93. Diamonds not so friendly

Diamonds are said to be a women's best friend. It is a relationship that many clever marketing slogans have promoted, such as the idea that, "A Diamond is Forever." Their beauty is used to symbolize love and commitment; their size and value insinuates affluence and privilege.

About ten years ago, like many other couples considering engagement, my future wife and I went shopping for a fitting, yet affordable, diamond ring. We made the tour through the mall, looking for the perfect size and price. I made note of her favorites- so that upon an official proposal, she would not be disappointed. Later, I purchased a ring, making payments over several months, and waited for the right moment.

In December of 1996, we took a trip to Toronto, Canada, to see the Phantom of the Opera at the famous Pantages Theatre. On the way, we stopped at Niagara on the Lake and stayed at the Prince of Wales Hotel. It turned out to be a beautiful night, fallen by a brisk but romantic snow. It was here that I proposed to my wife. As special as that night was for us, it is a ritual that has taken place a million times before.

In terms of the commitment, the ring was an afterthought. Not because it was not endearing, but because I did it without any specific reason. In other words, I did it out of tradition- because that is what "everybody" does. I did not consider where the diamond came from, where it was cut and polished, or even if it was a fair price. The rule of thumb (an ironic reference if you know the origin of the phrase) is that men are supposed to spend two months salary on the ring.

Since I could not afford much, I pledged secretly to myself that after five years I would buy her a bigger diamond. And that is what I did. For our five-year anniversary, I snuck off with her ring and replaced it with a larger diamond. I thought the larger diamond was not only a gift of her commitment and sacrifice over the previous five years, but also a reflection of our growing relationship.

Now, ten years later, having learned about diamonds and the diamond trade, I have some regrets in the process. Diamonds have a tumultuous history, inclusive of greed, power, war and slave labor. Unfortunately, what now sparkles nicely on my wife's finger is a better reflection of the world we live in.

Americans, with their great wealth, purchase 50 percent of all the diamonds produced in the world. To this end, DeBeers, the world's largest diamond seller, has been accused of controlling the supply of diamonds to drive up prices. But the story goes much deeper than the supply chain that provides Americans the diamonds they so much adore at exaggerated prices. Diamonds have been the source of human rights violations and atrocities in terms of slave labor and the many wars and conflicts fought over control of the diamond mines.

The following excerpt is from an MSNBC.com series on diamonds by Petra Cahill:

"The search for diamonds is not exactly easy. Many miners and diamond diggers in sub-Saharan Africa travel great distances to find work and submit to gruelingly long hours for low wages - or sometimes no wages - in substandard conditions.

The informal mining industry is where workers tend to be most exploited. In the Wild West atmosphere of many informal diamond mines, the quest for the "big find" - and the financial gain it promises - is the all-encompassing goal, and all other issues of morality or civic responsibility go out the window."

In addition to the slave-like labor often used to excavate the diamond mines, war often breaks out between the groups and countries- which are funded by these valuable diamond mines. Amnesty International reports,

"Conflict or blood diamonds fuel conflict, civil wars and human rights abuses. They have been responsible for funding recent conflicts in Africa which resulted in the death and displacement of millions of people. During these conflicts, profits from the illegal trade in diamonds, worth billions of dollars, were used by warlords and rebels to buy arms. An estimated 3.7 million people have died in Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Liberia, and Sierra Leone in conflicts fuelled by diamonds."

The History Channel also ran an exposé on the history of the diamond trade inclusive of gruesome pictures and narrative from people who suffered in the battle over diamonds. The rebel organization, Revolution United Front, trademarked amputation as a reminder of their objective to control the diamond mines. One individual, who was interviewed, had both his hands cut off because he had voted for the "wrong" political party. Many others, including a shocking number of children and women, had legs and arms cut off.

