Wall-e and 9 movie
-
Watch at least two of the following movies:
• Make a comprehensive reaction paper for the two movies in no less than
300 words each.
• Make a comparative ...
13 years ago
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
In view of the evil that human beings have wrought and continue to bring about, as well as in view of the destructive human caused global warming and abuse of natural resources on the planet earth, the question whether our world and the universe would be better off without human beings around, seems a legitimate one. Add to that that human beings are one, merely one, of the many living beings that originated in a long and complicated process of evolution … despite the fact that many philosophical and religious arguments have been constructed to ideologically underpin the idea that human beings are the focus and goal of the cosmos and of cosmic evolution. Should we not be more humble about ourselves, all the more so when we consider that amongst living beings, humans enjoy great abilities and capacities, not in the least their developed skills of thinking and of (self-)reflection which provide them with means to order their world? Is humility not appropriate when one realizes that one has received these gifts not for oneself, but as part of the cosmos and towards the service of the cosmos. In a way, it as is if the cosmos, over a long period of time and complicated processes of evolution and change, has given itself possibilities for further development.
Reflections as these point towards a balanced view on human beings as part of the world, the universe, the cosmos. Of course, human beings are special and precious – there are not many of us around in our own corner of the galaxy, as Stephen Hawking reminds us on a TED talk -, and that means that they have a role and a responsibility as part of the world. “As part of the world” cannot, I think, be replaced by “as goal of the world”. Overshooting on the side of the importance of human beings, has rightly been criticized – when human beings belong their sense of belonging to the universe and start to instrumentalize all other beings and resources just in view of themselves, then a destructive dynamism ensues that will, in the end, also lead to the destruction of the living conditions and possibilities of the human beings themselves. But, not recognizing the special role and capacities of human beings at the service of change in the universe and not allowing for human beings to be considered “something special”, deprives the world of a capacity it has given itself. It’s important to strike the balance well, when considering the role and place of human beings in the universe, when asking the question of anthropocentrism.
The issue is of great importance for philosophers and theologians, as well as for scientists. All of them are aware that our knowledge about the world – and if one wants to say: a kind of knowledge that the world reaches about itself – is human. But this capacity of knowledge and reflection seems to, so to say, separate the knowing subject from the known object, and it is highly tempting, as a consequence, to consider the knower, the human being, as something very special ánd separate from the rest. What I would plea for – and after re-reading Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s introduction to his Le phénomène humain, I have the impression that I am here in his good company – is to be aware of the human being as “special” but “not-separate” from the rest of the world, and even dependent on the whole rest of the world for survival. As a theologian, I would say it as follows: in creating the universe and allowing it to bring forth human beings, the Creator gave creation a potential for development and ran a risk. Our interwoven anthropologies and cosmologies should articulate this double perspective.
Through out the civilization process human beings have tried to organize themselves. Human well being goal has given rise to political system, economic system, social institutions. But all are governed by time bound action programmes which does not look beyond life time of maximum of two generations as private motive , time preference for present over future dominate. Non human biodiversity , their space in the ecosystem, role in human well being are least understood . This knowledge gap makes precautionary principle also fail to get defined and accepted. It is not technology, legislation or cooperation but education, ethics, that may lead to a smooth paradigm shift. Challenge is how to build that ecocentric goal which will embed in it anthropocentric goals. But theoretical solution will not be enough unless operational rules are laid out. Anthropocentric goals have led to human habitat design, mobility design etc. but without considering if that is in conflict with ecosystem’s well being. So challenge is how can the bigger picture be organised?
Many organizations profess to consider their employees their most important asset but all too often their policies, procedures and managerial practices contradict that view. Such contradictions and out-dated management practices inhibit improvements in productivity, sap motivation and reduce profit margins.
Managerial practices must keep pace with the changing workforce. The workforce of today is better educate and its value systems, career expectations, and basic work habits are drastically different from those of the previous generation. Unfortunately many managers have not changed their style to meet their needs.
Continued adherence to management techniques that may have been acceptable in the past is a serious impediment to any organization's ability to succeed in today's competitive environment. Employees are looking for more responsibility and more involvement in decisions - particularly those which directly affect them. The traditional authoritarian boss/subordinate relationship is not accepted by the majority of employees today. Worker resistance to outdated management results in minimal performance levels and causes organizations to forfeit required improvements in productivity.
A different focus on the relationship of the manager to those being managed can be done without "giving away the store" and compromising the manager's role to give direction. For companies to survive, it is essential that they update their approach to managing their most important asset - their people.
