PEP ISSUE
SEPT 30 2020
M A G A Z I N E / W O R L D
FOR YOUTH
002
E D I T I O N
POLITICS/ECONOMICS/ PHILOSOPHY
message from our FOUNDER
We live in a gendered world, and I grew up in a gendered household. When I was young, I liked to paint. I would go out and buy construction paper, and take the okra from my fridge and cut it into tiny pieces, dip it in paint and make polka dots for my parents. It would have been fine if I was a girl, but since I was a boy, the conversations usually began with - “Nice, but polka dots are a girls-only thing.” At the beginning of quarantine, as I saw the wave of social reform around me, I realized that I too needed to fight for what's right; and when I began this war, I knew I was not fighting alone. PEP Magazine began as a way for me to change the social fabric and way of thinking. It was a part of my war against the gendered norms of society because when I became interested in the social sciences, I never saw someone like me in this field. I never saw a queer individual take action and become a guiding force. I never saw a POC come upfront and speak out publicly. Sure, there were a few here and there, but not enough to make me feel that I belonged, not enough so I could see myself working in this area. PEP is the first ever social sciences magazine that is gender androgynous. This means that there is no longer pink for girls and blue for boys, but instead a rainbow for everyone. We are also a racially representative magazine that includes POC in every single issue, and we help POC students see themselves in the social sciences. However, representation for just POC and the LGBTQ+ community is not enough. It is important that this representation reaches people regardless of their ability. Thus, we provide our magazine in the 6 official UN languages, and also provide audiobooks. So far, we have reached 100,000 readers through school partnerships and are expanding day by day. More than anything, PEP is my way of saying, “who cares what society thinks?” I am a queer person of color who is interested in the social sciences, and guess what? My cover page is filled with polka dots.
our directors
Amy Zhang Director of Editing
Divyanjali Raskonda Director of Sponsors
Trisha Murali Director of Editing
Anikait Chakroborty Director of Editing
Hiba Laziri Elliot Liu Director of Economics Director of Economics
Veronica Hester Director of Philosophy
Villiyana Dragiyska Director of Uni. Prog.
Tammy Chao Director of Internal Affairs
Nathan Kim Director of Philosophy
Jussa Kudherezera Director of Outreach
R U O
SECTION
L A I C E P S
philosophy
Each time we publish our magazine, we have a section that is the center of attention during the magazine. This last issue was the politics section, and in this issue it will be our esteemed philosophy section. We have extensive content curated in this section and hope you enjoy reading through it just as much as we enjoyed writing it. The directors of the special section of this issue are Nathan Kim and Veronica Hester.
E L B A T
E T H I C S
Eisha Nair
A R I S T O T L E . . .
Charica Pagadala
T H E
T R O L L E Y
P R O B L E M
Fenil Gala
T H E
Q U I Z
T H A T
N E V E R
W A S
Mayank Chauhan
P Y T H A G O R A S
Vanshika Singh and Vidhi Sapru
I M M O R T A L I T Y
Xiying Fan
T H E
R E A L I T Y
Ashrit Yarava
O F
R E A L N E S S
CONTENTS
F O
1 5 7 9 12 15 18
A N I M A L
1 animal ethics By: Eisha Nair
Throughout history it has been a long held belief that humans are the only species on earth with moral values. This idea influences the way human civilization treats and perceives other animals, and how it often uses this idea to justify cruelty against animal life such as animal testing and carnism. This fundamental belief of human superiority is referred to as speciesism. Writer and animal activist Richard Ryder created this term “to describe the prejudice against other species, and to draw the analogy with other prejudices like racism and sexism” (Singer, The Superior Human?). In a world where non-human species are continually oppressed for their perceived lack of morality, it begs the question, do other animals have their own moral compass? Historically, there have been many different perceptions of animal morality, but they have all revolved around the idea of human superiority. The earliest example comes from philosopher Aristotle who believed that there is a natural hierarchy of animals, with humans at the top. Though all living things have the ability to reproduce, acquire nutrition, and grow, only animals are capable of consciousness and thinking. Thus, Aristotle wrote, plants were lesser beings; they belonged at the bottom. The rest of the animals were ranked by their capability to use logic and reasoning beyond their instincts. Under that judgement, according to Aristotle, humans are the superior animal and non-human animals should acquire a lesser moral status (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). As a result of this reasoning, Aristotle believed that the animals should be used to benefit human beings. He also believed that only human beings can be “morally virtuous” (Fortenbaugh) because only humans have the ability to hold opinions and react to situations with judgment and high emotional response. In like manner, philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas believed humans were the only animals capable of rationality and reasoning. Due to this, he thought that humans were the only animal with control over their actions (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Similarly to Aristotle, he concluded that as animals are incapable of rational thought, their only functionality is to benefit humans. This perceived distinction established by philosophers between the rationality of humans and the animalistic instincts of non-human animals is what enforced the idea that humans deserve to be given moral consideration while other animals do not.
Historically, there were many ways people perceived animal morality, but they all revolved around the idea of human superiority.
2 However, in the present day, people are finding that many of the activities and habits which define human morality are not solely unique to humans. For example, many would identify long-lasting relationships as a sign of morality, but many non-human animals have also displayed such relationships. One such animal, orangutans, stay with their young for eight to ten years after their birth and continue to maintain their relationships after the children have left to form their own family (Gruen). Likewise, morality and ethical behavior has also been observed in meerkats. They are known to sacrifice their own safety to stay with their sick and injured so they will not die in isolation (Gruen). Furthermore, many animals are known to mourn for their dead, even going so far as to die from their sorrow. “Darwin reported this in The Descent of Man: ‘So intense is the grief of female monkeys for the loss of their young, that it invariably caused the death of certain kinds’” (Gruen). Evidently, comparing non-human animals and human relationships reveals that many animals have a sense of morality.