In response, Amnesty International and other organizations were successful in lobbying the United Nation General Assembly to adopt legislation that eventually led to the Kimberly Process Certification Scheme- a process which is designed to break the link associated with conflict diamonds and human rights violations. This self-regulated certification, in short, tracks the shipments of diamonds and maintains that they are "conflict-free." Governments and industry are only to engage in trade with the diamonds that are ethically obtained- which, in theory, renders the "blood diamonds" worthless.

There are discrepancies as to the effectiveness of this process, but at least the issue has been brought to the table. And, more importantly, people are starting to learn about the diamond trade.

While a diamond ring might symbolize love and commitment, a relationship is built on more than a dynamic arrangement of tetrahedrally-bonded carbon atoms. Had I known that people may have suffered or died in the acquisition of the diamond that my wife now wears on her hand, I would have considered alternatives. Unfortunately, when you are in love, and burdened with the weight of tradition, your focus often narrows to the exclusivity of a world- often based on greed and exploitation- that silently exists.

92. Animal cruelty big business

How much does freedom cost? The answer is that it depends. If you are a chicken, it costs about a dollar per dozen eggs. That is the difference in purchasing a dozen eggs from a factory farmer and purchasing the same dozen eggs from a free-range chicken farmer. Whereas "factory farmed" chickens often live in deplorable conditions, producers of free-range eggs are required to make open spaces available for the chickens to roam.

Unfortunately, chickens, other poultry, and fish are excluded from the Humane Slaughter Act (rabbits are considered poultry under this Act). The Act only applies to cows and pigs, although there is considerable debate how well these laws are actually enforced. Many people witnessed the inhumanity displayed at the Wiles Farm in Canton when several news channels broadcasted the story. As a result, according to the Human Farming Association (GFA), the prosecutor assigned to the case "received literally thousands of letters, faxes, emails, and phone calls from citizens all across the nation who were appalled by the horrific events at Wiles Farm, and who were asking that appropriate criminal charges be filed in this case."

The story, as too often the case, is about corporate profits and the disappearance of family farms. The result of corporate interests is harm to the environment in addition to the animal suffering. The GFA reports,

"The take-over of agriculture in the U.S. by large corporations has allowed a larger number of animals to be produced more quickly and for less money. Agribusiness has reaped great profits while keeping consumer prices low. But the real costs of factory farming - in terms of the loss of family farms, food-borne illness, damage to the environment, and animal suffering - have been tremendous."

Since poultry is not included in the Humane Slaughter Act, the mistreatment of these animals is nothing short of disturbing. Joy Mench, who runs the Center for Animal Welfare at the University of California, notes that often eight chickens or more are crammed into cages measuring 20 inches wide by 19 inches deep. This many birds in one cage barely allow the chicken to stand, let alone turn around. In addition, their beaks are often removed; Mench reports,

"...the hens you'd see on most egg farms wouldn't have any beaks. The farmers cut them off, so you'd see a hen face with a stump. Farmers do that because when chickens get crowded together, they develop abnormal behavior, they can peck each other to death."

Unfortunately, good intent often goes unrealized as many "free-range" policies are so loosely defined and enforced that one can never be certain that even these chickens live as required. However, I would rather take a chance on these eggs than the alternative. The bigger picture, however, is the cruelty of factory faming, and the idea that many Americans remain oblivious to this idea.

The following quote by moral philosopher, Peter Singer, in his book "Animal Liberation" is quite powerful, which in addition to the insights of many vegitarian friends, has prompted my conversion to a vegitarian diet. Singer wrote, "Those who, by their purchases, require animals to be killed have no right to be shielded from the slaughterhouse or any other aspect of the production of the meat they buy. If it is distasteful for humans to think about, what can it be like for the animals to experience it?"

This realization applies to every aspect of human consumption that inflicts pain and suffering on animals. To ignore this reality is synonymous with actively supporting it. For years I avoided the idea of vegetarianism and justified my diet any number of ways. Surprising, I have found that it has not been that difficult without meat, as there are a lot of great meat substitutes. But most importantly, I feel a lot better about myself- even if I am a dollar poorer every time I buy a dozen eggs.

