Human Special-nes

never found out the grade I got on this, but I still finished the class with an A-. my other two papers in the class were an A and B. this one was worth over 1/3 my grade.

quote:

---

1^st paragraph
On October 8, 2006, the geopolitical realities of the Southeast Asia region changed forever. North Korea, despite the warnings of its neighbors, denoted a small nuclear bomb. The proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Southeast Asia region (which includes, for the purposes of this paper, North Korea, China, South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan) has led many to believe that other nations in this area will obtain nuclear weapons, and that this will destabilize the region. The election of Shinzo Abe, Japan’s first prime minister born after the war, has also led many to fear that Japan will re-militarize.

​

However, when one compares the historical realities of Europe and the US since the end of the Napoleonic Wars to the situation arising in the Southeast Asia region, it becomes apparent that Japan should both re-militarize and gain nuclear weapons. These two goals will serve Japan in two ways: first, it will increase Japan’s security, and second, it will increase the stability of the region. The US, with its current military operations, would have a difficult time honoring its security commitment with Japan. Also, the US might not be able to continue to protect Japan with the so-called “nuclear umbrella”.

​

This situation leaves Japan without a defense against either North Korean and/or Chinese territorial and economic ambitions, and this decreases its security. The inability of the US to counter Chinese and North Korean ambitions also destabilizes the region by removing any semblance of balance in power. Re-militarization and the acquisition of nuclear weapons will increase the stability of the region by creating a “balance of power” that is noticeably lacking.

​

2^nd paragraph
The problem in the region is the lack of a “balance of power”, a realist concept in which all parties have equal power, or nearly equal power, and this balance of the power is what keeps the peace. This power is generally defined in terms of military capabilities, not in terms of cultural or economic power. Militarily, it is China and North Korea who are the most powerful in the region. The US cannot be included, for although it has an Army division in South Korea, it is unable to use its full might against either nation.

​

China’s People’s Liberation Army includes the army, navy, air force, artillery corps, and the armed police force. Totaling close to three million personnel, it has the largest military in the world, and it has the ability to support its military. China also has roughly two hundred nuclear weapons, a quarter of which are long range . North Korea’s People’s Army includes the navy, army, and air force totaling 923,000 personnel. Unlike China, however, it is much less able to support its military. South Korea has almost seven hundred thousand armed forces personnel. Japan does not even have half of one million personnel, and is constricted by its constitution as to where it can deploy its military Article Nine, of its constitution, actually expressly forbids the maintenance of an army, air force, and navy, and as such, all military forces are considered part of the police force. An amendment to Article Nine of Japan’s Peace Constitution is currently being worked on, so as to allow Japan to have a military more capable of defense.

​

Taiwan has a comparable military, though it is much freer in its actions than is Japan’s. This imbalance is easy to see”should a conventional war break out in this region, North Korea and China have the wherewithal to win without the war being too costly for them. Another question entirely is that of nuclear war. With China and North Korea the only ones in the region with nuclear weapons, Japan has to rely on US nuclear weapons, which it may not be willing to use (China has intercontinental weapons that can hit US soil, and North Korea is attempting to develop such missiles) because of blackmail. Basically, why should the US defend Japan from nuclear attack if it will be attacked with nuclear weapons? Thus, there is a second imbalance. All ten-thousand nuclear weapons at the disposal of the US are useless for Japan. The solution to Japan’s security ills and the instability inherent in this unbalanced system is simple”Japan should re-militarize and acquire nuclear weapons.

---

it's the first two paragraphs in an 10 page paper. notice that's there's actually a clear thesis and a decent introduction. this is much more like college quality writing, jon.Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

---

"Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant" . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloafWant to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

