Asia Journalist

Slavery in the Roman and Aztec Empires

Featuring the Literature Essay for- Kindred, by Octivia E. Butler “ During human history, many countries made use of slavery. In historical times, slavery was ubiquitous around the world. Slaves were people who worked for their masters, but the specific systems of slavery were very different. In some cases, people were forced to become slaves because they were captured or punished. In other systems, people actually sold themselves into slavery to pay debts or because they couldn’t afford to live.” In this essay, I will compare Roman and Aztec slavery. To begin with, there are differences in how the Romans and Aztecs obtained and used their slaves. When Romans captured enemy soldiers in war, they used them as slaves to build or farm. Roman slaves were also bought by their masters. The Aztecs also got slaves by capturing soldiers from war, but people could also voluntarily become slaves by selling themselves or selling their children. The slaves in the Aztec Empire were used for farming, building, breaking materials to build things, and mining resources. In summary, the Romans and Aztecs both captured soldiers in war, but they made them do different jobs and work.

Furthermore, the Romans and Aztecs treated their slaves differently. The Romans treated some of their slaves badly and some of them well. Some Romans thought they should treat slaves well, so that they would be motivated to do more work than slaves who were treated awfully. Likewise, the Aztecs generally treated their slaves well, but sometimes they sacrificed their slaves to their gods. They mostly sacrificed enemy soldiers and criminal slaves. However, the Romans mostly did not sacrifice their slaves to the gods. The Aztecs had laws that said that a master must give their slaves food, shelter, and medical treatment. When Aztec slaves gave birth to children, the master should also take care of the children and give them food and shelter. In addition, Aztec slaves could buy their own slaves. This meant that the slaves who were also masters could force their slaves to do their work which their original master gave. These slaves could therefore rest and live comfortably without any work. Their master would care for them, so they lived comfortable lives. Additionally, Roman and Aztec slaves were freed differently. Roman slaves were rarely freed. They were usually slaves for the rest of their lives. On the other hand, Aztec slaves could actually buy themselves freedom by saving up money. However, many actually chose not to buy their freedom because their masters treated them well. Aztec slaves could marry and the master would take care of any babies that they gave birth to, so some Aztec slaves decided that they were better off being slaves than being freed. Finally, slavery in the Aztec and Roman Empires ended very similarly. The Romans’ slavery system ended in 476 AD. Despite slave rebellions by people like Spartacus, as well as the rise of Christianity, slavery didn’t stop until the Roman empire began to fall and collapse. Likewise, Aztec slavery ended when the Spanish conquistador, Hernán Cortés, invaded the Aztec Empire in 1521. Both empires ended slavery due to someone invading them or causing their society to collapse. In conclusion, the Romans and Aztecs had similarities and differences in their systems of slavery. For example, the Romans and Aztecs both ended slavery when they collapsed; however, there were differences in how slaves were obtained, treated, used, and freed.

