Connect with us

Red Pill

News

Why colonizing Mars is a waste of time

Humanity’s problems are not problems of technology they are behavioral.

Published

on

141 Views

In recent times well known figures such as Elon Musk (of Spacex) and the late Prof. Stephen Hawking have made highly publicised comments about space exploration and the necessity for humanity to colonise other planets (such as Mars) in order to ensure human survival in the future.

While such luminaries may well be right in suggesting that humanity is more than able to bring about its own destruction, I do not believe that attempting to populate other environments is the solution to the problem of human survival. Apart from the great challenges that face those attempting such a feat, the fundamental problems of human behaviour are still likely to apply in any locations additional to our own planet.

Before looking at humanity’s innate problems and our struggle to overcome them, let us consider the immensity of any attempt to colonize the Moon or a nearby planet such as Mars. The Moon is much closer to Earth than Mars (240,000 miles as opposed to at least 35 million miles) so it would obviously be easier to try a settlement closer to home first.

Despite its relatively convenient location, the Moon offers much greater challenges than Mars in many respects. For starters the gravity on the Moon is only about 17% of that on Earth, whereas on Mars it’s not far off 40% of that on Earth. The effects of long-term exposure to low gravity are quite serious with loss of bone mass (like osteoporosis), muscle wasting, deterioration of liver function and possible damage to eyesight. So far, the longest anyone has spent in space is 438 days, so it is hard to gauge the negative effects of spending several years or decades in a low gravity situation. Long-term existence in low gravity would undoubtedly make returning to Earth difficult or even impossible and there might also be implications for life expectancy for continual living in a low gravity environment.

Temperature is a significant problem for any would-be colonists, particularly on the Moon, which has no atmosphere. Daytime periods, which last for approximately half of the 28 day lunar cycle, can see surface temperatures of over 120 Celsius. For the other half of the cycle the surface is plunged into darkness and temperatures of around -150 Celsius. Obviously prolonged periods of extreme cold (and darkness) or extreme heat would make creating a stable environment for humans very difficult. Assuming that it could be done, one would still need to provide an environment that is suitable for growing food – with no water, no atmosphere and extended periods of cold and darkness it does not look very feasible.

The situation on Mars does not look quite so bleak, despite the fact that it would currently take at least 150 days to get there. In the Martian summer temperatures at the equator can reach an encouraging 20 Celsius, although generally temperatures only make it above freezing for a very short portion of the year (of 687 days). At night temperatures can plummet to -100 Celsius, even in summer, due to the thinness of the atmosphere. Mercifully the nights are similar in duration to those on Earth as the Martian day is marginally more than on earth and the axis tilt is only 2 degrees higher. Although this is a lot more inviting than the Moon, average temperature is around -55 Celsius and daytime temperatures rarely creep above the freezing point of water.

All this makes creating a human environment difficult, especially given that the Martian year is nearly twice as long as here on Earth and combined with its off-centre elliptical orbit, severely low temperatures outside of summer can be very long lasting. If it’s going to be difficult to keep warm for humans, that could be a more dramatic problem for plant life which we would need to cultivate to feed us. Plants need exposure to sunlight in order to stay alive and so would need to be grown in some kind of greenhouse type structure in order to allow heat and light to reach them. This would not be so great at night unless some form of effective insulation could be provided to stop the contents of the ‘greenhouse’ from freezing.

For any long-term situation on Mars it would be essential for humans to be able to grow their own food. The atmosphere is 96% carbon dioxide on Mars which is fine for plants but deadly for humans. Unfortunately, like us, plants need oxygen (albeit a tiny amount), which is sadly lacking on Mars. Apart from the surface being too cold for plants the air pressure is about 100 times lower than on earth, what affect that would have is unknown. Assuming there are no pathogens in the air, external carbon dioxide could be brought into the closed environment but oxygen would need to be brought from earth or extracted from the frozen polar ice. If this could be done and similar air pressure to earth created, in time it should be possible for plants to create a stable ecosystem that provides sufficient oxygen for a human colony although many hundreds of plants or huge amounts of algae would be needed to provide for just one person.

Initially oxygen would have to be brought to the colony or obtained from water by splitting the oxygen from hydrogen and this would not be easy as water is known to exist at the frozen poles.

Growing plants for food and oxygen would be essential for any colony however it’s not going to be simple. Plants would need light but they would also need to be protected from harmful rays (by filters) that penetrate the thin Martian atmosphere. Plants need a growing medium, usually soil, and nutrients but both are rather lacking on Mars. There is no organic soil on Mars, it’s more like sand and although many of the right minerals do exist there, the proportions are tiny compared to what is typical on Earth – artificial fertilizers would be needed.