91. Live whatever you believe

"Eternal Recurrence," as contemplated by philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, is the idea that time repeats itself in a circular pattern. The significance of this idea, or perhaps the consequence of it, is the possibility that the life we are living is part of an endless cycle which is repeated throughout time. Nietzsche proposed the following:

"What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything immeasurably small or great in your life must return to you-all in the same succession and sequence... The eternal hourglass of existence is turned over and over, and you with it, a grain of dust."

Depending on the perception of your life, this idea could be quite joyous or, it could be most disturbing. What if we were to live this life over and over indefinitely? What if this life laid the foundation for our eternal recurrence?

This concept could be argued to be no less realistic than the alternatives, specifically the religious afterlife and the atheistic proposal that our existence ends at death. Thus these three ideas, excluding for now others such as reincarnation, suggest that either life ends at death, is repeated indefinitely, or is spent, for eternity, in heaven or hell. This consideration places burdens of varying degrees on our present lives. Whether these ideas are cognitively considered beyond the overwhelming monotheistic belief in an afterlife, or not, each effects how our present lives are to be lived.

If we believe that we have been saved and are entitled to an eternity in heaven, then this life means little, a drop in the bucket, worthy of any and all sacrifice and suffering. The only goal is to get into heaven. If I believed that, I would devote my entire life to living according to my religious principles- attending church regularly, for example.

If we believe this life is our only form of existence, as Atheists do, it encourages living life to the fullest, and according to one's principles. There is reason to neither accept sacrifice and suffering- nor impose it. Furthermore, there is an inherent understanding that if this is my one chance at life; the same is true for all other living persons and animals. For if my life is precious, so are the lives of others, and life is best lived with mutual respect. It also places a measure of urgency on our lives, for each day is one less day we are alive and essentially the days on a calendar are a countdown to our deaths. It emphatically emphasizes the phrase, "Carpe Diem."

If we believe in Eternal Recurrence, the burden, as Nietzsche suggests, bears an incredible weight. For the incentive to live a good life is all of eternity. The redundancy of living this life repeatedly through time, with all accompanying pains and pleasures, places a lot pressure on living this life to its fullest. If this life is spent in prison, then eternity is spent in prison; likewise if this life is spent doing what one loves to do, then eternity is spent doing what one loves. To make the idea more poignant, imagine that tomorrow were to be lived over and over. What would you do with that day?

While the idea of Eternal Recurrence is not to be taken seriously, it is the point that matters. It was Nietzsche's point as well. These ideas measure across a spectrum of views about this life. On one side, individuals are willing to sacrifice this life for an eternity of rewards, on the other; individuals are desperate to make the most of this life. In between are the Atheists who are encouraged to live life to its fullest, but without the burden of reliving mistakes.

What we believe should dictate how we live. For example, I find no greater hypocrisy than those attempting to get to heaven without living a life according to that premise. Furthermore, with everything on the line, I wonder why people do not invest more into making this decision. A recent book by Stephen Prothero's, entitled "Religious Literacy," noted that most Americans, despite being one the most religious countries in the world, are religiously illiterate. The book notes,

"Approximately 75 percent of adults, according to polls cited by Prothero, mistakenly believe the Bible teaches that "God helps those who help themselves." More than 10 percent think that Noah's wife was Joan of Arc. Only half can name even one of the four Gospels, and -- a finding that will surprise many -- evangelical Christians are only slightly more knowledgeable than their non-evangelical counterparts."

The truth is that most people conveniently configure their beliefs around their lives; affording themselves an afterlife in heaven without making the human sacrifice.

To me, it does not matter what one believes, only how one lives his or life. Whereas what it all means is merely speculation; this life is a certainly. I have made the argument that for all we know we are a fifth-grade experiment for some superior species, just as we, for example, experiment and study ant farms. Or maybe the "Big Bang" was nothing more than a chemistry project to one day be exterminated and washed down the sink as a matter of unimportance. Despite the diversity in opinion, none of us know what our death will bring. We can however, decide how to live our lives. And who knows, maybe we will have the chance to live it all over again- and again.