Rich nations should pay for poorer nations’ decarbonisation

Featuring the Literature Essay for- The Drowned World, by J.G. Ballard

Recently, climate change has become a hot topic and decarbonisation has naturally become another interest. As countries develop, they typically produce more carbon dioxide (CO2). However, after a particular amount of development, the production of CO2 usually decreases. However, developing countries do not stop producing carbon dioxide and thus keep contributing to climate change. They do not have money to stop burning fossil fuels to produce energy, which means outside groups have to come up with money to help developing countries to reduce their emissions.  Despite this, some people argue that rich countries should not pay poor countries to decarbonize, because the private sector can fund decarbonisation infrastructure, and it is not rich countries’ responsibility. However, in my opinion, rich countries should pay poor countries to help them decarbonise because it is the only viable option, there are mutual benefits to reducing CO2, and it is the fairest solution. Firstly, rich countries paying for poor countries is the only way to make decarbonization successful. Grandiose plans such as making a giant vacuum cleaner to suction in CO2 are infeasible; what developing countries need in order to decarbonise is money to produce renewable energy, such as building solar panels and wind power generators. If rich countries donate money to poor countries, they will have multiple options for decarbonisation. For example, there is a project called Just Energy Transition (JET), which is operated by Eskom in South Africa. This project aims to achieve “Net Zero” carbon emissions by 2050, with an increase in sustainable jobs. This project was introduced at COP26 in Glasgow in November 2021, and France, Germany, Great Britain, the United States, and the European Union decided to provide $8.5 billion in funding to Eskom. Those countries chose to provide financial support on a scale that simply cannot be matched by other non-governmental entities. Therefore, providing financial support for poor countries is the only way that decarbonisation will be successful. Moreover, I believe rich countries should help poor countries to decarbonise by paying them because there are mutual benefits. Paying for poor countries to reduce CO2 is not merely an act of kindness to that country. Instead, it is an act of kindness and generosity to every single country around the world, and it also benefits the country that is paying. Carbon dioxide moves around the world very rapidly, carried by atmospheric circulation, and the impacts of climate change affect multiple countries. However, if poorer countries stop releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, rich countries will also benefit because those emissions will no longer influence them. According to research by Wei Cheng, the average atmospheric CO2 concentration in the United States is around 394-395 ppm, Europe is around 394 ppm, and Eastern Asia is around 393-394 ppm. This demonstrates how CO2 diffuses around the world evenly; if developing countries emit CO2, it will spread and go to the developed countries. Therefore, it is in developed countries’ interests to fund decarbonisation projects in developing countries, because it will help to reduce global CO2 levels. Based on these examples, it seems clear that rich countries should pay poor countries because decarbonisation benefits multiple countries.  Lastly, developed countries should pay developing countries to decarbonise due to the fact that it is the fairest way. Rich countries have also been through the same process of development and they produced a lot of CO2 during that time. They know that they have contributed to climate change and they know they can make a positive change now. If they really want to make a difference, they can give a hand to poorer countries and help them to avoid making the same mistakes or disasters they already experienced. For example, during the industrial revolution, trillions of tons of carbon dioxide were released. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the CO2 level prior to the industrial revolution was about 280 parts per million (ppm). However, since the start of the industrial revolution, humans have produced 1.5 trillion tons of CO2. This has caused atmospheric CO2 levels to rise to 420.99 ppm, primarily due to developed nations. As they produced this much carbon dioxide, it seems fair that they should help to stop other countries from producing carbon dioxide by supporting them with financial aid. Therefore, rich countries should pay poor countries because they experienced the same thing. In conclusion, I believe rich countries should pay poor countries to decarbonise because it is the only way to be successful, there are mutual benefits, and it is the fairest way to solve the problem. If we really want to save the earth and return to pre-industrial CO2 levels, we have to stop releasing carbon dioxide into the air. Part of that solution requires developing countries to decarbonise, and this can be achieved through cooperation between many countries, and by providing financial support for them. This issue is not something that a single country can solve; it is the entire world’s issue, and should be solved by cooperation, led by the wealthier nations.