Many managers are familiar with, and were part of, the evolution of personnel management where new ideas in this field were seized upon as a solution to an existing problem or existing practices were modified and given new impetus. As a consequence, many facets of personnel management were introduced as individual programs.
This often resulted in a disjointed set of policies and procedures, which were not focussed on contributing to corporate goals and often had the opposite effect. In fact separate individual programs were sometimes contradictory in their stated objectives.
Such conflicting messages can have the effect of lowering employees' commitment to an organization, reducing their motivation and productivity. It can also be the cause of the loss of valued employees who are bright enough to see the contradictions and the adverse effects of misguided personnel management practices.
Personnel management is not the sole responsibility of the personnel department. It is the business of all managers. All levels of management from first line supervisors up to and including the CEO must be in tune with and manage their employees in a manner consistent with published practices, policies and procedures which are in harmony with the needs of the workforce. All functions related to people management must be co-ordinated, follow a common philosophy and be part of a process that effectively contributes to the achievement of the goals of the organization.
The only competitive advantage many organizations have is the ability to improve the performance of their people at all levels. Therefore HR management has to take on a whole new meaning and be regarded by senior management as a key component of the organization's activities and be given the requisite high profile in the development of its long term strategies.
In the years ahead , in addition to increasing business competitiveness, there will be increasing competition for a shrinking workforce. Employees will be attracted to organizations which practice imaginative and enlightened management and avoid" management by best-seller" which gives rise to the contradictions discussed earlier.
When revising, updating and redefining the roles of employees and development training plans, particular attention should be paid to the people at the lower levels . It is the customer service reps, drivers, order clerks and receptionists who frequently are the first interface with the customers. Their behaviour will reflect either positively or negatively on the organization and will be consistent with how they themselves are managed.
No matter how wise the CEO, or how great the product or service, the battle for customer loyalty is fought by the front-line troops - those employees at the lower levels of the organization structure. Hence it is critical that due care and consideration be given those employees when developing HR policies and training programs.
The development of an effective employee management plan is indeed a major undertaking. It requires the endorsement and active support at the CEO level. Although many managers claim to be experts in people management, there are probably fewer experts in HR management than in most other areas of business activity.
If organization leaders do not take a personal interest in the integration of human resources planning with other aspects of the planning cycle and develop a co-ordinated process, they will soon suffer the economic penalties. As Peter Drucker has pointed out, an irreversible change in the world economy has already taken place. To prosper in this new world order, high priority must be given to increased productivity through enlightened and effective people management.
http://jacqueshaers.wordpress.com/2008/09/06/human-beings-are-we-important/
http://www.icsu-visioning.org/2009/09/human-well-being-goal-and-operational-mechanism-motivate-transcend-anthropocentricism/
http://www.mansis.com/page1222.htm
Reflections as these point towards a balanced view on human beings as part of the world, the universe, the cosmos. Of course, human beings are special and precious – there are not many of us around in our own corner of the galaxy, as Stephen Hawking reminds us on a TED talk -, and that means that they have a role and a responsibility as part of the world. “As part of the world” cannot, I think, be replaced by “as goal of the world”. Overshooting on the side of the importance of human beings, has rightly been criticized – when human beings belong their sense of belonging to the universe and start to instrumentalize all other beings and resources just in view of themselves, then a destructive dynamism ensues that will, in the end, also lead to the destruction of the living conditions and possibilities of the human beings themselves. But, not recognizing the special role and capacities of human beings at the service of change in the universe and not allowing for human beings to be considered “something special”, deprives the world of a capacity it has given itself. It’s important to strike the balance well, when considering the role and place of human beings in the universe, when asking the question of anthropocentrism.
The issue is of great importance for philosophers and theologians, as well as for scientists. All of them are aware that our knowledge about the world – and if one wants to say: a kind of knowledge that the world reaches about itself – is human. But this capacity of knowledge and reflection seems to, so to say, separate the knowing subject from the known object, and it is highly tempting, as a consequence, to consider the knower, the human being, as something very special ánd separate from the rest. What I would plea for – and after re-reading Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s introduction to his Le phénomène humain, I have the impression that I am here in his good company – is to be aware of the human being as “special” but “not-separate” from the rest of the world, and even dependent on the whole rest of the world for survival. As a theologian, I would say it as follows: in creating the universe and allowing it to bring forth human beings, the Creator gave creation a potential for development and ran a risk. Our interwoven anthropologies and cosmologies should articulate this double perspective.
