We Are Heading To An Apocalypse Of Our Own Creation. Essay, Research Paper

Mankind has walked the earth for around seven million years and we have the potential to achieve greatness. Throughout history we have left our boundaries, fought diseases and plagues and studied ourselves, however most of the evidence from these studies have led to the conclusion of no future for man kind what so ever, if we continue on our current course.

On July the 16th 1945, in a remote part of the New Mexico desert, the most terrifying device in human history was used for the first time. The first atomic bomb was detonated. On that day mankind finally took the apocalypse out of the hand of God and put it in their own, they gave so much power to so few that a war could be ended in seconds. This is the first and most powerful indication that mankind will destroy itself if we do not ?keep track.?

What stops a leader in Washington from launching a weapon of mass destruction against his enemies? The answer is simple in theory, however the repercussions of the implications made are so complex that they dare not be pondered by man. M.A.D. or Mutually Assured Destruction. That leader can be assured that if he launches a weapon against another country, that country, or it?s allies, will launch back. We have created weapons that are so terrifying that we are afraid to use them. They can end war, yet if instituted, will destroy man kind, leaving us in a ?Catch 22? situation.

We are the only species on earth that seeks to destroy itself. The human brain is the only brain on earth that is capable of studying itself. It has become so efficient, so as to study, how it can study itself. However we are the only species incapable of seeing how dangerous we are to ourselves. For example, two rhinos when attacking each other will run head on in the least dangerous manner, if that same rhino encounters any other species that it finds threatening, it will run for the sides of the animal to gore and kill that animal. It will protect is species by not harming it. We, on the other hand, intentionally try to destroy our species. We train men like soldiers to kill their fellow man, and yet are disgusted at murderers, and war for that mater.

We have even gone so far has to employ colossal institutions who?s only purpose is the destruction of man, the United States Army is the largest employer in the United States and possibly the world, and yet every man and woman employed their has a mission, in one way or the other to destroy their fellow man, if not directly, the indirectly. We have created chemical and biological weapons so ghastly that they have no cure and can bring the strongest of men to their knees.

We have created technology that helps so many, yet every creation that we have ever made has been used for good and wicked, sometimes even simply to instil terror. We have not created a single piece of technology that can only be used for good. For example; the lowly fork, is an excellent invention if used to eat steak, yet a horrid one if used to poke some one in the eye.

Our attitude to the elements of life have too become distorted. For example; if you were to ask one thousand people at random which is more valuable: a diamond or a glass of water, most, if not all, would say the diamond. However, man can live without diamonds, most live without them for seventy or more years, however a person could not survive twenty four hours without water. This simple bond of two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen is the gift of life. If it ended so would we. Yet the average person would take the diamond over it. So we see that things are not always what they seem, and life is not so simple.

Like wise, we need to compartmentalise or lives to make them even more simple and safe. On this point two topics will be discussed. The first is that of prejudice. There is no question that it is evil however how do we classify it, granted that we have the right to. Example; if an American was to turn to an Asian and pass a remark such as ?Stupid Asian,? a passer by would be disgusted and the American called a racist immediately wether he was joking or not. However if that Asia were to turn to the American and call him an ?obnoxious American,? a passer by ?would not batter an eyelid,? wether he was joking or not, regardless of country. Which one is more racist and why? In the same way how do we judge sexism. If a man was to pass a remark to a woman, he would be brought up on sexual harassment charges, however that woman could pass a sexual remark towards a man, even a more serious one, and yet not be persecuted at all. In fact some who hear these point may find them either racist or sexist. The most unintelligent and easiest way to silence someone is to call them a racist or a sexist or a drunk etc? and too many of us rely on that type of classification today. They way of scientifically classing people as racist or prejudice or not.

The second example is that of assigning blame. We see modern shows like ?Sixty Minutes? who ?expose the truth,? so to speak, when in actual fact they are simply assigning blame to put their viewer minds at rest. Agreed, in some situation there is a single guilty party and those who are victims, however we have com to rely on this model too much. When we hear about terrorist acts we want to know that it was one man who was acting alone, who is now in prison so safety can return. We see land slides at ski resorts and look to blame some one. Obviously the weather cannot be blamed, so we blame the builders or the architect for cutting corners. We must keep our lives simple by assigning blame to the wrong and rewarding the good. An example of this is the recent release of the motion picture ?Gone in Sixty Seconds.? A woman in Australia has attacked this film, on the basis of it glamorising speeding after her daughter was killed while out driving after her car was hit by an underage driver trying to evade police, years before the release of this film. We must ask ourselves if this film had never been made, would she be able to blame Hollywood, and thus, who would be blamed. The police, the driver of the other car? This, it must be noted, is not an isolated incident and perhaps Hollywood is partly to blame, however, the point is made that we seek someone to blame. This traces back to the Id, Ego and Superego. The Ego is simply using the defence mechanism of projection to protect the Id from various impulses or situations it deems unsuitable or unsafe.

Another difficult quest to be addressed is; how do we categorise certain people such as Yasir Arafat (purely for example). A man who entered the 1990?s as a terrorist and left them as a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

What do these points have to do with mans self destruction? Simply we are separating ourselves, we are isolating ourselves and alienating ourselves from others, so much so that we loose a sense of all being human. Rather we a black or white, racist and sexist or ?accepting,? we instil terror or make peace. Granted, life should be classified. However, not so much so, that we loose our humanity.

This all leads to hate. For example; we often see families of murder victims morning the death of a close one and then celebrate when the murderer is sentenced to death. First of all they look for a ?bad guy,? someone they can call evil and feel safe when that person is no more, in most cases they don?t think more than twice about how guilty this person is but rather they trust twelve members of a jury to make the feeling of safety return. We then often see them celebrating at the sentence, opening Champaign etc. They mourned one death and celebrated the other. They seek comfort in this mans death, well what about his family? Where do they seek comfort? We can see ho tis starts a vicious cycle. As stated before, ?we are the only species who kills our own.? Now we are not only seeking to destroy our fellow man, but celebrating his death as well. Many laws are mirrored from the Bible, however they neglect the Bibles views on forgiveness. Our societies decision making process has become based one which wrong is more right. Our world is full of natural and non conformist situations and predicaments, yet we shape our lives around rigid and conformist laws.

People today look back at medieval medicine and laugh. However, they then tend to look to herbal medicine and aromatherapy and unusual phenomena and treat them as seriously as science today. Without mocking herbal medicine and aromatherapy and unusual phenomena, are they not as nonsensical as those medieval techniques. If on can find comfort in them so be it, but we must not be hypocritical and see ourselves as superior to those the same as us. Science screams the answers at us, however we, hypocritically, mock the past and feel contempt in our pretentious presence. It is easier to believe nonsense because it is available everywhere in full colour with our ?html.? The average teenage mind would rather hear the latest rumour about his or her teachers than about science, the truth so many seek. An adult mocks this and yet would rather hear that a man or woman can see their past or future in their palms than listen to science.

The media was a fine institution, however they have stopped reporting the news and started to make it, so as to entertain its viewers and not inform them, despite their statement o ?sometime fact is stranger than fiction.? Show such as ?Sixty Minutes? take sides and show bias. An example would be a report about capital punishment and only show the victims families and no the families of those who morn for the executed. The media should report the facts and not change them and in a society where the youth are reading television, it is important to have the truth represented.

In conclusion, society must keep track, it must look at it?s self from many perspective, end it?s hypocrisy and look for the truth, before the programmed self destruction of man is irreversible.