The soil on Mars is so thin and dry that a huge amount of it ends up as dust in the atmosphere. With rapid temperature changes a great deal of wind is generated, with maximum speeds of around 60mph. Dust storms would be a major problem to overcome on Mars as, on occasion, they engulf almost the whole planet and can last for weeks or even months at a time. High levels of dust in the atmosphere decrease light and heat penetration, just like a volcanic eruption can on Earth. On Earth such incidents are usually localized and short-lived. Severe eruptions in our past caused crop failure and famines on Earth; imagine how a dust storm of months on Mars could impact solar energy production and the photosynthesis of plants.

One particularly important component for survival, that I have barely mentioned yet, is water. The Moon has no water, but there is some present on Mars – in tiny amounts in the atmosphere and as ice at the poles. It would not be possible to transport sufficient water to another planet to provide for a colony so it would need to be separated from any frozen carbon dioxide at the poles and brought to the colony and melted. In the nineteenth century, before refrigeration was invented, huge blocks of ice were transported mostly by ship from northerly regions and sold where-ever people could afford to buy it. So, in theory, ice could be transported from polar regions on Mars to a colony (presumably near the warmer equator) but the logistics of long-distance transportation on a planet with no breathable atmosphere and severe dust storms would not be easy to overcome.

All that I have mentioned so far are just the basic problems of establishing even a tiny community on another world. Assuming that all of the huge problems of creating a workable environment could be overcome we have made no allowance for the inevitable complexities of human existence. Apart from the input of energy of the sun, we live in essentially a closed system that can provide everything that humanity needs to live. We do not need to find, bring or manufacture air, soil, water, plant and animal life in order to survive as it is already here.

Despite having the good fortune to exist on a planet that can provide perfectly for our needs humanity has had and continues to have great difficulty in living in a sustainable way. Humans have an unfortunate tendency to over-consume resources, damage life-sustaining parts of the environment (water, air, soil, other species) and also compete violently with each other and other life forms. In the past we have found that the easiest solution to our problems was to move somewhere else that had not been fully exploited. A small number of isolated communities do continue to live in a sustainable way, but they are under threat from the proliferation of destructive modern living patterns.

Until fairly recently the world seemed like a huge place, inexhaustible and indestructible. However, with a world population of close to 8 billion people and increasing demand for finite resources we are all becoming aware of the dire impact humanity is having on our planet. Of course, the possibility of our destruction is one of the main justifications for attempting to colonize somewhere else.

If we had another Earth to migrate to, it might seem justifiable to move there and start again, although it would not necessarily change the way that we behave – in fact the sudden lack of need to change our ways might ensure that it would not happen. The fact is that we do not have another Earth and trying to create a long-term livable environment somewhere else could prove to be impossible.

Even if it were possible to create a colony on Mars in the decades to come, how many people could it sustain? Without a constant influx of resources to expand a colony of say 100 people, a tiny speck of humanity would be sustainable. The scale of creating a Martian colony of a million people (which is a tiny fraction of humanity) is so daunting that it really is in the realms of science-fiction. Even if such a colony were possible, how would we overcome the continued human tendencies of over-populating, degrading our environment and fighting amongst ourselves? Such behaviour is dangerous for humanity and the world here on Earth, one can only imagine how dangerous it would be for a community in a highly restricted and vulnerable alien environment.

Despite all of the damage that we have done to the planet, which we are only beginning to understand now, we still live on a beautiful and habitable world. Running away to another planet is not going solve the problems of humanity as our fundamental problem is not of technology or resources but of our behaviour. If we insist on trying to colonize Mars or anywhere else we are liable to run into the same problems, created by our behaviour patterns, including our chronic problem of military conflict that shows no sign of ending.

While we are learning that we need to change and learning new and better ways of doing things we still have a very long way to go. What knowledge, energy and resources we have should be concentrated on solving the problems of living here, on this planet that is ideally suited to us. The thought of being stuck here if we do manage to fatally damage Earth is rather terrifying, but perhaps a lack of other viable options might be what saves us. Scientific exploration and expansion of our understanding of the universe is a benefit to humanity, but it should not be used to offer false hope to a species that could be faced with self annihilation. With the possibility of escaping to somewhere else removed we are left with only one realistic option – finding a way out of the mess we have created.