Through out the civilization process human beings have tried to organize themselves. Human well being goal has given rise to political system, economic system, social institutions. But all are governed by time bound action programmes which does not look beyond life time of maximum of two generations as private motive , time preference for present over future dominate. Non human biodiversity , their space in the ecosystem, role in human well being are least understood . This knowledge gap makes precautionary principle also fail to get defined and accepted. It is not technology, legislation or cooperation but education, ethics, that may lead to a smooth paradigm shift. Challenge is how to build that ecocentric goal which will embed in it anthropocentric goals. But theoretical solution will not be enough unless operational rules are laid out. Anthropocentric goals have led to human habitat design, mobility design etc. but without considering if that is in conflict with ecosystem’s well being. So challenge is how can the bigger picture be organised?
Many organizations profess to consider their employees their most important asset but all too often their policies, procedures and managerial practices contradict that view. Such contradictions and out-dated management practices inhibit improvements in productivity, sap motivation and reduce profit margins.
Managerial practices must keep pace with the changing workforce. The workforce of today is better educate and its value systems, career expectations, and basic work habits are drastically different from those of the previous generation. Unfortunately many managers have not changed their style to meet their needs.
Continued adherence to management techniques that may have been acceptable in the past is a serious impediment to any organization's ability to succeed in today's competitive environment. Employees are looking for more responsibility and more involvement in decisions - particularly those which directly affect them. The traditional authoritarian boss/subordinate relationship is not accepted by the majority of employees today. Worker resistance to outdated management results in minimal performance levels and causes organizations to forfeit required improvements in productivity.
A different focus on the relationship of the manager to those being managed can be done without "giving away the store" and compromising the manager's role to give direction. For companies to survive, it is essential that they update their approach to managing their most important asset - their people.
Many managers are familiar with, and were part of, the evolution of personnel management where new ideas in this field were seized upon as a solution to an existing problem or existing practices were modified and given new impetus. As a consequence, many facets of personnel management were introduced as individual programs.
This often resulted in a disjointed set of policies and procedures, which were not focussed on contributing to corporate goals and often had the opposite effect. In fact separate individual programs were sometimes contradictory in their stated objectives.
Such conflicting messages can have the effect of lowering employees' commitment to an organization, reducing their motivation and productivity. It can also be the cause of the loss of valued employees who are bright enough to see the contradictions and the adverse effects of misguided personnel management practices.
Personnel management is not the sole responsibility of the personnel department. It is the business of all managers. All levels of management from first line supervisors up to and including the CEO must be in tune with and manage their employees in a manner consistent with published practices, policies and procedures which are in harmony with the needs of the workforce. All functions related to people management must be co-ordinated, follow a common philosophy and be part of a process that effectively contributes to the achievement of the goals of the organization.
The only competitive advantage many organizations have is the ability to improve the performance of their people at all levels. Therefore HR management has to take on a whole new meaning and be regarded by senior management as a key component of the organization's activities and be given the requisite high profile in the development of its long term strategies.
In the years ahead , in addition to increasing business competitiveness, there will be increasing competition for a shrinking workforce. Employees will be attracted to organizations which practice imaginative and enlightened management and avoid" management by best-seller" which gives rise to the contradictions discussed earlier.
When revising, updating and redefining the roles of employees and development training plans, particular attention should be paid to the people at the lower levels . It is the customer service reps, drivers, order clerks and receptionists who frequently are the first interface with the customers. Their behaviour will reflect either positively or negatively on the organization and will be consistent with how they themselves are managed.
No matter how wise the CEO, or how great the product or service, the battle for customer loyalty is fought by the front-line troops - those employees at the lower levels of the organization structure. Hence it is critical that due care and consideration be given those employees when developing HR policies and training programs.
The development of an effective employee management plan is indeed a major undertaking. It requires the endorsement and active support at the CEO level. Although many managers claim to be experts in people management, there are probably fewer experts in HR management than in most other areas of business activity.
If organization leaders do not take a personal interest in the integration of human resources planning with other aspects of the planning cycle and develop a co-ordinated process, they will soon suffer the economic penalties. As Peter Drucker has pointed out, an irreversible change in the world economy has already taken place. To prosper in this new world order, high priority must be given to increased productivity through enlightened and effective people management.
http://jacqueshaers.wordpress.com/2008/09/06/human-beings-are-we-important/
http://www.icsu-visioning.org/2009/09/human-well-being-goal-and-operational-mechanism-motivate-transcend-anthropocentricism/
http://www.mansis.com/page1222.htm
Labels: Human
0 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
