free speech in university - a.k.a. how to fend off lying ministers

very fresh news. vice prime minister arrives in ankara university to attend a mini conference on "democracy and human rights"

before he starts his talk, a student says he and the government violates human rights dailiy, be it the killing of uğur kıymaz 12 year old, a set up anti-terrorist operation; or the death of engin çeber under custody in prison due to beatings; or the lack of desire to lawfully release the cancer patient güler zere who is a political prisoner.


the students desire for him to leave is expressed with unending applause, nevertheless he appreciates the comments and continues;

Untitled from sendika.org on Vimeo.

not for very long.

the crowd go mad, as one student yells "you talk about democracy. what you understand from democracy is giving a examplary service medal to the likes of coronal ali ertosun," who was responsible for the prison hunger strike crack down of 2001, which resulted in 32 deaths (2 of them soldiers).

the bit i want to make note is that before hell breaks loose, cicek tells that when he is trying to be silenced, it is against democracy. imagine a situation where you know mainstream tv channels would not show the demonstrations, hence you need to have a handy cam so that the footage can be online, is that a equal representation of freedom of speech? as the media and information flow is consciously controlled to suppress free speech, is it really undemocratic to make the vice prime minister leave?

i would say no.

nobody needed to sit through his lies and clap in the end just because of common courtesy.

sustainability can be an excuse for revolution

it is not unusual for bourgeouise to use intelilgentisia to rationalize profit maximization policies in the expense of lower class and the nature itself. the subject of sustainability is a different matter however, it is totally a gray area.

last weekend we were in a workshop where warner zittel, the publicizer of the peak oil concept joined us in for a weekend in frankonia to teach us all about non-sustainability non-renewable resources.

although his main area is oil and energy sector he talked about world models.

the main problem with the approach as all the data also points to, is the non-sustainability of the current idea of economic growth. patrick, god bless him noticed it right away in the beginning. the current ecological problem is a very core one, that was pointed out by marx and even before engels: the current concept of development is defined upon accumulation of wealth or simply capital. hence the bourgeoisie constantly searches for cheap resources, cheap labor, working longer hours with higher efficiency and new markets to sell their goods. due to the economy of scales, the more they produce, the cheaper it costs, hence they can raise their profits. this is the unending loop that we are pursuing in the current capitalist mode of production today in the expense of nature.

zittel showed us how we have reached the oil peak somewhere between 2007 and 2008 and from now on the production will be on a decline.



there is a more important point in all the analysis. there is such a thing called system analysis, in which world is taken as the system and the human factors are added on top, to see how does the economic activity of the man:



one of the shortcomings of the system analysis is that it does not take into account the national and class differences. which is not "very" interesting for the big picture.

the bottomline is that with declining resources, the world will overshoot its capacity of production and population. because of this, the simulations show that, production will decline, due to pollution and lack of resources to feed people, people will die population will decrease.

this is apparent even with an optimistic view on resources and resource extraction:



the solution offered by the limits of growth people is population and pollution control, productive equilibrium. this will generate not an exponentially increasing human growth but rather equilibrium in both economy, production and population. hence, the argument is, progress in technology can be harnessed for quality for human life, rather than growth:



these were all copyrights of meadows, randers and meadows work with world3 from "limits of growth."

my point is, this already been said more than a hundred years ago in the "manifesto of the communist party" anyway. but now the data even shows this and worries people. what needs to be done is to change the definition of what growth is and realize the problem itself cannot be solved without changing the core of the problem, the capitalist mode of production and the meta fetishism that drives the bourgeoisie to indefinitely "grow."

Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. (...) It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce.

The Manifesto of the Communist Party

a comment about the role of phd comics in grad culture

i sent a mail to Jorge Cham, our very own phdcomics artist. i am still considering to throw a shoe at him (figuratively speaking) when he comes to heidelberg next week.

Dear Jorge Cham,

I am a PhD student of Astronomy in Germany and as understandably, a
fan of PhD Comics. I believe your strips not only describe and
crystallize the situation of a PhD student but brings the students
together in their anguish. As the career development guy says[*], the
strips resonate with PhD students all over the world, due to the
common adversity. But make no mistake this mail is not simply a fanboy
expression of admiration but rather a hate mail aimed at you as an
artist who is the most important representative of the graduate
students in contemporary culture.

Your strips decipher what we care about most dearly and fear the most;
to sacrifice of our personal lives, the insignificance of our very
specialized research, built upon this shaky ground the competition and
the pretense surrounding it. This simply means, what PhD Comics does
best is to expose the exploitation in the "industry of science."

You are an artist who depict the reality in such a way that the crowds
find it compelling. This certain group is the main "labor force" of
the "industry," and should be the most educated minority of the
community but nevertheless they look at your strips when they feel
frustrated and then continue with their depressing routine and then
take some. Sometimes these are so terrible things that they don't even
make their way in your strips; like mobbing, sexual harassment or
being plagiarized by your superior.

What makes this mail an actual hate mail is my feeling that you
overlook your responsibility as an artist and even worse (again as the
career development guy says[*]) normalizing the miserable existence of
the graduate students. Your depiction of the PhD student is subaltern,
inertial and in most cases disempowered which, I agree, is not far
from reality and almost an exact description. The problem is, this
kind of crystallized depiction only furthers the learned helplessness
of the individuals. I was involved in arguments where PhD comic strips
were shown as evidence to keep the graduate school and the University
as it is because it is as it is, hence normal and acceptable.

Currently we are profiting from the glimpses you present of the big
gears that drive the science industry. These are things that we,
students do not have the opportunity to experience personally, your
work in exposing the inner workings (like the science vs. nature
strips) is highly appreciated. But keep in mind there are small and
almost unknown struggles happening in different cities and campuses in
the name of local grad students, be it for unionization or fair
employment, or to struggle for a just set of rules for graduate
school. I realize personally, it is our responsibility to point these
things to you, to the public and basically make them more visible.

In the final analysis I can neither judge you or suggest you a road
map. But what I could tell is having a political structure in the back
of an artist mind makes all the difference between pure entertainment
of daily ordeals or art that shifts the perception of the spectators.
Like the difference between contemporary hip-hop which barely will be
remembered and Gil Scott-Heron's spoken word which will echo over
generations through his words "the revolution will not be televised."

Have nice travels, and hopefully see you when you come to Heidelberg
(if I can find a spot in the auditory).

Ferayebend, Heidelberg**


[*] "The message of the presentation really resonated with our
students. The graduate school journey can be extremely isolating, and
Jorge Cham's presentation and comics normalize the experience and
provide solace and humor.“
-John Nonnamaker, Graduate Student Career Development, M.I.T., from
"the PhD lectures" testimonials http://www.phdcomics.com/speaking/

** i used my real name in the actual mail, of course.

if i don't write right now, i won't be able to ever. i came back from a stressful vacation, just because. my choice of not having drama in my life worked and i started worrying about work due to lack of problems.

also realizing i won't be able to go turkey to work (ok, maybe istanbul), i came back to heidelberg with great motivation due to a destroyed ego. mevlevi acolytes go into 40 days of seclusion just before their acceptance. if accepted they start out by cleaning, cooking and washing in the temple. before you give up your your property and everything worldly, you first need give up on your ego. it is self emancipating.

i met a lot of interesting people, and discussed a lot of interesting things during my vacation. from open source science to a cultural conscientious objection.

but before i write about them all, i need to leave for a workshop on sustainability. meaning, let's not listen to karl marx, and find ways to maintain conspicuous consumption, but this time reborn as environmentally responsible. physicist are collaborators in this story (sorry patrick!)