Not quite. There was a large detonation underground, but it wasn't nuclear. I'm not even sure why the world thinks it was. The only indicator of a nuclear test was 1 (singular) collection asset picked up a small trace of radiation over the ocean. Big whoop.The important thing as far as N Korea is concerned is that the world thinks they tested a nuke. We most certainly have the means and capacity to defend Japan, even given our current military obligations around the world. Wait, what? Who says the US is unable to counter the Chinese and N Koreans? That's silly. Besides that, China won't risk the damage to its economy by doing something silly like attacking Japan, and it doesn't have the means to do so. Yeah, they have a million man Infantry, but their army is a bloated, hard-to-maneuver force even over land, not to mention crossing an ocean.N Korea isn't a problem for Japan. They could attack S Korea if they really felt the need, but there's still plenty of US forces on Korea to at least act as a speed bump until US bombers from Diego Garcia get there and wipe out all of their conventional forces in a day. Keep in mind that N Korea is a regime that rules 98% of its people with an iron fist so that 2% can live in wealth. They spend most of their money on their military. There's nothing to the country but a military. If they attack S Korea, they leave their entire country open not only to attack from other countries, but their population could rise up and overthrow their regime in the military's absence. True, but the 2 biggest economies in the world are the US's and China's economies, and the rest of the world revolves around that. China isn't going to risk its economy with something as silly as nuking Japan. [qs] The US cannot be included, for although it has an Army division in South Korea, it is unable to use its full might against either nation. [qs] Bullcrap we are unable. We (US Military) are there as a detterent, both by the forces we have on the ground, and the power we can bring to bear if the need arises.

---

News Media: Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory 1 negative report at a time.

dude. the thread isn't about my paper. my post was about showing jon what a good paper looks like (as compared to his piece of . . . .).have to remember, my paper is also about 3 months old. things change. my research was also quite rushed.

(edited by AdminPhat after Jon reconsidered his message intentions...(which I respect, by the way)and your paper is informative, but boring as a 7 hour lecture MaxEdited by AdminPhat, : Mad Max became calm again

Sorry about that.I'll answer your question with the 4 questions of life that can be posed by any human:Who am I?Why am I here?Where did I come from?Where am I going?If you believe that God created man, then the answers are:I am a unique individual that was born into sin and needs redemption.I'm here to have a relationship with God.My origins are with God creating Adam and Eve, and the consequences of their actions.I will rule and reign God in the new heaven/earth (post revelation stuff).If you believe humans are an evoultionary, cosmic fart:I'm a unique individual comprised of genes given to me by my parents.I'm here to pass on my genes.I came from a lighting bolt/primordial souop and my uncle was a monkey.I'm going nowhere, because it doesn't matter.

---

News Media: Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory 1 negative report at a time.

boring beats confusing any day of the week.oh, and you might have to shout a little louder, my hearing's bad.(and who said anything about discussing my own writing? I merely offering it as an example of a good paper. Tal was the one who started talking about my paper, bring it way off-topic. And I wasn't being an arrogant self-righteous little twit. just arrogant)

This is what I accept, and I don't think I'm special because of the things listed.And don't worry... my post 19 wasn't directed at you in any way.Max

I think that rather than telling Jon that his paper "sucked" you could have offered your criticism in a more constructive way. We don't need to bash each other here. If you don't have anything nice to say, its better to politely ignore the discussion.It also was poor form to publish Jon's paper in your reply. Rule # 6 states that we are to avoid lengthy cut and pastes. I am sure that is why Jon didn't simply put his paper in a post.Kuresu...I expect you to be a shining example of brotherly love and guidance rather than to simply swat the young man down...although he could have done better. Lets respect each other.

---

---

I notice that you know nothing of the theory of evolution. Do you not find that this handicaps you when posting on these forums?I also notice that you have omitted all mention of people who believe in God and do understand biology. I assume that this was merely an unfortunate oversight, rather than a deliberate attempt at deception.May I assure you that being religious and being educated are not in fact mutually exclusive.

Personally I think Homo sapiens sapiens is one of the more (if not the most) egotistical species on the planet.That being said, I do think you need to refine your thesis:What makes us human? Does that make us special?"What makes us human?"The dictionary definition is rather unsatisfactory:

quote:

---

hu·man
-adjective
1. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or having the nature of people: human frailty.
2. consisting of people: the human race.
3. of or pertaining to the social aspect of people: human affairs.
4. sympathetic; humane: a warmly human understanding.
-noun
5. a human being.

---

Human = human?You could use a genetic definition: inclusion of this sequence of DNA makes one "human" ... the only trouble is finding that specific sequence (or set of sequences) that are (a) exclusive to humans and (b) possessed by all humans. I think it could be done ... but then you also end up with the quandry of certain human cancer cells that can be cultured and exist as a form of bacteria, dividing and replicating.Or your could use a behavioral definition: to communicate an idea makes one "human" ... with the trouble you noted of some people with barely the ability to breath, but also the problem of other species that can and have communicated ideas - from chimps to capucin monkeys to dolphins to elephants ... the list keeps growing.What you end up with in your essay is to be human is to only do things that humans do ... which doesn't define it and leads us to the circular argument you noted then on "special" - if it's special because only humans do it and we define human as beings that only do what humans do, then they are special by definition. It's like saying a penny is special because it says "one cent" on it. TAnother approach would be some form of the definition of human life used in medical practice to determine when a body has died. See Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion

quote:

---

UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF LIFE
[Determination of Life.] An individual who has sustained either:
(1) irreversible instigation of circulator and respiratory functions, and
(2) irreversible instigation of any functions of the (entire) brain, including the brain stem, is alive.
A determination of life should be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.