90. Philosophy- Any original thoughts?

Philosophy is an engaging academic discipline. While I have not studied it formally, I enjoy a wide range of philosophical teachings- from Socrates and Aristotle, to Hume, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and Kant. Fortunately through audio books, video lectures, the Internet and the classics themselves, the discipline is more available than ever to amateur philosophers.

Wikipedia defines philosophy this way: "Philosophy concerns itself with what is the best way to live (ethics), what sorts of things really exist and what are their true natures (metaphysics), what is to count as genuine knowledge (epistemology), and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic)." In a sense, philosophy is about thinking- thinking about everything. What could be more enjoyable?

However, the study of philosophy today is largely regulated to discussing and analyzing previous philosophers. And, of course, as time goes on, the ideas of ancient philosophers become antiquated either by the commonalty of the information or the advancement of science. Thus, without an influx of modern philosophical ideas, some, including myself, are wondering if philosophy, as a social influence, is becoming obsolete. Free Inquiry Magazine posed the same question a couple of years ago, and the following highlight some of the comments:

"There are roughly 9,000 Philosophy Ph.D.s in the country. More than 5,000 of them teach in four-year colleges...but few Americans would be able to recognize the name, much less the work, of a single one." -Peter Edidin, New York Times

"...it may be that cognitive science is poised to settle core debates over human nature that were formerly the philosophers' exclusive preserve." -Tom Flynn

"...every success of the scientific and technological endeavors weakens the hold of religion and its secular arm, namely philosophical idealism" -Mario Bunge

My concern is that modern philosophers spend too much time in their ivory towers, socializing in private clubs or narrowing their interest in studying constricted philosophical ideas or philosophers. They often seem to share a propensity for attempting to impress others with their archaic references rather than promoting an original idea. Furthermore, if philosophy encompasses some of life's most difficult questions and moral dilemmas, I wonder why there is not a greater social contribution from modern day philosophers.

Mario Bunge similarly asked, "Why do not moral philosophers devote more attention to the problems affecting billions of people- such as those of poverty and unemployment- than those that only affect a few such as abortion or euthanasia?" I think the question is a fair one. Perhaps the answer is that philosophers prefer to dwell into those questions that cannot be answered objectively. Philosophies concerning poverty can be tested, the moral basis for abortion, is relative, and cannot. Or, perhaps, issues such as abortion may offer greater attention than the plight of the poor.

In offering the question to members of a local philosophical club, I was disappointed in the lack of passion expressed. Some said philosopher professors worked too hard to contribute modern works; while others attempted to take credit for ideas such as "string theory" as a philosophical premise. It would be apt to dismiss both accounts. I find the idea that philosophy professors are busier than other publishing professors a ridiculous one. And while there is a matter of philosophy, which science cannot test, in string theory, it is an idea born from scientists- based on chemistry and physics, not Plato.

Certainly science has encroached on philosophy, as Bertrand Russell proposed, "Science is what you know, philosophy is what you don't know." Our scientific knowledge, from moral and social issues, to in depth disciplines such as neuroscience, has eroded that which may be pondered in relation to the human experience. Russell's proposal, thus, may be reworded to "the more we know, the less philosophy we need." Philosophy flourished in ancient Greece through the mid-nineteenth century, a period of time void of significant scientific influence.

I will not conclude that philosophy is obsolete, however I will concede that is has lost much of its influence on modern society. I think there is much to learn from the great philosophers of yesteryear. However, I would love to see some modern applications of those philosophical ideas. Our human experience has a number of social issues, including poverty and social injustice, which might benefit from fresh philosophical ideas.

Socrates used to walk the streets of ancient Greece asking "What is truth?" and "What is justice?" Modern philosophers just may need to return to their roots, step out of their ivory towers, and ask ordinary citizens, "Why is there poverty?" and "Why is there injustice?" I think they would find the undertaking rewarding, and if they do, we will keep the hemlock on the shelf.