Nuclear Energy for a Greener Indonesia

The following is my highschool Physics' final essay.

__________

The constant development in the world means that there is an ever-increasing demand of energy. Though so, other implications, such as pollution and global warming, is still a major concern. Moreover, while even Indonesia as a developing nation will need an excess of 450 billion kWh of electricity in ten years’ time, fossil fuels will also be nearly exhausted by then. Clearly, there is an urgent need for alternative energy, but one question has always been there: what?

There are many sources of green energy commonly used, ranging from hydroelectric power, solar, wind, and geothermal, which are already commonly found or is gaining use in Indonesia. Most of them still carry their disadvantages, though, which leads us to nuclear energy, which does not have such drawbacks.

Unfortunately, nuclear power is not as strongly advocated, and even overlooked in Indonesia. It is actually a very capable source of green energy, and must not be left out for its tremendous potential and feasibility. However, as a nation, we must also make a tremendous effort in preparation for it, committing ourselves to a nuclear future. To do so, we must all understand all aspects of nuclear power for electricity.

Understanding Nuclear-Powered Electricity

First and foremost, how nuclear energy is harnessed must be understood. Splitting up a radioactive atom’s nucleus, called nuclear fission (as opposed to nuclear fusion, where heavier atoms are formed), releases a large amount of energy from relative mass lost in the process. This energy is in the form of heat, which is used directly to heat water in an adjacent system into steam, which is then used to drive turbines, much like other kinds of power plants.

Compared to other power plants, this process does not produce carbon waste and greenhouse gases in any notable manner. According to Eko Adi Parmanto and Dimas Irawan from the Indonesian Nuclear Power Agency (BATAN, Badan Tenaga Nuklir Nasional), in their book Understanding Nuclear Power Plants (Mengenal PLTN), this cleanness is shown by France, which already uses nuclear power for three-quarters of its national grid, that managed to decrease over three-quarters of pollution since the 1980s. This is indeed a much better alternative than fossil fueled plants, which account for more around 10 million tons per year of pollution in the form of gases, soot, and runoff (27-29).

In their article, “Let’s Run the Numbers”, Mike Conley and Tim Maloney states that nuclear power plants on average produce from around 0.5 to 2 GW of electricity, comparable to large-scale plants such as fossil-fueled or hydroelectric plants. The major step-up is that unlike fossil-fueled plants, nuclear plants could generate immensely more power from a small amount of fuel, where only several tons of uranium is used yearly as opposed to millions of tons of coal.

A nuclear power plant is also independent of external factors which fluctuates its output, like sunlight and wind, which also require expansive flatlands. Robert Kennedy puts it, as taken from Conley and Maloney’s article, these will require fossil-fuel powered generators to regulate and smooth the fluctuations. Not only nuclear power will produce a consistent output, it does not require a large area, and is also less dependent on location compared to hydroelectric and geothermal plants.

Radiation, Disasters, and Safety

All of its obvious advantages aside, there is one main problem that needs to be addressed. When people think of nuclear energy, people think of disasters and bombs. Nuclear plants are most infamous for producing disasters, such as in 1986 at Chernobyl, and most recently where the Fukushima reactor experienced a leak during the 2011 tsunami in Japan. It is widely known that Indonesia is prone for disaster, but these kinds of nuclear disasters are just one in a million, which conclusively happened due to false management after investigation by their respective governments (Parmanto and Irawan 31). There is no doubt that nuclear plants is useful in crowded, power-hungry spaces like in Japan. In contrast, Indonesia even still has unused land like in Kalimantan, which is also free from natural disasters as an addition.

One more source of concern in nuclear plants is radiation. While clean of greenhouse gases, this method of nuclear fission does produce radiation and radioactive waste as its waste. During nuclear reactions, particles such as alpha particles which are equivalent to the nucleus of helium and free electrons called beta particles, or even high-energy gamma rays might be released. However, what people get wrong is that the nuclear plants themselves do not emit radiation to the outside environment. In the standard specifications of a nuclear plant, layers of lead and steel are used, then covered in reinforced concrete (Parmanto and Irawan 15). Gamma rays could only penetrate through several centimeters of lead, while the other particles are much weaker.