The huge amount of money, time, energy and physical resources that is allocated for or currently being used for space exploration and colonization would be better expended on dealing with the plethora of problems that exist on Earth. We do not yet have the technology to make colonizing Mars or other places a reality, but we do have the technology to fix our problems here on Earth.

The know-how for producing renewable energy has been around for decades and the technology has improved with more and better techniques coming on line in recent years. Nuclear energy is dangerous, potentially explosive and produces huge amounts of radioactive waste – a problem that could haunt us for centuries. This is just one problem that humanity has failed to address properly and is long overdue being solved for the good of future generations. The technology for solving this and much of the pollution problems, including plastic waste, already exists but is very expensive at the moment.

Much of the world’s problems such as environmental degradation, over population and poor resource distribution, economic and physical warfare can be changed simply by changing how we think and do things and don’t necessarily need advanced technology – just the will to do it and allocation of resources. Humanity’s problems are not problems of technology they are behavioral and that is down to our failure to mature as a species. While we continue to put conflict, greed, self-interest and short-term goals above cooperation, consideration and the long-term future of all life, running away to another planet is not going to save us.

You can read more of Luke’s work at lukeeastwood.com.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

The mainstream media does not want you to think [Video]

It is difficult to tell if recent reports like this really represent a realization for the media, but this interview rings true nonetheless.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Several recent stories on Fox, Breitbart, and here on The Duran all address the increasingly obvious bias of the mainstream media with regard to news reporting. We discussed on The Duran how Chris Wallace of Fox News refused to hear details from White House Senior Policy Adviser Stephen Miller about why the recently declared National Emergency is in fact legitimate.

This piece revealed that the media is very actively trying to control and direct what information they want the public to hear, rather than truly reporting the news, or interviewing people to get their takes on things, and to perhaps fully interview all sides in a controversy and then let the American public decide for themselves what to think.

This used to exist in more gentlemanly debate programs in some fashion, such as with the TV debate program Point Counterpoint, but now, the bias of the reporter or of the network is the primary operator in determining the outcome of the interview, rather than the information that is available about the story.

This has helped create a news and information culture in the United States that is truly insane. As examples, consider these paraphrased headlines, all occurring within the last few years:

All of these are probably familiar to most readers. Many of them are still repeated and acted on as if they were real. But the articles we linked to behind most of these ledes are examples of the disproof, usually 100% disproof, of these. They are hoaxes, or reports built on circumstantial evidence without any proof, or in the worst cases, pure slander and propaganda.

One reporter for CBS news, 60 Minutes anchor Lara Logan, discussed this in an interview with retired Navy SEAL Mike Ritland, for his own podcast program, which was picked up by the MediaIte website. The video of her interview is quite lengthy but starting at about 02:14:00 there is a particular segment that the MediaIte writers called to attention. We include this segment in the video.

PARENTAL ADVISORY: The video is unrestricted in regards to language and there is some profanity. Parents, please listen first before letting your children watch this video.

A major point Mrs Logan makes here is that 85% of the employ of the mainstream media in the USA consist of registered Democrats. She also speaks forcefully against the use of stereotypes, and suggests the best place to start is actual facts. This means that most journalists are coming into this work with a bias, which is not set aside for the sake of the facts of the story.

Probably the most key point comes at 2:18:20 in the video is how Lara Logan is taught the way to discern whether or not someone in journalism is lying to you:

“Someone very smart told me a long time ago, that, ‘how do you know you are being lied to?’, ‘how do you know you are being manipulated?’, ‘how do you know there is something not right with the coverage?’, when they simplify it all, and there is no gray. There is no gray. It’s all one way.

“Well, life isn’t like that. If it doesn’t match real life, it is probably not. Something is wrong.”

Lara Logan then pointed out the comparison of the mainstream media’s constant negative coverage of President Trump against the reality of his work, that, regardless of one’s own personal bias, it does not match that everything the President does is bad. She also highlighted the point that one’s personal views should not come into how to report a news story.

Yet in our days, it not only comes into the story, it drives the narrative for which the story just becomes an example of “proof” that the narrative is “true.” 

Tucker Carlson talked vividly about the same characteristic on his program Monday night on Fox News.

He points out that the 3,000 yearly shooting in Chicago get very little news coverage, but that is because these are not as “useful” as the Jussie Smollett story is.

This is an example of using an event or a person’s actions to satisfy a politically biased propaganda narrative, rather than report the news.