“Darwin reported this in The Descent of Man: ‘So intense is the grief of female monkeys for the loss of their young, that it invariably caused the death of certain kinds’” ~GRUEN
Moreover, many modern philosophers are pro-animal morality. Peter Singer is one such advocate who believes in equal moral consideration. He claims that if non-human animals do not deserve equal consideration from humans, then humans do not deserve equal consideration from their own species either. The first argument he uses to support this claim is “The Argument from Marginal Cases.” This theory states that if there is a trait that only humans possess that gives them moral consideration, then there must be a small number of humans (the marginal cases) who lack this trait (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Therefore, these humans must be held to the same level of animals since they lack this essential trait of morality. Furthermore, if such a trait exists then there must be non-human animals that possess this trait, and consequently our moral consideration, as well. According to Singer, we cannot claim that human beings deserve equal consideration while simultaneously saying that non-human animals are less than. Simply put, it must either be concluded that human beings are not all equal or that human beings are not the only animals that deserve moral consideration. As the former is unethical, one must conclude that other animals must be equal to humans. The second argument Singer used is “The Sophisticated Inegalitarian Argument.” Singer makes the argument that humans discriminating against other animals on the basis of intelligence is analogous with racists and sexists discriminating against other races and sexes (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). This idea stems from the fact that those who are racist or sexist believe that t
3 heir race or sex is superior intelectually to the others. If humans discriminate against other animals on the basis that humans are intellectually superior, they are only making claims along the same lines; this is what Singer calls “Sophisticated Inegalitarianism.” Another philosopher, Colin Micginn, used philosopher Frege’s principle of experiences to prove how animals have autonomy. He says that because animals have the ability to experience, they have their own self hood (McGinn). These theories promote the idea that non-human animals deserve equal moral consideration as humans. There have also been arguments made in support of an opposing view. Some claim that only human beings deserve rights. The reasoning behind this statement is that rights must only be granted if the recipient is capable of refraining from violating the gifted right. As humans are the only animal who understand the concept of rights, other animals cannot be given rights because without understanding, they cannot be expected not to violate them. Though a lack of rights does not directly translate to the lack of moral status, rights give one a sense of duty to uphold them. Without a sense of duty, non-human animals have in turn, a lack of moral status (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Those against non-human animal morality also claim that humans are the only animal with rationality and selfconsciousness. Many support this idea under the presumption that only human beings are able to have a sense of dignity and self-respect while animals are only led by instinct. Humans are even able to further develop themselves through creating luxury items, and exploring art and literature while animals do not have their own autonomy. Joseph Margolis, an American philosopher, refutes the claims that Singer makes about the equal consideration of animals. One of his arguments speaks to how ‘speciesism’ cannot be compared to sexism or racism using the claim that it is oppressive on the grounds of intellectual ability. Margolis says that it is scientifically proven that humans are exceptionally smarter than animals. In Margolis’ words, “men are capable of doing all sorts of things impossible for animals and since these capacities are higher capacities than those of animals, wherever a conflict of interests involving such capacities arises (which may be practically always), we may, in good conscience, favor human policies over animal interests,” (Margolis). If animals were given equal moral status as humans, how would it impact human life? To begin with, people would have to resort to veganism or vegetarianism since they could not consume animals. This would not necessarily impact humans negatively in the long run as meat is a luxury, not a necessity. As Singer states, “Citizens of industrialized societies can easily obtain an adequate diet without the use of animal flesh. The overwhelming weight of medical evidence indicates that animal flesh is not necessary for good health or longevity,” (Singer, Equality for Animals?). In fact, only 10% of the nutritional value that is given to animals as feed is passed on to humans as meat (Singer, Equality for Animals?). In this case, there would not be any significant downsides to embracing veganism. However, one c
4 an make the argument that those working in the meat industry will be unemployed as a result of meat production ceasing. Another change, much more consequential, would be the end of animal testing. Singer gives examples of how animal testing is used in frivolous and senseless ways: from shampoo and cosmetic companies testing highly concentrated chemical dyes on animals to food companies testing “food additives, including artificial colourings and preservatives” using “the LD50 - a test designed to find the 'Lethal Dose', or level of consumption which will make 50% of a sample of animals die,” (Singer, Equality for Animals?). However, the major, obvious consequence of ending this practice is how few ways there would be to test medical products before giving them to humans, resulting in a rise in death rates from new medical products. Certain industries would need to be shut down as well, including fur trade, circuses, and zoos. Similarly to the closure of the meat industry, these would be met with a loss of jobs. In conclusion, the idea of animal morality and the consideration of the moral animal status is a complex issue. There are many arguments supporting both sides and the real world application of this topic has many different consequences that affect a variety of people.
Grade Level Reading:
plus
5 Aristotle: is acting virtuous needed in order to be truly happy? By: Charica Pagadala Throughout history it has been a long held belief that humans are the only species on earth with moral values. This idea influences the way human civilization treats and perceives other animals, and how it often uses this idea to justify cruelty against animal life such as animal testing and carnism. This fundamental belief of human superiority is referred to as speciesism. Writer and animal activist Richard Ryder created this term “to describe the prejudice against other species, and to draw the analogy with other prejudices like racism and sexism” (Singer, The Superior Human?). In a world where non-human species are continually oppressed for their perceived lack of morality, it begs the question, do other animals have their own moral compass? A virtuous person is a perfect person; who does the right thing, who is confident without being overbearing, brave but not reckless, and most importantly knows their function. It seems inconceivable to become virtuous, but however impossible you may think it is, it is possible. Aristotle believed that the function of a human is rational activity; doing what is right: “[...] function of a good man to be the good and noble performance of [rational principles]” (Nicomachean Ethics, 11). Now, how do you know what’s the right thing to do? According to Aristotle, what is right is never actually a set book of rules, but it's whatever you think is the right thing. Aristotle argued that nature has built into us a desire to be virtuous; our function is to be virtuous: “[...] human good turns out to be activity of soul in accordance with virtue [...]” (Nicomachean Ethics, 11). However, the definition of virtue is vague, so to understand Aristotle’s argument, we must first learn his definition of virtue. Defining virtue can be thought of as the midpoint between two extremes, which Aristotle called vices: “[...] definition which states its essence virtue is a mean, with regard to what is best and right an extreme” (Nicomachean Ethics, 28). This midpoint is called the Golden Mean. Let us, for example, take a situation: you see a group of bullies bothering a kid, you could go and break up the fight, which would be courageous but that's not exactly virtuous. Being virtuous means assessing the situation, understanding that you cannot fight against an entire group, so you call for help; you do what is right. Cowardice would be running away from the situation, and stupidity would be getting yourself beaten. Virtuous is choosing between two extremes, and in this case, cowardice and stupidity.
6 This logic can be applied to any virtue. Take honestly, for example, you eat lunch at your Grandma’s and it was a bit salty, do you tell her the truth, or do you go with the lie? To go with the truth would mean hurting her feelings, to not say anything would be ignorant. Being virtuous means choosing between the extremes, and doing what you think is right. It also means that the right thing comes to you, without even thinking: “[...] for virtue makes us aim at the right mark” (Nicomachean Ethics, 103). But why be virtuous? That’s easy, being virtuous means accomplishing your functionality, and your meaning: “For no function of man has so much permanence as virtuous activities” (Nicomachean Ethics, 16). How does this relate to happiness you may ask. Aristotle believed that happiness comes out of behavior, out of character and habit. “[...] virtuous activities or their opposites are what constitute happiness or the reverse” (Nicomachean Ethics, 15). A person who applies this virtuous behavior to their life is a truly happy person. This person can bear their distress and misfortunes, and balance their life, and thus is never unhappy. So, the short answer to the question above is, yes, being virtuous is a necessity for being truly happy.
Grade Level Reading:
plus
7 the trolley problem By: Fenil Gala
Choo-choo! Congratulations, you have just been promoted to and are now the conductor of the fastest trolley in the world! However, on the first day of work, you are faced with a difficult situation: the brakes of the trolley broke! Just your bad luck, and to add fuel to the fire, your trolley is on track to hit five workers who cannot avoid the trolley in time. As the disaster approaches, you see a lever connected to two tracks in front of you. You realize that if you pull the lever, the trolley will be diverted to another track, away from the five workers. However, down this side track is one another doomed worker! So, do you pull the switch to guide the trolley onto another track and mark the death of a sole man? Or do you do nothing and let the five workers die? Would you pull the lever to saving five and kill one? This main principle behind this scenario is known as the trolley problem. The dilemma was developed by philosopher Philippa Foot in 1967, as an example of the runaway streetcar (trolley in the United States) while discussing the lawfulness of abortion. In 1985, Judith Jarvis Thomson from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology coined the term “trolley problem” and created its two most famous variants, the “footbridge” and the “switch.” You have already seen the “switch” variation of the dilemma, now examine the “footbridge” variation. This time you are located above the trolley tracks on a bridge. A trolley is once again heading towards the five workers. There is no conductor to pull a lever, but if you push the large man beside you off the bridge, you are certain his body would stop the trolley before it reaches the five workers. So, do you push him? Would you save the five people at the cost of his life? The result of both the above scenarios is the same: five people live and one person dies. However, the intriguing observation is that very few would approve of pushing the large man but most would agree to pull the lever. In the first trolley dilemma, if the person pulls the lever, he or she is not directly harming the person on the sidetrack. But in the footbridge scenario, if the person decides to push the large man over the bridge, it is an intentional act o
8 f killing. This is the principle of double effect. It states that it is lawful to indirectly cause harm if the action promotes an even greater good, however, it is not lawful to directly cause harm, even in the pursuit of a greater good. The trolley problem lets us to think about the consequences of an action and examine whether its ethical value is determined entirely by its outcome. Other variations to the dilemma could include a person’s loved one as the one person that could be sacrificed, or deciding between saving five hooligans and the president of the United States. Other variations even function without trolleys and stimulate the modern world. Imagine a doctor having to decide between five patients who all need urgent organ transplants in order to live and another individual recovering from a less fatal problem. Should the doctor kill the healthy patient and use their organs to save the five other people? Though the consequences are the same, most people would completely reject the idea of killing the healthy patient. Not everyone answers these situations in the same way, and even when people agree in their responses, their justification varies. The trolley dilemma also plays a part in modern technology. Imagine a programmer trying to figure out how self-driving cars should handle emergencies and make decisions that are acceptable to society. When the self-driving car has no option but to have an accident, which collision should it choose to make? This is the kind of real-world situation where the trolley problem shines. The trolley problem has been a remarkable tool for examining our moral intuitions and has been applied to various other scenarios, such as war, torture, drones, and abortion. Though there is no absolute correct answer for the dilemma, studying the trolley problem gives humanity moral insights about society and individuals on bigger questions, like how should society value human life and more importantly, how you, as an individual, value human life. So conductor, which path do you choose?
