewed, experienced, and approached lynching. Claude McKay, Sterling Brown and Langston Hughes all have their own experience and thoughts about lynching; as they express them in their literature. All three of them write about a different perspective on the matter. In general, they all thought the same about lynching as evil, but there are significant differences on how they showed and themed lynching. In McKay’s work, â€Å"The Lynching†, McKay tells a story of a black man that was burned to death by a mob, and how the women and children dance and celebrated for their accomplishment. The theme of the poem is human corruption. He views these people as a diseased population that might one day affect the well-being of society. Any logically person would think how anyone could celebrate after committing a hideous sin. Because of this McKay believed that these crimes of the ignorant society will corrupt the children, and turn them into future murderers. He saw how corrupted they already were when the â€Å"little lads, lynchers that were to be, Danced round the dreadful thing in fiendish glee. † This means that the kids will think something like is natural or right because their parents. If nothing was done, lynching would be intergraded into their culture. At this point they don’t know the difference from right and wrong. They don’t understand the cruelty and disturbing act that was committed right in front of them. This supports the fact that McKay believes lynching can be infectious to society especially to the children. He believes that because of how the children were acting around the dead body. McKay can predict what will become of them in the future. Sterling Brown had a different approach to lynching for he believes that white people are arrogant. They are so arrogant that it doesn’t matter if they killed African Americans because to them blacks are dispensable. They use lynching as a tool to control the black community with fear. White supremacy was so extreme that they believe it was right to kill blacks and treat them like animals. According to the poem, it is a story about his family and all the hardship that they had to endure. Two of his grandmother’s sons were taken away from her, his grandfather was beaten to near death when he tried to escape, and his father’s was used to do hard labor without any type or reward or pay. It’s like telling them that there is no reason to get mad because everything is rightfully theirs and if you tried to stop them, there will be consequences. The white supremacy believed that â€Å"lynching was seen as the most effective means of control†. They used that fear of death or beatings to control the future generation. Because of that, they believe that they can do anything they want to them like. For example, the father that was being used for all his hard work planting the crops didn’t get anything in return. He didn’t dare stand up to them in fear of being beaten or killed like his father was. This evidence supports the idea of the white supremacy thinks that they are better than blacks and can control them by using fear tactics. Because of that, they think they can do whatever they please without consequences. Langston Hughes also had a different opinion about lynching. Hughes believes that lynching mainly occurs in the southern states, and that the white supremacy will Unjustly execute anyone who they despise and hate. He also believes that no one was willing to help the victims because they don’t to become victims themselves. In Hughes’ poem, â€Å"Song for a Dark Girl†, the girl’s lover is badly beaten and hanged right in front of her. The theme in this poem is helplessness to do anything and just observe. Hughes is â€Å"less concerned with wrong and right than with circumstance and effect†. He already knows that lynching is evil, but he is more concerned about how the other people would react and what they would do. It had a great effect on the girl because now she questions and doubt her faith. The girl couldn’t have done anything for him, and instead pray to white Jesus. At last, it was in vain because her lover was hung naked on a tree. He was killed for no good reason, and no one tried to stop it. While watching the event, she â€Å"asked the white Lord Jesus, what was the use of prayer? † The lover’s body symbolizes Jesus and how he died for the sins of others. This proof shows Hughes thought process. He focused on the girl’s reaction and feelings instead of the actual lynching. The girl could only watch as her lover was being lynched and feeling of helplessness broke her heart. She could only describe the horrible scene that she witness. She lost faith in the white Jesus that she used to believe in. All of these poems describe the horrors of lynching and how the authors felt, thought, and believed about the topic. McKay believed that lynching will corrupt the children and future traditions. Brown knew that the white supremacy used lynching as a tool to control people with fear. Hughes focused on the effects and consequences of lynching than the action of doing it. Even though all their ideas, views, and beliefs were a bit different, they are all connected to one another. The White supremacy used lynching to control people, which in turn make the children want to imitate their parents. When that happens, it will become a tradition and spread like an infection. What would you do if you witness lynching during this time period and how would you feel? Would you try to stand up to the wrong doers knowing that you’re putting yourself in danger? Citations Baym, Nina, ed. The Norton Anthology of American Literature, Packet II. 7th ed. New York: Norton, 2007. McKay, Claude. â€Å"The Lynching. † The Norton Anthology of American Literature, Packet II. Baym, Nina, 7th ed. New York: Norton, 2007. Brown, Sterling. â€Å"Bitter Fruit of the Tree. † The Norton Anthology of American Literature, Packet II. Baym, Nina, 7th ed. New York: Norton, 2007. Hughes, Langston. â€Å"The Lynching. † The Norton Anthology of American Literature, Packet II. Baym, Nina, 7th ed. New York: Norton, 2007. Crutchfield, Victoria. â€Å"The Broken Heart: Community in Langston Hughes â€Å"Song for a Dark Girl†Ã¢â‚¬ isites. harvard. edu. Expose, n. d. Web. 2006-2007 â€Å"The Negro Holocaust: Lynching and Race Riots in the United States, 1880-1950† yale. edu. Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute, n. d. Web. 2012 Tidwell, John. â€Å"Sterling A. Brown’s Life and Career† english. illinois. edu. Modern American Poetry , n. d. Web. 1997 United States. YungJames88. â€Å"BBC’s Racism: History- A lynching in Texas in 1916† YouTube. YouTube, Web. 5 Oct. 2011.

My Generation’s Greatest Challenge

President Barack Obama once said, â€Å"All across the world†¦increasingly dangerous weather patterns and devastating storms are abruptly putting an end to the long-running debate over whether or not climate change is real. Not only is it real, it’s here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster. † The President’s words make it clear that climate change is a great challenge which must be faced, and soon. However, it is not the government’s job alone to deal with this crisis. Stopping climate change will be my generation’s greatest challenge.One of the reasons why climate change is such a formidable obstacle is that the needed change will come slowly. One image that comes to mind is a frog dropped into a pan of scalding water. Of course, the frog will reflexively leap away from the danger. However, if the frog is immersed in lukewarm water, and the water is slowly brought to a boil, the frog will remain and will suffer a serious penalty. My generation is the frog, and â€Å"the man-made natural disaster† is the boiling water. The inertia of the past cannot be overcome in a short time. Consequently, the drastic changes needed to combat climate change will not be effected quickly.However, time is of the essence. Society’s prompt reformation of environmentally destructive habits must be the goal if my generation wishes to subdue this serious threat. To deal with this vast challenge, education as well as reeducation must be made priorities. Not only must scientific knowledge about climate change be made readily available to young people, but the desire for improvement must be instilled in them. As harsh as it may seem, teachers need to constantly remind their students of the worldwide destruction that will ensue should young people fail to act proactively.Likewise, reeducation must provide a jolt to the older generation, shocking it out of its passive stupor and igniting passion for change. Finally, motivation will play a key role in stopping climate change. Nothing will happen if no one takes action. Balancing the welfare of the earth with personal desires is mandatory. If people ultimately decide to place their comfort above the health of the planet, it would be akin to an act of war against humanity. Thankfully, climate change can be dealt with if everyone takes small, easy steps against it.This is of paramount importance. Because the earth is the foundation of all man’s success, life without a healthy earth would not be worth living. The greatest test my generation will face is the challenge of stopping climate change. While success may not come quickly or easily, resignation to the imminent prospect of global catastrophe is to abdicate all bonds to our fellow man. Although the world may already have gone a distance down the path to destruction by climate change, there is still hope if everyone takes personal responsi bility for the protection of the planet.