This is not occasional, as the list of news headlines given above show. This is a constant practice across most of the mainstream media. Probably no one who gives interviews on the major networks is exempt, for even Mr. Carlson often resorts to cornering tactics when interviewing liberals in an apparent attempt to make the liberal look ridiculous and the point of view he espouses to look vindicated through that ridiculousness.

While this is emotionally invigorating for the Carlson fan who wants to see him “eviscerate” the liberal, it is very bad journalism. In fact, it is not journalism at all; it is sensationalism in a nasty sense.

It also insults the viewer, perhaps without them knowing it, because such reporting is the same as telling the viewer “WE ARE IN CONTROL!” and that the viewer must simply go along with the narrative given.

It is very bad when what should be information reporting, policy discussion, or debate becomes infected with this. Ideas, the product of (hopefully) rational and discursive reasoning, are pushed aside by pure emotion and mass sensationalism. Put metaphorically, it is the new look of bread and circuses, keeping the masses entertained while anything else might be happening.

Sometimes the motive for this is not so sinister. After all, we have a 24 hour news cycle now. In the 1970’s we didn’t. And in those times, the calibre of news reported was much higher. Reporting was far more careful. The Pulitzer Prize winners  Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein did their incredible exposé on the doings of President Richard Nixon under the directorship of the Washington Post editor, which demanded triple-checking of everything, making sure that all information was factual, accurate and genuine. While the story was indeed sensational, more importantly, it was true.

Now we have a lot of sensation, but very little to zero truth. As an example, every one of the ledes linked above is not proven to be true, in fact the truth in many of these stories is the opposite of what the headline says.

This would not be much of a problem if the media lies were not absorbed and reacted on by their readers, listeners and viewers. But the fact is that there are a significant number of consumers of mainstream media news that do react to it. The Covington High School incident showed this in perhaps the most frightening way, with open calls for violence against teenagers and high school students, requested by professionals, people that are supposed to be adults, such as Kathy Griffin, Reza Aslan, and GQ writer Nathaniel Friedman, who called for these kids to be “doxxed”, which as we reported, is an action that can be deadly.

We are in the times where the love of many has gone cold, and all is about expediency and selfishness. While there are a few outlets and a few journalists that still retain interest in recording and disseminating the truth, the reality is that most of what is out there is tainted by the drive for attention and sensationalism.

The media that engages in such behavior is actually hurting people, rather than informing and helping them.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Honest liberal says he is NOT INTERESTED in policy explanation [Video]

When news anchors try to act like prosecuting attorneys instead of actually interviewing people, we all lose.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

One characteristic of modern-day television “news reporting” is that the political news is not truly reported. Rather, if the interviewer disagrees with the one being interviewed, the session turns into interviewer grandstanding. Regrettably, this tactic is used by liberal and conservative journalists alike. However, it is usually not admitted, as the interviewer usually chooses to say things like “I want the truth” when he or she really wants to force the other person to admit the correctness of the interviewer.

Over the weekend, Fox News’ Chris Wallace grandstanded against White House Senior Policy Adviser Stephen Miller. However, Chris Wallace at least was honest about his wish:

STEPHEN MILLER: … At a fundamental level, we could go down into the details, and you know, Chris, I can go down into details as much as you want to, but the bottom line is this…

CHRIS WALLACE: Please don’t! (laughs)

This is a big problem. The responsibility of any good journalist is to get full and accurate information about a given topic. Isn’t it?

Not in the press of our day. Chris Wallace is a valued personality for the Fox News Channel. As a former CBS anchor for 60 Minutes, Wallace brings a well-known face and voice of the mainstream media to Fox, even though he is quite liberal politically, as are many in the entertainment and information professions.

The problem is that the topic here, the facts justifying President Trump’s National Emergency declaration on Friday over the still permeable US-Mexico border, are present in abundance. But Mr. Wallace did not want to know these facts, or perhaps worse, he did not want to let his viewing audience know this information, so he tried to prevent Mr. Miller from talking about those details.

Stephen Miller, thankfully, was not having it. He insisted on giving a full and informed response to Mr. Wallace’s questions, even though Wallace did not want to hear any information.

The rest of the interview is comprised of Mr. Miller trying to dissemimate information and Mr. Wallace trying to block it and refuse it in order to sustain his own preferred narrative.

Chris Wallace’ point of view is that the President called a National Emergency for no good reason, and that President Trump is breaking the law by appropriating money for the Border Wall, something which only the House of Representatives can do, legislatively.