---

Combine that with a genetic definition and you might be able to create a definition that could distinguish human from non-human by application of it. It may also exclude some bodies that some people would like to include in the definition -- that is a different matter.Suffice it to say that the current definition in your essay is a bit lacking -- that any definition will be a bit lacking. And it is hard to argue for "special" status when you can't define {what} is being evaluated for a degree of specialness eh?"Does that make us special?"Again we need a definition of "special" that we can apply across the board (presumably we don't mean the kind of "special" that gets you a fast ticket to the front of the short bus), and again we should start with a dictionary definition:

quote:

---

spe·cial
-adjective
1. of a distinct or particular kind or character: a special kind of key.
2. being a particular one; particular, individual, or certain: You'd better call the special number.
3. pertaining or peculiar to a particular person, thing, instance, etc.; distinctive; unique: the special features of a plan.
4. having a specific or particular function, purpose, etc.: a special messenger.
5. distinguished or different from what is ordinary or usual: a special occasion; to fix something special.
6. extraordinary; exceptional, as in amount or degree; especial: special importance.
7. being such in an exceptional degree; particularly valued: a special friend.
-noun
8. a special person or thing.
9. a train used for a particular purpose, occasion, or the like.
10. a special edition of a newspaper.
11. Theater. a spotlight reserved for a particular area, property, actor, etc.: Give me the coffin special.
12. a temporary, arbitrary reduction in the price of regularly stocked goods, esp. food; a particularly worthwhile offer or price: The special this week is on sirloin steaks.
13. Television. a single program not forming part of a regular series.

---

To be special it must be {an attribute} carried to an exceptional degree ... if not unique.Unique would be very difficult to argue - anything humans can do is also done by some other species to some degree.What we see is a difference in degree of ability but not in kind of ability, no matter what ability you chose.That, to me, makes it very hard to argue for "special" status for humans ... except, perhaps, for one ability ... egotism.Needless to say, I opt for "not special" ... yet.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Well I probably would have docked alot of points off for not getting your facts straight. None of the countries you listed are part of Southeast Asia. You should have said either "East Asia" or "the countries bordering Southeast Asia" or something to that effect.That is all

i think i got the geography from the CIA factbook. possibly from nationmaster. can't remember now. somewhere I saw them included. (but hey, at least I defined the region I was talking about in terms of countries) (good thing this wasn't for a poly sci class, but a writing class).ABE:
not the only one to screw that up. the paper was peer-reviewed by the whole class (of 18). No one commented on that, including the teacher. kinda proves americans ain't so hot on geography, huh. oh well, live and learn.Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

Yes, I noticed that the CIA factbook map shows an area that includes southeastern China a small sliver of northeast India and Taiwan, but the likely reason for that is that it is difficult to show an actual map of Southeast Asia without also showing parts of the bordering countries.I was just giving ya a hard time...looks like a strong beginning to a great paper.Oh and you're probably right about the geography bit. I'm not surprised your teacher didn't even notice because I'm not sure geography or regional studies are studied extensively by writing teachers. I just happen to have had National Geographic maps substituting for wallpaper and three globes in the house when I was a kid and am a poli-sci geek

But if I were an alien with a completely different set of DNA than all you people, would you stop calling me human? I'd hope not .Max

Yes. You'd be an alien. You'd be equally as special as a human, seeing as you do everything we do and, presumably, think as we do. But you wouldn't be human. I think the closest you'd get is "person". I'd still call you a "he" rather than an "it", but I wouldn't say human.Interestingly, this brings up the point of whether a person needs to be human. Just because all the 'persons' we know are probably human, doesn't mean they need to be, in my opinion. But then again, my favourite story of all time is The Bicentennial Man by Isaac Asimov (about a robot/man who wants to be declared a 'man', rather than a robot).Edited by Doddy, : fixed formatting...didn't notice it was wrong

---

"Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will." (Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.) - Arthur SchopenhauerHelp inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!