(no subject)
So, in English class today we had to write these essays for the Core 40 test, which the state grades. Apparently this test measures your skill level and determines if you graduate / pass English or not. So on one of my essays I was given this quote, with instructions to state why I agreed or disagreed.
"Most of the luxuries, and many of the so-called comforts of life, are not only not indispensable, but positive hindrances to the elevation of man." - Henry David Thoreau
After about 10-15 minutes of typing interrupted by sporatic giggling on my part, I submitted to the Indiana Board of Education the following
Coming from a man who thought it was a good idea to live on a pond for weeks on end, this quote obviously has no validity whatsoever. Henry David Thoreau was an idealistic tree-hugger who was out of touch with modern society. Many of life's comforts and luxuries are essential to the American way of life and are in no way dispensable. Big business runs this country, just ask President Bush. The industries that produce these comforts are essential to the American economy, and are therefore not hindrances, but are actually beneficial.
Our economy thrives on a laissez-faire attitude, and who is Thoreau to question the necessity of the plethora of vibrantly-colored post-it notes that line corporate wastebaskets or the manufacturing of an equally aesthetically pleasing lava lamp? Industry would die if it produced nothing but the essentials, because the US industry is too efficient and powerful to produce nothing but such frivolous exports as food and basic needs. It is simply not practical for Thoreau to call for all of us to move back into the forests and live a primitive life of hunting and gathering. Our society is too populous and too advanced for this kind of an attitude. If the American people disposed of all luxuries, it would destroy the economy and the very structure of our country. Thoreau's ideas are obviously influenced by Communistic teachings, as he calls for the destruction of our capitalistic system and the erection of a society where nature takes precedence over mankind's indulgences.
Thoreau's statement is also drastically unrealistic, because there is no feasible way that he could persuade anyone to cast aside their cushy lifestyle in exchange for a so-called "elevation of mankind." Our society is too far past the event horizon of societal change when it comes to consumerism. Extremist, idealistic, thinkers are never well-recieved by society until many years after their death, and it simply hasn't been long enough yet for any of Thoreau's ideas to be taken seriously. If anything, we have taken a step farther from his ideology with the massive industrialization and conumerism that has developed in the US over the last 50 years.
Another aspect that makes Thoreau's statement false is that many of the comforts and luxuries of mankind are not hindrances at all. They improve living standard and make people happier. Comforts do not hold people back, but in actuality allow them to transcend to a higher plane of thinking because their needs have been met. In accordance with Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs, a person cannot become self-actualized until all needs on lower levels have been satisfied. Therefore, the satisfaction that luxuries bring to humans allows them to expand their minds and reach beyond their normal thresholds, i.e. marijuana and other similar substances.
In short, Thoreau's ideas are ridiculous and unrealistic. He had no sense of what superfluous industry does for the US economy, and therefore his opinion was wrong and mine is right. Luxuries actually cause humans to expand beyond their horizons, whereas living on the bare essentials does not allow for the same kind of free time for creative thought. When was the last time a wild man on the pond, casting aside all comforts of modern life, came up with a revolutionary invention? Yeah, that's what I thought.
"Most of the luxuries, and many of the so-called comforts of life, are not only not indispensable, but positive hindrances to the elevation of man." - Henry David Thoreau
After about 10-15 minutes of typing interrupted by sporatic giggling on my part, I submitted to the Indiana Board of Education the following
Coming from a man who thought it was a good idea to live on a pond for weeks on end, this quote obviously has no validity whatsoever. Henry David Thoreau was an idealistic tree-hugger who was out of touch with modern society. Many of life's comforts and luxuries are essential to the American way of life and are in no way dispensable. Big business runs this country, just ask President Bush. The industries that produce these comforts are essential to the American economy, and are therefore not hindrances, but are actually beneficial.
Our economy thrives on a laissez-faire attitude, and who is Thoreau to question the necessity of the plethora of vibrantly-colored post-it notes that line corporate wastebaskets or the manufacturing of an equally aesthetically pleasing lava lamp? Industry would die if it produced nothing but the essentials, because the US industry is too efficient and powerful to produce nothing but such frivolous exports as food and basic needs. It is simply not practical for Thoreau to call for all of us to move back into the forests and live a primitive life of hunting and gathering. Our society is too populous and too advanced for this kind of an attitude. If the American people disposed of all luxuries, it would destroy the economy and the very structure of our country. Thoreau's ideas are obviously influenced by Communistic teachings, as he calls for the destruction of our capitalistic system and the erection of a society where nature takes precedence over mankind's indulgences.
Thoreau's statement is also drastically unrealistic, because there is no feasible way that he could persuade anyone to cast aside their cushy lifestyle in exchange for a so-called "elevation of mankind." Our society is too far past the event horizon of societal change when it comes to consumerism. Extremist, idealistic, thinkers are never well-recieved by society until many years after their death, and it simply hasn't been long enough yet for any of Thoreau's ideas to be taken seriously. If anything, we have taken a step farther from his ideology with the massive industrialization and conumerism that has developed in the US over the last 50 years.
Another aspect that makes Thoreau's statement false is that many of the comforts and luxuries of mankind are not hindrances at all. They improve living standard and make people happier. Comforts do not hold people back, but in actuality allow them to transcend to a higher plane of thinking because their needs have been met. In accordance with Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs, a person cannot become self-actualized until all needs on lower levels have been satisfied. Therefore, the satisfaction that luxuries bring to humans allows them to expand their minds and reach beyond their normal thresholds, i.e. marijuana and other similar substances.
In short, Thoreau's ideas are ridiculous and unrealistic. He had no sense of what superfluous industry does for the US economy, and therefore his opinion was wrong and mine is right. Luxuries actually cause humans to expand beyond their horizons, whereas living on the bare essentials does not allow for the same kind of free time for creative thought. When was the last time a wild man on the pond, casting aside all comforts of modern life, came up with a revolutionary invention? Yeah, that's what I thought.