However, the point of view expressed by Mr. Wallace and President Trump is that as Chief Executive of the United States of America, the President is responsible to preserve the country from invasion. For the President, the never-ending waves of illegals coming into the country and not being deported, but rather, released into the US pending trials that they often never attend years later, amounts to a slow invasion.

Strictly speaking, President Trump is correct. The illegals are not (usually) armed representatives of a foreign power, but neither do they become American citizens. Many of them take advantage of generous provisions and loopholes in the law (Mexico teaches them how to do this!) and they therefore earn money but usurp the country of resources.

It has been exceedingly difficult to move the level of interest in stopping illegal immigration in the US. Rush Limbaugh rightly stated in his program on Friday, February 15, what the problem is, and we include some of the details (as we should) for why Mr. Limbaugh says what he says here:

There is a limit on a number of detainees. There is limit on how much of border and fence can be built. There’s a limit on what kind can be built. There’s a limit on modernization. This bill is filled with congressional edicts telling the president of the United States what he cannot do. Now, it authorizes $23 billion for Homeland Security, but it specifies $1.375 billion for fencing and bordering.

But there are so many limits on this as to make this practically irrelevant — by design and on purpose, because I firmly believe that what members of Congress (both parties) actually want with this bill is to send a message that nothing is ever gonna happen as long as Donald Trump is President. The attempt in this budget deal is to send a message to you Trump voters that it’s worthless voting for him, that it is a waste of time supporting him, because they are demonstrating that he can’t get anything done.

This is Pelosi in the House and Schumer in the Senate getting together, because they know when it comes to illegal immigration, these parties are unified, folks. For the most part, the Republicans and Democrats are for open borders. There are exceptions on the Republican side. But there are a lot of Republicans that don’t want Trump to succeed even now. There are a lot of Republicans just after he was inaugurated who don’t want him to succeed. So they come up with a piece of legislation here that is outrageous.

It is outrageous in its denial of the existence of a genuine emergency at the border. They don’t care. They will deal with whatever mess they create. They don’t care how bad it gets because in their world, the only mess is Donald Trump — and since the Russian effort and the Mueller effort and everything else related to that has failed to get his approval numbers down (and that has been the objective from the get-go), this is the latest effort, and it won’t be long… You mark my words on this.

There is an emergency at the US-Mexico border. Last year almost half a million people were apprehended by the Border Patrol and ICE. Many, if not most, though, are still in the United States. They were not all sent back. Some were, and some of them probably have come back in yet again. The fact that our nation’s borders are unrestricted in this manner is absolute folly.

The more American people know the details about what is actually happening at the border, the more they support the wall’s construction and President Trump’s policies. We have seen evidence for this in polling even by liberal network outlets. President Trump managed to call attention to this topic and bring it into the center of the discussion of US domestic policy. Rasmussen reported that the level of approval of Trump’s work to close the border is high – at 59 percent, with only 33 percent disapproving.

The President made this an issue. Chris Wallace tried in his own program to deflect and dissuade information from being brought to the attention of the American viewers who watch his program.

This is not journalism. It is reinforcement of propaganda on Mr. Wallace’s part, defense against facts, and an unwillingness to let the American people have information and therefore to think for themselves.

Unfortunately, such practices are not limited to Mr. Wallace. Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and others all utilize this form of questioning, and it is a shame, because the news reporter no longer reports the news. When a talking head on TV or radio places himself or herself as the Gatekeeper to allow or prevent information from reaching the American people, this is highly presumptuous, ego driven and almost always, dishonest.

Worse, such an approach reinforces this message to American people: “You cannot think for yourself. It is too hard, so we will do your thinking for you. Trust us!”

This style of journalism became more and more popular over, under the “appearance” of “tough questioning.” However the usual course of “tough questioning” is ideologically aligned with whatever the journalist thinks, and not at all about what is actually important. Chris Wallace is notorious for doing this with conservatives, and he does aggravate them, but he reduces interviews to an argument between the journalist and the person interviewed.

And usually, this is not the story. This was made absolutely clear in the interview with Stephen Miller, even to the point that Mr. Wallace actually voiced the request, “please don’t (give us all the specifics of this issue.)” 

Good journalism respects the fact that different people have different points of view. Agreement or disagreement with these points is what Op-Ed writing is for. But when Op-Ed is treated as hard fact journalism, we all lose.