Lessons from Covid-19 that can be applied to future public health crises

“ It is the government’s role to ensure its people’s freedom and safety at the same time. Sometimes, in order to ensure safety, the government needs to set certain protocols and mandate them, especially during public health crises such as Covid-19. Unfortunately, controversies arise if such protocols are against the wishes of the people. In order to prepare for future public health crises, the government needs to distinguish between public opinion and misinformation, be open to new possibilities towards daily protocols and control movements by utilizing pseudo-mandate in regards to statistics. ” First, the government needs to find a way to protect its citizens from misinformation without oppressing their freedom of speech. The government is responsible for the safety of its people, thus it cannot leave its citizens alone if some of them are engaged in spreading misinformation on purpose. During Covid, misinformation caused the deaths of a number of people. Such deaths can occur in a variety of ways, but deaths from misinformation mainly occur when people attempt untrustworthy treatments for diseases or refuse to receive proper medications. In fact, according to Alistair Coleman from BBC News, at least 800 people worldwide died new to misinformation. Therefore, societies need a boundary to define what is misinformation. One way to distinguish this is to consider if it is objectively a conspiracy or just a controversial topic. For example, some people who oppose vaccines base their opposition on the belief that individuals such as Bill Gates are implanting microchips inside the doses (European Union). However, in other cases, people are seriously concerned with possible side effects that statistics suggest do exist. Thus, it would be an unjust measure for the government to simply suppress all public opinions against its current vaccine policies. On the other hand, the government would have to be aware of obvious conspiracies, such as some people insisting that consuming inedible substances would actually cure Covid. One measure that governments can implement is having health officials decide whether or not mainstream opinions are genuine concerns. However, the health officials can still leave the government to make the final call on restricting such opinions, in order to create a balance of power. As a result, complications with freedom of speech would have to be referred to facts instead of values, in order to protect the citizens and respect their freedoms at the same time. Second, the government would have to properly establish daily protocols. In the case of clothing, people would require guidelines in order to keep themselves safe from viruses. However, if absolute science evidence is lacking, the government should not completely mandate such guidelines, for they may constantly change each time scientists discover new information. In the case of medical procedures, the government should generally mandate protocols that do not seriously interfere with the citizens. For example, according to Christine Zink from Very Well Health, Covid testing is a measure that is proven to be accurate and reliable (Zink). Therefore, people do not normally have significant repulsion towards policies regarding Covid testing. However, certain policies are not completely backed up with science or are highly controversial, such as early vaccines that were capable of causing deaths due to side effects (Center for Disease Control and Prevention). In such cases, the government should not mandate these policies without sufficient consideration as there is always a possibility that it may be flawed. The government should not risk its own people for faster outcomes. As an alternative, pseudo-mandates, or socially influencing people’s decisions without actually enforcing sweeping protocols, may be an effective way to influence a large number of people into following certain necessary policies. Although it may not necessarily affect the decisions, the government should always consider public opinion when choosing whether or not to mandate certain protocols that could be controversial. This way, the government may find more effective ways to persuade its citizens or discover mainstream opinions that could concern its citizens, which would all lead to better decisions towards the well-being of the people. The reason is that people would realize that complying with the policy would be better for them in order to avoid disadvantages. For example, not allowing more than two non-vaccinated people to meet would be a reasonable and protective measure when it comes to pressuring people to get vaccinated. This would not violate their basic rights in the same way as mandating vaccinations, but would instead offer convenient alternatives instead of continuing to refrain from complying to governmental guidelines. Overall, flexibly adjusting policies but firmly establishing essential ones would be a crucial factor in guiding people’s daily lives without excessively curtailing their freedoms. Lastly, the government would have to consider various factors when it comes to controlling the movements of its citizens. In the case of Covid, according to Beth Blauer and Joshua E. Porterfield from Johns Hopkins University, having sick people stay in Covid-only hospitals may be an example of such a controversial mandate, due to the reasons that hospitals lack supplies and data may be lost when the admission dates leave a margin from dates that one receives Covid testing results. Further, governments would also need to consider statistics from other countries that historically mandated or did not mandate certain policies. In the case of lockdowns, a government could look for its own past records or records of other countries with similar backgrounds and their health-related statuses. This may help the government to make decisions based on past successes and failures of other countries with similar circumstances, which may be a crucial guideline for the country’s own safety. On the other hand, governments should mandate safety protocols if they are approved by health departments, for they are objective areas of truth regardless of politics or values. An example of this is house quarantines for Covid patients. Again, pseudo-mandates would be an effective measure for such cases. For example, having students stay at home if they are sick is crucial to ensure safety in school environments (Mayo Clinic). In this case, recommending virtual schools instead of forcing families to quarantine would be an efficient pseudo-mandate. Such measures would be capable of influencing people to comply with governmental guidelines without exposing them to health-related risks or leaving them unsatisfied. In conclusion, governments should objectively deal with misinformation, flexibly implement daily protocols and consider various aspects when it comes to restricting movements. Tradeoffs always exist when it comes to implementing a certain policy and it is impossible for a government to satisfy every single person in its country. However, that is what makes it possible for countries to aim for better outcomes and be open to new discoveries and opinions for decision-making. Health crises always repeat themselves in history in different forms, but humanity has always protected its generations and its descendants from them. Even if Covid is settled, our descendants will also have to face future health crises with developed threats but with knowledge of how we responded to Covid. Therefore, clashes regarding governmental limits to interfere with its citizens would be an on-going matter. Despite that, the necessity of a government to distinguish misinformation, implement correct protocols and mandate accurate measures would always be the same for mankind, both in the present and in the future.