Grade Level Reading: plus
9 the quiz that never was By: Mayank Chauhan Pop quizzes are the more exotic cousins of all normal quizzes: sudden grading, no time to prepare, panic and disarray. Pop quizzes are also the most dreaded. Although they have been proven to be ineffective in assessing students’ knowledge and to incentivize growth and effort, most students have encountered them in their academic lives. To teachers, these quizzes are a true measure of the dedication and preparedness of any student because all they require is that the student is up to date on all the topics taught in the class. However, to students pop quizzes are only associated with the consuming pressure to pinpoint an exact date, and the stress associated with the anxiety that precedes the test taking experience. Because of their immensely controversial nature, pop quizzes have been a subject of extensive debate, in schools as well as in the world of philosophy! The philosophical discussions center around a classroom scenario where the teacher announces that there will be a pop quiz any day of the next week so the students must be ready. In response, a student stands to reason that the quiz could not be on Friday since on Thursday night the students would know that the quiz must be the next day and it would, therefore, no longer be a surprise. Keeping in mind that Friday is not a potential test day, the student reasons that the quiz could clearly not be on Thursday since on Wednesday night, students would know that the quiz must be the next day. Similar reasoning can be used to find, the student argues, that the quiz would not be a surprise on Wednesday, Tuesday, or even Monday! The student then claims that there will not be a quiz at all. Furthermore, this student’s logic can be extended to a whole school year and one would get the same result. Starting from the last day of school, then working backwards would yield that the quiz wouldn’t be a surprise no matter the day it was given. Therefore, until and unless the hypothetical pop quiz was announced just before it was administered, it would seem as if the quiz could never be a surprise for the students like the teacher wanted it to be. This situation comprises the surprise test paradox. Brought to public attention in the 1963 Mathematical Games column in Scientific American magazine, author D.J. O’Connor endorsed the student’s logic and deemed the teacher’s announcement as self-defeating. Jonathan Cohen built upon this argument in 1950, and classified it as a pragmatic paradox, a self contradictory statement. Since then, the paradox has gained popularity through
10 various different adaptations that replace the pop quiz with an unexpected hanging, surprise test launch, and even a lion behind a door. The situation earns its notation as a paradox from its definition as a convincing argument derived from apparently valid reasoning, but leading to an absurd conclusion. This particular scenario checks all the boxes of this fundamental paradox definition because even though it may make sense in theory that a surprise quiz is not possible, in reality, the students would no doubt be surprised if the test was given out on any random day, such as Wednesday.
Many attempts have been made to resolve the question of whether this hypothetical pop quiz is really possible. Two schools of thought: formal logic and epistemology both attempt to offer an answer. The logical school of thought begins by putting in place a definition for the teacher’s ambiguous use of the word “surprise.” It formalizes a premise as follows: There will be an examination next week and its date will not be deductible in advance from the assumption that the examination will occur some time during the week. The first step in the student’s argument of ruling out a Friday as a potential surprise test date still works under this definition. However, when the student attempts to use that same No Friday argument to prove that there could not be a pop quiz on Thursday, it no longer works since the definition of a surprise has been altered so that the given assumption that the quiz will be on one day of the week can no longer be used in the line of reasoning. In order for the student to continue to argue there will be no pop quiz, the accountant must be designed as a self referential statement to allow the student to extrapolate backwards from the given information. However, with the help of a mathematical proof, it is found that although self referential statements can and do exist, in this case, since a self referential statement would lead to the formulation of a self contradictory statement, it cannot exist and there is no way for the student to be able to follow through with the No Pop Quiz argument. The epistemological branch of reasoning, a branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge, also offers many different perspectives on this paradox under the direction of Timothy Chow. Chow’s first explanation starts by shortening the testing period to two days and stating three implied facts from the modified announcement: 1. The test will occur on Monday or Tuesday. 2. If the test is on Monday, then the students must not be aware of this Sunday evening. 3. If the test is on Tuesday, then the students must not be aware of this Monday evening.
11 Knowing these three facts, the student then claims that there could never be a surprise test on Tuesday, or the last day of the testing period. However, Chow argues that what is truly impossible is not a test on the last day, but a test on the last day with the student knowing that the above assertions are all true. The pop quiz paradox is founded on the student’s reasoning applied with the given assertions or facts. With Chow’s addition of more assertions the given information is no longer vague enough for the student’s argument to ring true. Their argument is now based on mere belief and expectation, rather than definitive knowledge. Furthermore, Chow goes on to state that even if the students do know their assertion to be true, unknown psychological factors, on the individual scale, during the period following the announcement and preceding the testing may corrupt or erase this knowledge and lead to the possibility of a pop quiz. Another simple argument claims that since the students have already decided that it is not possible to administer a pop quiz, giving the quiz on any day will be a surprise! The surprise test paradox is still labeled as an antinomy, or a paradox, because of the unavailability of a universal, clear answer to form a consensus on. However, the presence of such insightful analyses and emergence of novel interest in the philosophical field promises to offer clarity in the future by illustrating how theoretical proofs may diverge from reality at times. Unfortunately this does mean that, for the time being, surprise tests will continue to claw away at the peace of mind of students around the world. Look out! You never know when a pop quiz might come your way!