We included the whole interview video from the beginning here so that the viewer can take in the whole course of this discussion. It is well worth watching. And as it is well-worth watching, it is also well-worth each person’s own personal consideration. People are smarter than the media would like us to be.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

“This is America” reveals a shocking vision of the United States

The Grammy Award winning Song and Record of the Year feature the very darkest vision of what America has become.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

The Grammy Awards are the second of the three most significant musical achievement awards in the United States. Two of the anticipated awards that many fans of this event look forward to learning are the Song of the Year and the Record of the Year.

The Song of the Year is awarded to the songwriters of a given song, where the Record of the Year goes to the artists, producers and engineers involved in crafting the recording (the “record”) of a song. Both categories are huge and both usually go to an artist or organization responsible for a pop song.

It also happens to be that usually the song that is picked is beautiful and in most cases, reflects the character of beauty (whether in music or lyrics or both) for that year.

This year was quite different. Both awards went to Donald Glover, a.k.a. “Childish Gambino” for his song This is America.

This song features a radically different tone than previous winners going back for many years. Though rap remixes are usually less musical, the Grammy winners among these mixes have nevertheless retained some relatively positive, or at least attractive, aspect.

This is America is very different, especially when watched with its video.

Musically, it is genius, though the genius appears to have gone mad. Glover paints a picture of some very positive segments in American life, but then destroys it with his audible form and message that says absolutely nothing positive, but even more so – it doesn’t make sense unless one knows the context.

That context is revealed in the video with frightening images: someone getting their brains blown out (we see the blood fly), a gospel choir shot up with an automatic rifle while they were singing, and cannabis, front and center, being smoked by the artist himself.

This is America?

For Glover, this song and others on his album do seem to reflect that point of view.  Feels like Summer, one of Glover’s other recent songs, also reflects this sense of hopelessness, though it is far more musically consistent. The video gives the most clear contextual information that one could ask for, and while the video is not violent, it features degradation in society, even though the people depicted appear to be trying to make the best of their life situations.

The image Mr. Glover paints of America is a far cry from that which was known to most Americans only twenty years ago, and in fact, in many parts of the country where cannabis is still illegal there is a corresponding sense of positivity in life that is absent in Childish Gambino’s California-esque view of life.

There is a massive change that is taking place in American society. Our music and art reflects this change, and it sometimes even helps drive that change.

The United States of today is at a crossroads.

How many times have we read or heard THAT statement before?  But does it not seem so now? The attempt of identity politics to separate our nation into groups that must somehow fight for their own relevance against other groups is not the vision of the United States only twenty years ago.

Further, the normalization of themes such as drug-use and racism, the perpetuation of one in reality and the other as a mythological representation of how life “really is” in the US is radically bizarre.

In discussions with people who do not live in the United States, we found that sometimes they believed that white-on-black racism really was happening in America, because the media in the US pumps this information out in a constant stream, often with people like Donald Trump as the scapegoat.

But it is not true. Anyone in America’s new “accused class” of white, Christian, European-descent males (and some women who are not feminists), will note that they are not racist, and in fact, they feel persecuted for their existence under the new mantra of “white privilege.”

But it does not matter what they say. The media pumps the message it wants to, and with such coverage it is easy to get to halfway believing it: I know I am not this way, but I guess things are getting pretty bad elsewhere because all of those people seem to be getting this way…

This is the narrative the press promulgates, but upon conversations with people in “those places” we find that it is not true for them, either, and that they may in fact be thinking this is true about us.

Made in America is a visionary song and video. However, the vision is not a dream; it is nothing that anyone in the country would sincerely hope for. Even in Donald Glover’s case – as one of Hollywood’s hottest actors, and as a big success in music, he is far from being one of the “boys in the ‘hood.” In fact, Time Magazine in 2017 named him one of the world’s 100 most influential people.

Certainly his musical work creates a powerful influence, but it also must raise questions, with the main ones being:

  • Are we really like this?
  • Is this what we really want to be as a country?
  • Is this the kind of image we want our children in the US to adopt?

In fact, if Mr. Glover’s work was viewed with care (rather than just as something that is “cool” because the media says it is), it might help us steer away from the cliff that many Americans are in fact heading towards.

We have elected not to link to the video because it is too disturbing for children. It is even too disturbing for many adults. For that reason we are not making it one-click-easy to get to.

Parents reading this opinion piece would do well to screen the video by themselves without the kids around first, before deciding what they want to do. Even though the video is probably something that they have already seen, the parents still stand as the guides and guardians for their children through all the perils of growing up.

These times call for great guardians indeed.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending