Interdependency

The section on Japanese property law I thought was pretty interesting. It made mention to the Japanese government promoting and protecting its economy even when there is no type of malfunction or crisis within it. It seems they take away the idea of individual self-interest and try looking at the bigger picture of interconnectivity which inevitably makes an economy successful. In America, private enterprise seems to see people as a means to an end, rather than ends in themselves. This self-motivation and independence can not lead to success in the long run, for it is not sustainable. The clearest example of this can be seen in agriculture or more abstractly ecological principles. Monocultures are dependent on human fertilizers, mainly oil, to create a linear means of production in food. This ends up destroying more than it creates although it is a great way to make profit when energy is readily available. In non-idustrialized farming, resources are recycled because they replicate natural processes which are sustainable. This deals with interdependency, which Japanese government and law tries to emphasize in its practice. I feel America needs to start looking to these lessons of relying on the group rather than the individual in some respects.

Biological Patents

I felt like bringing up my SLAP question from this week, especially after what was being talked about towards the end of today’s class. My question was whether patents can be arranged on something that is already found in nature. With science starting to alter agriculture, corporations are now being able to modify crop DNA. This genetically modified seed can then be patented. Biological patents were first introduced in the 1970s and increased in the 1990s. Corporations can then hold farmers liable if they haven’t bought the seed directly from them or if they are caught having traces of their crops DNA on their land if they are a commercial operation. This then starts the need for new types of property law. In the past patents were only for material objects that were constructed, but what if all vegetables in the future are patented? This opens up many ethical questions. I feel that biological patents should not be given out. In the end these legal protections are doing more harm than good.

Some of the results of industrial monocultures are loss of biodiversity, decline in bee populations (due to pesticides and other factors), destroying fertile soil, contributing to global warming, and having mostly unknown effects towards the health of our citizens and environment. 10% of bee populations have declined in the past 2 decades on a global scale. It costs about 10 calories of energy in oil to produce 1 calorie of edible food. Our farming is dependent on pesticides and oil, which is not sustainable. The European Union has enacted policies such as the Precautionary Principle when it comes to their agriculture, while Americans just throw what they make in the fields and sees what happens. 85% of the corn related products, mostly processed foods, etc. high fructose corn syrup, glucose syrup, maltodextrin, unmodified starch, lecithin, and ascorbic acid to name a few. Japan is watching America’s youth, our generation, as GMO guinea pigs essentially. These are some of the things biological patents, owned by big corporations which support these kinds of profitable agriculture, are protecting now in America. (Taking the Future of Food course if you’re interested in more information) 

Sex and Society

Reading the article by Lois Pineau, I found myself thinking that these cases involving date rape are usually not fair and very difficult to prove. I already assumed this, but my beliefs were confirmed. In class today, I found the biggest problem within these cases may not necessarily draw from law, but the perspective of society around these issues of date rape and other forms of aggravated sexual assault. It seems that we are a society that is ignorant to the fact of recreational sex especially within informative media. Today if something is not exposed through ABC, Fox, or CNN I feel little is done to culturally progress the nation, no matter how many group minorities are trying to address change on the issue. Thus, progress is slow in terms of development of our culture when it comes to rape and other mainstream issues that usually remain ignorant to the larger public. It is rather paradoxical because so much of our entertainment media seems to endulge itself in the form of sexual humor, sexual issues, and other ways of conveying sexuality, so it is not necessarily a taboo in the movie theatre, yet it remains so in the kitchens and living rooms of America (where sex is probably happening anyway). If one in six women by the age of 18 are being involved in some form of sexual harassment or assault I feel it is time to bring ideas not only to females in preventing rape and other sexual atrocities, but to men too. This is stemming from the fact that men, it seems, are usually the aggressors and do not take into account a female's cognitive process, but only their own in the given moment. This awareness of not only the self, but also the potential partner could hopefully, in time, progress into a more understanding culture that does not necessarily see a woman as what they are, but as who they are, which could then be extended to how we could view everyone as an equal individual.