Grade Level Reading:
12 pythagoras By: Vanshika Singh and VIdhi Sapru Pythagoras made various, important contributions to mathematics, astronomy, religion, and the field of music. Although there is not much detailed evidence regarding Pythagoras’s early life, it is know that he is certainly one of history’s finest minds given the many fascinating ideologies he passed onto us. Pythagoras was indeed a true advocate that believed in new and unheard visions for the betterment of society. Pythagoras was born on the island of Samos in Greece and was the son of Mnesarchus -a philosopher of Athens- and Pythias. During his education in Greece, he was greatly influenced by renowned philosophers Pherekydes, Thales, and Anaximander. After studying in Greece for some time, he left his home in Samo to study in temples with priests in Egypt. However, after a few years of his stay in Egypt, the country was attacked by Persians and Pythagoras was taken prisoner. Held as a captive, Pythagoras met all sorts of priests and wise men in prison. He learned many distinct philosophical notions and cultures from these foreigners, developing his own perception of philosophy by observing their unique perspectives on religion and spirituality. Years later, Pythagoras was released from the prison and returned to his home land where he then started a school. The school was known as The Semicircle and it was through this institution that Pyathagoras shared his diverse and novel ideas about philosophy. He soon grew to be a central Greek philosopher that contributed many eye-opening and applicable philosophies to modern society. Pythagoras believed in a universe that is organized based on moral principles and significant numerical relationships. The traditional image of Pythagoras is that of a champion mathematician and scientist. However, during his time, Pythagoras’s fame was not from his mathematical or scientific genius. Pythagoras was instead well known as an expert on the fate of a soul after death. He believed that the soul was immortal and went through reincarnations. Derived by Pythagoras, metempsychosis is a theory of the soul. Many believe his ideas were based on the Indian concept of reincarnation. In metempsychosis, the soul is everlasting and passes through cycles of incarnation from birth to the release of the soul from the body at death. The behavior and actions of an individual during their life can determine the form the soul takes in the next life. Metempsychosis is also called the “transmigration of souls" and describes the process of a soul being transferred to another body after death, which is called reincarnation. This transfer can happen between any human and /or animal body. For example, a human can come back as another human, or as a bird, animal, reptile of some kind. Likewise, animal souls can come back as a human. However, metempsychosis is a bit different from reincarnation because the soul is not going "up" or "down" the ladder of
13 possible vessels as a result of good or bad actions in life. Instead, the soul chooses a new body as a way of gaining diverse experiences. Pythagoras was the first to hypothesize metempsychosis as a potential life after death experience. Plato, another philosopher, then expanded on the theory in his Republic. The Musica Universalis, which translates to universal music, also referred to as the music of the spheres or harmony of the spheres, is an ancient philosophical concept that regards proportions in the movements of the Sun, Moon, and planets as a form of music. However, this music cannot be heard. It is a rather a harmonic, mathematical, or religious concept. At the time of Pythagoras, the sun, moon, and planets were thought to revolve around Earth in their proper spheres. The spheres were thought to be related by the whole-number ratios of pure musical intervals, creating musical harmony. Legend has it that Pythagoras could hear the 'music of the spheres', which later allowed him to discover that the consonant musical intervals can be expressed in simple ratios of small integers. Pythagoras' concepts were studied by Plato and others who developed them into models of the structure of the universe. Pythagoras believed that "Number rules the universe," and the Pythagoreans, people who followed him, gave numerical values to many objects and ideas. These numerical values, in turn, were endowed with mystical and spiritual qualities. The Pythagorean Theorem, Pythagoras’ most famous mathematical contribution, was one of the earliest mathematical theorems to have been formulated. The Pythagorean Theorem is a statement about triangles concerning right angles. The theorem states that: "The area of the square built upon the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the areas of the squares upon the remaining sides." According to another legend, Pythagoras was so happy when he discovered the theorem that he offered a sacrifice of an oxen. Although the theorem has long been associated with Pythagoras, it is actually older. Four Babylonian tablets indicate some prior knowledge of the theorem. The theorem is even mentioned in the Baudhayana Sulba-sutra of India, which was written between 800 and 400 BCE. Nevertheless, the theorem came to be credited to Pythagoras. Furthermore, Pythagoras discovered that the tone of a musical note corresponds to the length and size of strings on various musical instruments. He contributed to astronomy through the identification of the morning and evening stars (the planet Venus) and was an influence on many others including the great philosopher Plato who referenced many of Pythagoras’ teachings within his dialogues and scripts.
14 Pythagoreas even established a group known as the Pythagoreans, a group of people that developed various hypotheses, one being that life could be clarified by numbers. Pythagoras was a great philosopher with many achievements, one of his greatest being the study of geometry; it is believed by many that he was the first to establish many of the mathematical theorems and rules of geometry. Pythagoras also contributed many theories of philosophies. Many even say “his influence was significant to the point that he could be seen as the most persuasive intellectual of all time.” Pythagoras had and still has a great impact on society. His philosophical belief and values of immorality and transmigration of the soul shed remarkable light on the unknown. He also derived a very important theorem which is well known today and is used by many scientists. As a student in school, you identify this theorem as the Pythagorean Theorem. Today, all around the world, his theorem is applied to modern day engineering, science, and mathematics as a way to unveil new horizons. Pythagoreas’s name is known for his teachings in mathematics, science, astrology, music, and philosophy, even being reverently dubbed the “Father of Philosophy.”
“Do not say a little in many words, but a great deal in a few.”
Grade Level Reading:
15 immortality By: Xiying Fan Over thousands of years, mankind has been trying to achieve one goal in life: immortality. There are a variety of reasons why someone might seek immortality, some are scared of the unknown after death, some are unwilling to leave their loved ones, and some simply enjoy life too much to leave it. Throughout human history there are traces of those attempting to achieve immortality. First was Emperor QinShiHuang who regularly took “immortal pills” made of mercury, widow Diane de Poitiers who drank a mixture of gold chloride and diethyl ether, physiologist and neurologist Charles-Edouard Brown-Square who injected himself with an extract of testicles from guinea pigs and dogs, and the most recently those who freeze their bodies with cryonic preservation to stay alive in the hopes that when they wake in the future there will be cures for their incurable diseases. There are many different versions of immortality, one of which is the immortality of the mind and soul. Another is where your body and mind remain alive, with the exception that you are susceptible to diseases from outside sources. The last version of immortality is the resurrection of beings, where even if you are reborn in a different vessel your memories and way of thinking remains the same. These categories of immortality can be separated into two aspects of philosophy: idealism and materialism. Idealism is defined as a view of how “reality” is intertwined with human nature. According to this philosophy the essence of human life is the soul or mind. As long as your mind is alive and is aware of the world, whether you are in a different vessel or container, you are still a part of the world and considered living. Consequently you would also be considered alive after death through the memories of your thoughts. On the other hand, the materialism aspect of philosophy offers a more “scientific” approach to immortality. You are considered materially alive if there continues to be a tract of your heartbeat or breathing. Materialism does not support the concept of immortality, because in a physical sense, humans do not leave traces of their heartbeats or breathing after their death. A big question that people encounter when asked about immortality is “Do souls exist?” The idea of materialism does not support the existence of souls and instead claims human behavior is a complex set of systems in the body working together. Dualism, on the other hand, supports the existence of souls, along with the belief of god and good/evil in the world. This philosophy states that the soul survives after death and continues to an afterlife such as
16 heaven, that many religions believe in. The last aspect of this question can be responded to by an immortalist, while some may think that souls do exist, and others do not, immortality can still be achieved through the process of resurrection after death. Now that we have talked about the basics of immortality, let’s dive in a bit deeper into the ways you can achieve immortality: through the soul/body, or through the vessel. Many people believe that humans are made of two different parts, the physical body, and the soul. The physical body is believed by many philosophers to be mortal, meaning that it is not temporary, yet its life lasts only for a short period of time. The soul, for those who believe in it, can be immortal because even after death your soul can linger on till the end of time. But it is hard to prove any of these ideas as many scientists and philosophers like Henry James state that in order for something to be considered present in the world if it does not occupy matter, it has to, at the least, occupy space. Yet, no one has ever seen a soul or can prove that it exists. Religion is the exception. Buddhism and Hinduism believe that after a person has deceased, their soul will be released from their body and will linger in the world for seven days before passing onto the afterworld or reincarnating into a new person. The body similarly remains on Earth, but rather as a ghost. As shown in many films and movies, after a person dies, you would see a separation of the body and the ghost (A Ghost Story, Ghostbusters). The most common feature seen in ghost movies and literature is the “shapelessness” of the ghost, or its ability to go through the walls and inability to touch others. Some philosophers might argue that a ghost and a soul are the same, but others argue that since ghosts remain on earth while souls pass on to the afterlife, they are not the same. But this idea is not commonly accepted by philosophers and immortalists since it cannot be proven. There are also many discrepancies in ghost movies and literature where they are able to touch objects in the real world. There is also a game that allows souls and ghosts to communicate with the real world, the Ouija board, which supports the philosophical viewpoint of dualism where spirits can be communicated with and are either good or evil. The afterlife, on the other hand, is a commonly documented and accepted belief present in many religions around the world. In China, there is the story about how after death, a person’s soul travels to an underground dungeon where they must travel through eighteen floors to meet the king of the dungeon: YanWang Ye. There, the person’s soul is put to trial for every wrong doing in his lifetime, and based on the judgement, the soul is moved to the appropriate dungeon level and is punished. After the soul’s punishment, he is given a
17 chance to be reincarnated by waiting to meet the guardian of reincarnation: MengPo and receive his soup which prepares the soul for reincarnation. A similar story appears in Egypt, where the heart is weighed against a feather. If the heart is lighter the soul is permitted to pass onto the afterlife. If the heart is heavier, the soul is eaten by Ammit. Greek mythology has an afterlife as well where the soul travels to an underworld, similar to Spanish mythology. All these stories have one similarity: that life does not end with the death of the body. The vessel, or resurrection of the body is famous amount certain religions like Christianity and Islam, who believe that after death, a person may be summoned back into the same or different vessel. This is also common in TV shows and movies, where a ceremony is likely to be held in order to revive a person. For example, in Christianity, Jesus Christ was revived three days after his death. In the end, does immortality really matter? Is preventing death really a good idea? Is immortality even possible, and should we continue our research on it? These questions are left unanswered and might remain this way, but one thing is for certain, immortality won’t happen anytime soon and we should live our life to the fullest without regret.
Grade Level Reading:
18 the reality of realness By: Ashrit Yarava Drag a mouse along a desktop, click on create New World, wait for the screen to load,, and voila, a new Minecraft world populated with cows, sheep, zombies, skeletons, spiders, and even giant dragons lies in wait for you to explore it. The popular game Minecraft promises its millions of active users a chance to experience a reality different from the one they live in. Although you, the player, know that the game isn't real, Steve, the villagers he bargains with, and creatures he encounters don't know that their reality is invented for your amusement, and they don't truly 'exist.' All these creatures have ever known is the squares that fill up their world. They can’t even imagine a shape that isn’t a cube. The construction of their reality is designed as such, a perfect veil from the truth of real ‘reality,’ a land in which they can only exist as a game. This idea that we are living in a simulation is not as wild of a theory as it first seems. Nick Bostrom, a philosopher currently residing in Oxford, was the first to formalize this argument in what is now known as the Simulation Argument. In the argument, Bostrom states that the world we are living in is a simulation if five 5 conditions are met, these conditions being: It is possible to simulate consciousness. We cannot simulate minds if we do not know how they work. Currently, we have no idea how our minds work. The mind, unlike the brain, is not a physical entity. This not only means that it is harder to pinpoint exactly what a mind is, but we might never truly find out why the mind works. In fact, the most pressing problem that psychologists face today is being unable to explain why our brains work. According to Kristian Marlow, in “What is Consciousness,” although it is simple to explain why we complete actions such as eating ice cream in below freezing weather, we cannot explain how we wanted the ice cream. Though some psychologists might tell you that it is because of the interactions between the chemicals in the brain, the psychologist can’t tell you how the chemicals made you crave that delicious Butterscotch ice cream. Moore's Law, created by Gordon Moore, stating that the speed of a computer doubles every few years, has held true and hopefully, doesn't stop anytime soon. The processing power needed to simulate all the consciousnesses on earth is currently a million, trillion, trillion, trillion operations per second. A regular computer can currently run 2.8 billion operations per second. Even a supercomputer can only calculate 200 quadrillion operations per second, according to Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The huge gap would need to be filled before we can even start thinking about realistically running these simulations. Therefore, we can only prove that we are in a simulation when we have the processing power necessary to conduct a simulation ourselves. Advanced Civilizations do not universally mess up. Currently, the greatest threat we face is nuclear war. As technology improves, these threats keep on increasing. For example, in the near future, we might be able to build a giant EMP, a device known to be able to
19 disable electronics, and ‘turn off’ the electricity of the world. And hundreds or thousands of years from now, we might be able to build black holes. Even as technology expands the limits of how advanced civilizations can mess up, they still rarely do. Advanced Civilizations want to run these simulations. An ant looking upon us humans would wonder why we would ever want to live separately or why we have selfdestructive thoughts sometimes. Another example might be any animal looking at human eating habits. Why would humans willingly not eat certain food? Just like these animals watching human socialization with confusion, we cannot assume that posthuman civilization would even want to run these simulations to view the complex confusion of human life. If simulations are a possibility, you are already inside of one. Assuming that the previous four conditions are met, posthuman civilizations can run a massive amount of such simulations. The possibility that we are, in fact, in a simulation becomes far more likely than us being the real deal. The most important thing to note about all the points previously stated above is that they are all logical assumptions. Just as a pig in a Minecraft world can't prove that it is, in fact, in a simulation, we can't prove that we are simulations, but we can theorize on the nature of our 'simulation’ using logical assumptions. One of the most important things to note about the idea of simulation is that the entire universe doesn't need to be simulated. Similar to Strodinger's famous experiment, where Strodinger stated that a cat put in a box with an ounce of uranium is both alive and dead because we don’t know what happened to it, Nick Bostrom states that what we do not observe isn't important because we are not aware of it. Therefore, something we do not explore, such as an abandoned house doesn't need to be simulated 24/7; instead, it only needs to be 'visible' when a simulated consciousness is looking at it. This approach is similar to the one Minecraft used to simulate its world. Instead of keeping the whole world in memory, Minecraft only keeps the small chunk that is visible to the players. Instead of simulating all consciousnesses, a simulation of reality would also only simulate one mind. If this was true, then everyone you know could be 'fake' and you might be the only real mind in this world. The latter approach would also require considerably lower computational power and without a need to simulate consciousness human civilization already has the processing power to run this type of simulation (Minecraft and Terraria being the most popular of these simulators).
20 Let’s assume that we are in a simulation. There are a number of reasons why we could ‘exist.’ One of these reasons could be that we are just here for entertainment. Life has gotten so easy for these posthumans that they are simply watching the planet as you would watch a reality show, scoffing at people’s stupidity, feeling inspired by revolutionaries, and laughing at those who make themselves a laughingstock. Another reason for running these simulations might be that life has gotten so boring for these posthumans that they have willingly put themselves into these simulations to feel happiness, sadness, and exhilaration. The closest comparison would be Westworld, an American tv series where people enter simulations to live out their fantasies. Finally, we could just be guinea pigs, meant to be studied to help the posthumans decide what is correct and what is wrong. The whole planet could be a giant psychology experiment, meant to help posthumans understand why their past selves made the decisions they made. Again, we can’t assume one of these reasons is it and just as humans have a multitude of reasons for doing something, posthumans most likely have numerous reasons for creating us. Although it is a scary thought, none of this can be proven, and instead of having an existential crisis, it is better to take this argument with a grain of salt and continue to live life the same, and just hope that no one pulls the power cord on our simulation. If anyone ever does, be relieved— you won’t feel a thing as you stop existing.
Grade Level Reading:
E L B A T
21 24 28
O U R
O A T H
T O
E C O N O M I C
Heather Butler
G L O B A L
T R A D E
Brandon Huang
C A U T I O N :
Heather Butler
I N F L A T I O N
G R O W T H
CONTENTS
F O
economics
21 our oath to economic growth By: Heather Butlet Over the past couple of months, COVID-19 has restricted the ways in which many businesses and individuals make decisions; as a result, global economic growth has slowed. Economic growth is defined as the long-term increase in the productive capacity of an economy. It can be measured quantitatively by the growth rate in the real gross domestic product (GDP) over time, which is a number that measures the final output of an economy in a given year. Economic growth can be prompted by several different sources. For example, greater access to natural resources leads to an increase in the production of goods and services. In Alberta, Canada, the province has experienced many economic expansions due to its plentiful oil sands. The oil extracted from the bituminous sands is exported to different countries, with the biggest customers being the United States and Mexico. An increase in human capital also tends to bring economic prosperity. Higher rates of education yield better skill sets that prepare workers for greater productivity. Physical capital —manufactured goods used to make other goods—also contributes to economic growth. This type of capital includes goods such as buildings, machinery, and tools. More machinery or technological advancements allows for improved efficiency; however, sometimes, the shift to automation causes job loss. Low-income entry-level jobs such as retail sales and truck drivers are foreseeing a bleak future. Institutional factors such as the banking system and legal system can prompt potential economic growth. Banking systems often provide capital to firms in the form of loans that can be used for investing in expansions. Banks control the interest rates of loans, and lower rates tend to drive investment. Increased investment can yield more efficient production. Legal systems also engender economic development by providing more stable and reliable circumstances for individuals. For example, employment agreements motivate individuals to contribute to the workforce. Total factor productivity (TFP) is a ratio of aggregate output to aggregate inputs that measures the growth in the final output and an economy’s efficacy in applying all of its factors of production. One of the contributions of output growth is technological advancements, where technical progress leads to an increase in TFP. According to economist Robert Solow’s study that measured the link between technological implications and TFP, approximately 90 percent of US output is due to technological advancement.
22 Innovation often prompts economic growth, and institutions have the ability to encourage it. For example, the Federal Reserve Bank can lower interest rates by, for example, purchasing government securities, which can give rise to investment. Other institutions can also lower transaction costs by contract enforcement. Transaction costs are sunk costs involved in economic trading, which include search and information costs, bargaining costs, and policing and enforcement costs. Once a firm reduces its transaction costs, they have prospects of being economically successful. Additionally, the protection of property rights drives creators to innovate and feel confident that their creativity will remain original and preserved. Notably, patents grant individuals the rights to their invention or design. As Luca Ferrini puts it in The Importance of Institutions to Economic Development, “If property is protected, individuals are more willing to invest and to incur sunk costs” (Ferrini 2012). With innovation, there is creative destruction. Creative destruction is the constant dismantling of old products and replacement with new ones. It is done in an effort to redistribute resources to innovation. Although it boosts innovation and productivity, firms that adopt older techniques and technologies will be left behind. Despite the fact economic growth tends to establish better living standards and allocate resources efficiently, challenges and disparities still persist. Technical progress, one of the factors of economic growth, can generate income inequality. Technology tends to replace lower-skilled workers with higher-skilled, educated workers. Christoffer Hernæs from TechCrunch writes, “labor-saving technology has replaced many blue-collar jobs that paid well. Those workers have had to switch to retail and home healthcare jobs, where the pay is typically lower” (Hernæs 2017). Jobs that require menial work and less education are at a high risk of being discontinued. Another challenge that developed countries face is creating economies that are compatible with the earth’s capacity to regenerate resources and absorb waste. Sustainable economic growth faces ecological limits: more energy is needed to grow the economy, yet it’s difficult to supply that energy with renewable resources. For example, the resources from Amazon Rainforest present a great source of economic stability for Brazil: the price for meat has increased significantly, which provides an incentive to farmers to expand their pastures and engage in clearcutting the trees; however, deforestation puts stress on the local environment and accelerates global warming.
23 Fortunately, innovation can push those limits back. For instance, wind power, despite making up only seven percent of the United States’ electricity generation, is rapidly becoming cheaper than fossil fuels. The average modern wind turbine can generate more than 6 million kilowatt-hours annually. Furthermore, The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards established fuel efficiency guidelines where certain vehicles must average at least 35 miles per gallon. Businesses have responded with those standards by formulating more energyefficient cars—notably hybrids and electric cars. Additionally, beef is one of the food products with the largest carbon footprint, and has plenty of substitutes. The plant-based industry is worth $13.7 billion, and companies such as Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat are pumping out new meat look-alikes all the time.
Grade Level Reading:
24 global trade By: Brandon Huang If you’ve ever bought manufactured items, and chances are, you have, you’ve probably seen the label Made in China adorning some part of the item’s exterior. You might have wondered, “Huh. Why was this little trinket made in China when it could have been made here? Do we even make these things here?” before placing your next purchase in the shopping cart and moving along. What many don’t realize is that, through purchasing a foreign product or accessing a foreign service, we are picking fruit from a tree whose seeds were borne aloft by the ancient Assyrians some four thousand years ago, a tree that has been fertilized and sculpted over millennia by nearly every civilization on Earth. This magnificent tree is known as international trade, a system in which goods and labor are exchanged between countries across the globe. Imagine every nation today occupies a branch on the metaphorical tree of international trade; international trade would be the equivalent of the world’s countries being held aloft by the tree, running around atop the tree’s branches, bartering for what they need while selling any extraneous items they might have. So what’s keeping our little tree alive? It’s not like there’s any water in our metaphorical universe to keep the tree alive, right? That’s where our good friends - imports and exports come into play; products sold into the international economy are known as exports while products bought from the international economy are imports. Think back to the image of countries running around on branches. If, let’s say, the United States ran over to France and sold to them a barrel of petroleum, the United States would be exporting a product, and if China, in turn, decided to run over to France and buy from them a vehicle, China would be importing a product. However, while importing/exporting is the water that can keep the tree of International Trade alive, none of the countries running around on its branches have any incentive to water the tree, not without the existence of comparative advantage. A country has a comparative advantage when it can produce something more efficiently than other countries. Coined by the British economist David Ricardo in the early 19th century, comparative advantage incentivizes countries to specialize production, thus lowering domestic production costs and encouraging countries to contribute to the global economy (thus watering the tree of International Trade) through the aforementioned system of imports and exports. Under comparative advantage, one country would specialize in, say, creating pottery, decreasing the cost of creating pottery through specialized labor and technologies. Meanwhile, another country would specialize in something else, say creating paintings.
25 These two countries would then trade with each other, importing the product they are not specialized in making while exporting the product they are. Because the production of both products is specialized within their respective countries, the overall cost of production is lowered and both countries save money. However, comparative advantage does not necessarily mean one country is better at a certain job than another country, only that one country can produce something at a lower cost than another country. Take the Made in China tag, a notorious indicator of low build quality, mentioned in the introduction as an example. The reason such a gargantuan amount of western products are manufactured in China is simply because China has had the lowest production cost out of all other countries for a long while, even if products manufactured in China may not be as well-made as products found elsewhere. This facet of comparative advantage is one of its major selling points: that low costs, not quality, are what prove the worth of a country within International Trade. Countries that may not have the technology or labor to keep up with other countries in some fields are still able to carve their own niche and participate in International Trade. Of course, comparative advantage is not without faults - the price of transportation costs and the restriction of trade by the government come to mind - but the benefits of comparative advantage often heavily outweigh these cons. Trade is paramount not only to the growth of individual countries, but also to the growth of the global economy. That much is established. What happens then, when countries decide that they no longer want to trade, or that only certain nations can trade with them? This is called protectionism and is often put into place to help domestic industries by lowering foreign competition. Protectionism as a whole refers to government policies set in place that restrict or completely ban foreign trade, such as Britain’s 18th-century mercantilist policies which banned colonial trade with all except British ships or the current U.S. - China trade war in which both countries have placed tariffs/restrictions on the opposing country. As you might imagine, restrictions and tariffs discourage trade, lowering the volume of imports/exports, or in other words, lowering the amount of water the tree of international trade receives. The opposite of protectionism, then, is free trade, which is exactly as it sounds: trade with minimal, if any imposed restrictions or taxes. Free trade agreements, while usually obtained through mutual discussion and arrangement, may also be present through the lack of restrictions/taxes, and very rarely result in trade with absolutely no restrictions. Examples of such trade policies include the 1860 Cobden-Chevalier Treaty, removing tariffs on goods imported to Britain from France, and, to a lesser degree, the current existence of the World Trade Organization (WTO), which limits but does not outright ban tariffs and other restrictions in global trade. Unlike protectionism, free trade policies encourage trade between countries, though sometimes at the cost of the success of domestic industries. In order for a country to succeed, it must strike a healthy balance between these two opposing ideologies.
26 We've established that international trade is like a tree: it’s old, supports a variety of life (countries), and needs water (imports/exports) to survive. Atop the limbs of the tree prosper all the world’s countries in a little town, happily trading items. From thereon, it gets more complicated; protectionism and free trade arise as rules set by members of the town, andwhere there are rules, a body must be willing to enforce, dispute, or otherwise interact with these rules and those who set them. Enter international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the above-mentioned World Trade Organization. These organizations may be likened to a town sheriff; they oversee rules and settle disputes between members of the town - countries in this case. These organizations ensure the prosperity of the global economy, and give countries a medium to not only negotiate rules but also check the power of other countries. They act not in the interests of one particular country, but with the benefit of the global economy in mind. In the words of the WTO themselves, “Its [the WTO’s] main function is to ensure that trade flows as smoothly, predictably and freely as possible.” International organizations, like the sheriff of a town, are what ensure order, and should the sheriff disappear from our village atop the tree of international trade, chaos would be an inevitability. Trees are veritable treasures in the natural world. Strong, stout, and guardian of many, to find an equal competitor to a tree is difficult. It is not common that something may claim to have lived for thousands of years while supporting entire civilizations, and yet international trade has done exactly that. It was under the Assyrians that international trade first took root 4,000 years ago, and over the course of the millennium, international trade has grown to epic proportions, supporting all those that participate and becoming the foundation of the modern world as we know it.
Grade Level Reading:
27 Caution: inflation By: Heather Butler Inflation. A word feared by many economists and consumers. As Robert Orben puts it, it’s “the crabgrass in your savings.” In other words, inflation is a sustained rise in most prices in the economy and reduces the purchasing power of money. Most of the time, it’s deemed as “bad,” but in certain circumstances, it can facilitate the movement to a more stabilized economy. Inflation also has a unique effect on different members of society. For example, it helps borrowers and certain businesses but hurts lenders and savers. One of the most evident causes of inflation is when the government prints too much money—namely, hyperinflation. According to the Quantity Theory of Money, the amount of money that is exchanged in an economy is equal to the value of the goods and services sold in the economy. Thus, if the money supply increases, then price levels must increase as well. This was evident in Weimar, Germany after World War I. The economy was in shambles and the government was desperate to fix it. A loaf bread that cost 250 German marks cost 200,000 million German marks eight months later. Another cause is demand-pull inflation, which is when an economy is overheated with excessive spending but production levels remain the same. Simple supply and demand rules tell us that an increase in demand prompts higher prices. A couple of months ago, Malaysia increased its minimum wage and economists anticipate that the country will feel the effects of demand-pull inflation due to an increase in disposable income which will promote spending. As mentioned, inflation isn’t always bad. It can be perceived as positive by people who borrow money due to the fact that they pay back the money with less purchasing power. It also helps businesses where the price of the products increases faster than the prices of the resources in the short run, which means that it’s cheaper to produce the product; however, there are people who feel the damaging effects of inflation. Banks tend not to lend out as many loans since fixed interest rates cause lenders to receive money with less purchasing power. Additionally, inflation hurts people with a fixed income, such as government welfare programs like Social Security. The income they receive is worth less than previously issued. One of the problems that businesses face is that inflation tends to waste resources. Businesses may have to reprint menus and signs to adjust for higher prices. Furthermore, individuals have a decreased motive to save because the value of their savings accounts and other financial assets become devalued. As a result, investment and gross domestic product (GDP) decreases.
28 Luckily, there are US policies in place that control inflation. Fiscal policy—legislative actions were taken by the government—and monetary policy—actions were taken by the Federal Reserve Bank—have the ability to close an inflationary gap. For fiscal policy, the government can decrease government spending, which would decrease aggregate demand. It can also increase taxes, which would decrease disposable income, decrease consumer spending, and decrease aggregate demand. Monetary policy takes a different approach where the Federal Reserve is able to interact with the banks. It can increase the reserve requirement, which is the percentage of depositors’ money that must be on hand and is set by the Federal Reserve. In addition, it can increase the discount rate: the rate of interest the Fed charges when it makes loans to depository institutions. Finally, it can engage in open market operations, where it can sell bonds. As a result, these combined actions can decrease the supply of money, increase interest rates, decrease investment, decrease aggregate demand, decrease price levels, decrease output, decrease employment, and increase the Fed funds rate. The same policies cannot be found in Venezuela, which is currently experiencing hyperinflation. Although the government has recently imposed price controls on food products, its inflation rate is still roughly 2000 percent. In comparison, the United States’ inflation as of July 2020 is one percent. One of the main causes of Venezuela’s unstable economy is its heavy reliance on oil prices, which started to drop in 2015. The government failed to react appropriately: instead of cutting spending, it continued to spend.
Grade Level Reading:
Sean Furbush
A D V O C A C Y
R E S O U R C E S
PEP Magazine. This is a section made with some of our instagram posts and other resources to help promote advocacy about current issues.
E L B A T
29 33
A S T R O P O L I T I K
CONTENTS
F O
politics
29 astropolitik By: Sean Furbush On Saturday, May 30th, 2020 at 3:22 PM EST, American Astronauts were launched from American Soil on an American Rocket. Now, this hadn’t been a possibility since the American Space Shuttle Atlantis, touched down at Kennedy Space Center just 9 years ago, marking the end of the fleet’s endeavors under the reign of NASA. From that point on, America had simply purchased seats to the International Space Station (ISS) aboard Russian Soyuz rockets - a contract that worked well until the price tag trickled up near $80 million a pop. To combat the rising costs of getting the US into orbit, NASA turned to the private sector to serve their problems. Without letting the leash go too loose, the US government approved the Commercial Crew Program which incentivized privately owned space-oriented companies to compete for some beefy federal contracts. The contestants are likely household names by this point: think SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Boeing. Elon Musk’s interplanetary-focused SpaceX secured the first grant to modify their Dragon Cargo Capsule with life support systems, touch screen control panels, and a myriad of other toys for the two commander team of Bob Behnken and Doug Hurley to play with on their ride to the ISS. Liftoff legitimized the new era we are dipping our toes into. One where Generation Z will likely see space tourism, interplanetary civilization, and, inevitably, orbital militarization all come to fruition within their lifetimes. Their ascent to the heavens was atop SpaceX’s workhorse - the Falcon 9 rocket. Overall, the international space community was pleased to see the United States get back up there all on their own. At least, at face value they were. The potential implications for this one launch are astronomical (no pun intended). Outer-Space in an essence is merely a resource, a frontier, that has yet to be obtained, and just as most conquests in the history of humanity have been driven, we will now find ourselves scrounging against one another out of the desire to control the materialistic assets of the great vacuum. For now, though, the $2.6 million NASA contract that SpaceX inked will serve as a promise for at least 6 more trips to the ISS. These openings have breached the gates for commercial space flight to be the Shepard of humanity’s return to the stars. With these powerhouses being just as full of funding as they are ambition, it seems there will be no lull of the stampede towards the lunar surface and then to the Red Planet. To that point, NASA is already well into the developmental stages of the Artemis Missions, with the aforementioned names, as well as some others, drawing up their pitches for the next lunar lander. Getting Americans back on the moon by the mid-20s is a very high priority on NASA’s to-do list. And it seems now, as is in the true capitalist fashion, that the rivalry between these pioneers in the new era of space-flight will accelerate innovation, lower costs, and define our prod towards the final frontier.
30 The end of the Second World War brought with it a scramble between the emergent superpowers for the many minds within the high command of the disbanded Third Reich. Operation Paperclip was devised and executed by the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency of the United States and secured over 1,600 Nazi German scientists who had focused heavily on the rocket and wunderwaffe (translating to “wonder weapon”) projects in the 20th century. The USSR countered this massive effort with their arguably more impressive extraction known as Operation Osoaviakhim. These logistical nightmares were fueled by a paranoia shared between the US and the Soviets, with that being the fear of these minds “falling into the wrong hands”. This communal dread of having their arsenals being outpaced by the other was the spark for the flame that would become of the Cold War. As aforementioned, a major portion of German research during the second world war was dedicated to the V-2 Rocket program - this evolution in aviation science, though initially devised as a mass killing machine, would serve both contestants in the Cold War well on their resultant Space Race. The infamous 20-year face-off was a constant cache of one nation out-witting the other, only to be out-witted shortly thereafter. And though the Russians shot Yuri Gagarin into space and brought him back alive to become the first nationality to send a human to the great void, it would only take the US 8 more years to declare the lunar surface the new finish line, as well as to actually get there first. Fortunately cooler heads would prevail as new administrations would come to dilute the fervor to get to Mars by the late 80s, nevertheless, the Soviets would quite literally continue to strip their nation’s reserves dry in an attempt to replicate the US Space Shuttle, though this would bring the Soviets to their knees in terms of being unable to continue the prospect. Flash forward to the crack of the 2000s and we find ourselves in a slightly different, but still tense ball-game. It is undeniable that Russia and the US still have several conflicting interests. For that reason, it becomes nearly impossible for geopolitics as we know them to be ignored, for, at the end of the day, these satellites when launched from home-soil, can lift weapons into orbit just as well as they can lift laboratories. This makes international cooperation less beneficial, and more vital. Under the guise of the sake of science, we have been bound to some extent of tranquility, granted that after all, we do have an International Space Station with Russian Cosmonauts and American Astronauts sharing routines, meals, experiments, and living space. However, there is a point to be made about the 2 primary “sections” that the station is composed of - one predominantly American, and one predominantly Russian. On October 15th, 2003, the Chinese Shenzhou 5 carried Taikonaut Yang Liwei into orbit for 21 hours and brought him back to the surface of the Earth in relatively stable condition. With this feat, China had just declared to the world its belief that it too deserved a spot among the launching superpowers. At the start of that day, only 2 nations had ever grappled for dominance above the skies. By the end of it, there would be 3.
31 On this account, there had been a breach in the unity of spaceflight internationally. This event was not sanctioned by any type of coalition - had no aims of bringing the Chinese to the International Space Station, or of inspiring cooperation on research by bringing to the table the massive array of resources at their disposal. No, instead, with this launch, state media finally had the right to back up their calls for China’s ascent to the top of the space ladder not only for show but for complete and utter dominance in the great unknown. Under the covers, the lingerings of a space race revived, began to stir. Talks in China and among the international community became filled with Beijing’s hope to send up their own version of a permanently manned space station. This came among speculation about other ambitious goals to join the US and Russia on their march to Mars within similar time frames. Well even today, with the current good-mannered status of relations between the 2 space race veterans, it is important to note that recent events, sanctions, and increasing tension between the two down on the Pale Blue Dot could hint at something greater being at stake in the interplanetary title. This goes without mentioning that the Chinese and the Russians snuggle a lot closer to one another than either does to their patriotic counterparts. Such integration of a 3rd major party into the power struggle means that as China continues to develop its launching capabilities as they have since ’03, there is no guarantee that the Russian half of the ISS will be occupied by friendly cosmonauts for all that much longer. This type of tug-of-war-triangle if you will, has been the central prospect upon which the study of the political nature of space, otherwise known as Astropolitik has stemmed. Though the definite status of this model is fluid and will likely continue to be, the theory states that cooperation cannot withstand the pressure of paranoia and as spaceflight technology increases, and as the private sector becomes more reliant on near-earth orbit, we will see governments satisfy the itch to gain an edge over another both for militaristic prospects and pride points. Unfortunately, this theory, derivative of contemporary geopolitical science, tiptoes closer and closer to fruition with each and every launch. As one country develops a new mechanism, becomes more self-dependent, or diversifies the range of its orbital operations, the other 2 will follow suit in the chase to out-do the instigator. This cycle will likely repeat itself and grow in drastic fashion exponentially. The problem stands to be that the United States may have just become that very same instigator we have worked so hard to condemn. As Americans tuned into NASA’s live streams, celebrating vivid images of American Astronauts launching on American Rockets from American Soil, the sight was merely a painful reminder to the Kremlin that despite the advancements in commercial spaceflight, they had just lost one of their highest-paying customers aboard their strongest strand to space - the Soyuz rocket. With Elon Musk’s reference to a backlash tweet from a Russian Official back in the days of the Space Shuttles, commenting “the trampoline is working”, China twinged at the realization that no matter how
32 much state media they pump out, the US will not slip out of the space picture any time soon. And now, with our private sector fully activated in the quest to pursue innovation as it does best by nature, the very trigger for what we have come to know as a space race, has just been lit under the seats bearing Bob Behnken and Doug Hurley. We should expect to see an answer to this milestone in mere months, for the contracts between NASA and her partners still stand, and will nudge the US closer and closer to the epitome of Artemis, and the rocky Red Planet. Only the future may hold the definitive test for the dark forebodings of Astropolitik.
Grade Level Reading:
33 advocacy resources By: PEP Magazine This is a carrd that has links to some of the most important issues of this year. Please do your part to raise awareness. All credits allocated to @_shriyap_. https://infocentral.carrd.co/
partners
Beyond school, The Politique Mag, International Economics, Through a Glass Window, Juvenilia Magazine, Students Speak, Diversivity, Teens Taking Initiative, Political Chaos, Written by the Youth, News Left Behind, The Brightside, Femme for Education, Women in Politics, Turn Canada
follow
OUR SOCIAL MEDIA Instagram: @pep_magazine Linkedin: https://PEPMagazine Twitter: @MagazinePEP
$15.00
PEP Magazine Issue 002