The workers inside are also quite safe. A maximum of 5000 mRem of radiation per year per person is recommended by the United Nations, while workers only experience around 500 mRem (Parmanto and Irawan 16), well within safety limits if regulated properly. Another insurance is in the form of regulated regular checkups, and long leaves are mandated if a worker is exposed to too much radiation. The five deaths to power plant workers in the United States are only caused by construction accidents. This is certainly a safer option compared to over half a million deaths annually from pollution-related illnesses in China (Conley and Maloney).

Nevertheless, a method of disposing radioactive waste must be ensured. Ronald Reagan once said, “All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant could be stored under a desk,” which is true as a nuclear plant only has around 30 tons of waste a year, but disposing it carelessly is certainly unsafe. The most important consideration is where to put the waste and certainly the government is still researching. However, Indonesian researchers already are aware of the proper procedures of safely filtering encasing depleted nuclear fuel, and deposit facilities are also under planning (Parmanto and Irawan 26-27).

Feasibility in Indonesia

The final piece to ensure is the feasibility of nuclear energy in Indonesia. Simply put, Indonesia has the capability for self-sufficiency and support. A World Nuclear Association (WNA) report, “Nuclear Power in Indonesia”, reveals unused deposits in Kalimantan and near Bangka-Belitung amount to around 53 thousand tons, which will last a very long time, besides being a valuable export. When these reserves run out in a century to come, methods of synthesizing new fuel would already have been common.

Nevertheless, research is ongoing, mostly by the BNN. They report that nuclear plants are already proposed in North Sulawesi and in Central Java, with a small test reactor planned in Serpong, both made with assistance from Russian contractors (Parmanto and Irawan 34; WNA). Critics point out that nuclear energy is certainly is not cheap to research in light of the recent economical crisis. However, once running, it is much more cost-effective than other alternative energy. Upon large-scale use in the national grid, nuclear energy would be much cheaper, as much as one-tenth the cost of new green energies such as solar and wind power (Conley and Maloney).

Another raging debate is about the that nuclear weapons is the humane side of the deadly possibilities of nuclear energy. Nuclear weapons have already been used against humans, and it is of utmost importance that nuclear energy is never used for mass destruction ever again. However, as long as the government keeps check in its projects, this problem could be avoided altogether. There is very little an upstart in nuclear energy such as Indonesia may do in the world stage, after all, as Indonesia has signed the international agreement of non-proliferation in 1980 and further in 1999 (WNA).

Though the national seventy-two percent acceptance for nuclear energy, there are still demonstrations opposing nuclear power (Parmanto and Irawan 37; WNA). BNN already have underwent measures and is already socializing in locations nearest to the proposed plants. However, this may not be enough, and socializing needs to reach high school students, who may understand the full power and impact of such an energy source.

Nuclear power has a very large prospect in Indonesia. It is as powerful as other green energy and is also more cost-effective, without producing any carbon waste. People’s fears are simply paranoia; properly managed nuclear plants are as safe, or even safer, than other types of power plants. Indonesia could make this project feasible, but it is still the government’s responsibility to keep looking for safe disposals, check on the socialization, and stay peaceful.

We are still far away from a nuclear utopia. However, considering the alternatives, perhaps it is wise to risk this venture, as writer Martin Cruz Smith said, “. . . because normal human activity is worse than the greatest nuclear accident in history.” Power from nuclear fission must be embraced, not shunned, at least until nuclear fission is achieved.

REFERENCES

Conley, Mike and Tim Maloney. Let's Run the Numbers: Nuclear Energy vs. Wind and Solar. 17 April 2015. http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/. 16 January 2017.

Parmanto, Eko Adi and Dimas Irawan. Mengenal PLTN dan Prospeknya di Indonesia. Jakarta: Badan Tenaga Nuklir Nasional, 2007.

World Nuclear Asociation. Nuclear Power in Indonesia. August 2016. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/indonesia.aspx. 15 January 2017.

Grad.

After another long time not posting, I should put something here.

The following is a repost from my Instagram and Deviantart journal when I graduated. To be fair, that event was done a month ago now.
___________

My friends, comrades of the great Union of--wait no that's not right.

Okay. 
Hear ye, hear ye, and brace for an essay:

So, this six-year old trip, perhaps twice as long or more for others, or perhaps half as much for some, is at an end. Must I say, "Finally!" like this was some tiring, arduous, unpleasant journey that we wanted to end long ago?

Surely not. It can't be. This journey isn't even finished. Big surprise, I know. Hint: this journey is called 'life'. Some want high school days to never end from fear of the terrible outside world. Maybe some only carry the painfully nailed memories--to which I exclaim, why the f*** are you still dwelling on such trivial nitty-gritty? Still, like it or not, and whether this following opinion is cliched or otherwise: whatever happened these past years, I am absolutely certain they have made us to become the best possible version of ourselves.

So, I must thank you deeply. You have made me welcome in this school, and I have ran out of words to describe my days in Laurensia. All I could think of remotely close to what I'm currently writing is that that one quote from Sherlock (you know, that "I don't have "friends"" thing) may describe me less. Much less.

Alas, one leg of this journey is finished, and now due to the laws of diffusion we shall spread throughout the world to pursue our dreams.

Not diffusion? Oh come on, I'm very sure it is.

Our dear teachers and parents have said it all today, so I'll just add one tidbit from one Mr. Kennedy (Which I'm sure you recall from those Cold War vids), who once said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country." I'll conveniently answer that question by reminding you of the fifth point of our Alumni's Promise. Wherever you go, remember where we were raised together for six years--some twice as that, some half as that--and hurry up, carry that bounty of knowledge from all over the world like bards and travelers of old used to, and hurry up and fix this country of ours. Maybe start from that damned-to-hell English UN, but I'll not complain.

Never hesitate, never look back just to regret, and do not throw away your shot.

Good Job, America.

RIP USA 1776-2017.

No, don't start the flame war just yet. I know you have picked an unpopular president. I know some of you think he might tip the status quo of the entire world. Hear the words of your new Commander in Chief. Each and every word just screams America First and to hell with the rest of the world. 

But the entire world is changing. 

I seem to have heard the same tone from every new world leader, most notably mine, in Indonesia. We aim to rank higher in the world ladder, and if the cost is a tip in the balance of power, a change in the status quo, than it is fine. Anything for great Indonesia, and President Jokowi is ready to make a change.

And it is the same everywhere. Near us, there is the controversial Philippine President Duterte. Half a world over, we have Britain leaving the EU. Also, new conservative leaders consolidating power in the EU itself. Meanwhile, south of the US, more right-leaning leaders are also ready to take the spotlight.

It seems the trend is clear: more nations are becoming more individualistic. Someday, those convoluted systems of allies and pacts and blocs since the world wars must break loose. So, perhaps this change is not entirely and inherently bad. If Trump wants to make America great again at the cost of other nations, that is completely fine--just look at what we are also doing here!

My point being, I do hope, from all of this chaos and change, the entire world--and yes, including the USA--will rise up from the ashes. 

Or perhaps I am being too optimistic. RIP The Entire World ???-2017.

___

Please keep in mind I am not a political analyst. I am merely giving my two cents on a subject I deem interesting and important enough to talk about, plus an added bonus of practicing for my English test. Perhaps this turned out to be an incoherent rant. I seriously do not know. Thank you anyway.

Jerusalem's Role in Crusades: Not That Important

1099 Siege of Jerusalem. Taken from commons.wikimedia.org

Jerusalem is a holy city for all three of the world's largest Abrahamic religions: Jews, Christianity, and Islam. This created at least nine attempts of the Christians to take over the city since the First Crusade (1096-1099); nine more major crusades. However, while being a target in many crusades, as in any other conflict, there were many more factors which trigger a war (where indeed, religion took most of the blame). As such, the role of Jerusalem in these crusades are still debatable; to say that the crusades were called only to retake Jerusalem and the Holy Land is quite limited.

The applicable definition of a crusade here comes from the Plurals of said debate, which state that the most important part of a crusade is the spiritual one, and not the retaking of Jerusalem. The crusades were a pilgrimage, but the very definition of a "pilgrimage" has become twisted by the Crusaders (Madigan, 2015). Here, Jerusalem was no longer a main goal, rather a justification of the real causes of the crusades: racism and power, both taken in the cover of a pilgrimage by those days' Christians.

The first main cause of the crusades is, without a doubt, discrimination between religions. The Christians, mainly, were aggressors to the other religions, thinking that they are the enlightened, the rightest. When Pope Urban II called for a crusade to retake Jerusalem at 1096, the built-up tension of discrimination to the East were released (Constable, 2001). It was clearly seen during the harassment to the Jews during and in between the crusades, two of the most prominent examples being the Rhineland Massacre of 1096 in the Rhineland, West Germany, and the Peoples' Crusade of 1096 in Asia Minor. Those crimes against humanity were done by fanatics who, in their desire to destroy the enemies of God, strayed from the goal of a crusade to bring "justice" to the Jews, thought as guilty in bringing Christ to the cross (American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, 2016). 

Cultural harassment did not happen solely to Jews. The fanatical beliefs of Christianity then were also shown to the Muslims. The Muslims (and also Jews) of Jerusalem were treated much harsher than how they treat Christian prisoners (History World, n.d.) Certainly, none of these harassments have any contribution to the goal to retake the Holy Land, and were only the results of the discrimination that made up the burning spirit of the crusaders, the main cause that kept the war ongoing.

The next important factor that started the holy wars were, like other wars, political reasons. The Byzantine Empire asking for help was a great chance for Pope Urban II to bring together the fragmented feudal world of Europe, against a common enemy. The crusaders, most notably the nobles, were enticed to the call to search for new lands and more recognition, in short more power an influence (Runciman, 1995). 

While Jerusalem itself was made as a Crusader State, the crusaders did not limit their search for land just near Jerusalem and the Holy Land. This was most notably seen in the Fourth Crusade (1202-1204) which, due to political reasons, strayed from the Holy Land to take Constantinople, leading to the Latin Empire. This proves that they were merely searching for land and power, and the Holy Land is but one land available to be taken then.

In the end, Jerusalem was made as a target for war merely as a justification. The Just War concept was already accepted that time, which mainly states that a war must only be called if and only if other, more peaceful and humane methods to achieve a morally right goal have been exhausted. The discrimination to other religions were certainly not a morally correct goal, nor was the forceful takeover of land and power. Thus, Jerusalem and its surrounding lands, as an important holy city was actually not the main goal of the crusades, but rather merely a front for the many different factors that started the war.

References - Further reading

American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise. (2016). The Crusades. Retrieved from Jewish Virtual Library: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/crusades.html

Bugnion, F. (2004, Oktober 28). Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, and Non-International Armed Conflicts. Retrieved from International Comittee of the Red Cross: https://www.icrc.org/

Constable, G. (2001). The Historiography of the Crusades. The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World, 1-22.

History World. (n.d.). The Crusades. Retrieved from Historyworld website: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=fob

Madigan, K. (2015). Medieval Christianity: A New History. New Haven: Yale University.

Runciman, S. (1995). A History of the Crusades, Volume I: The First Crusade. Melbourne: University of Cambridge.

___

This was the final essay for this year's World History class. Translated and edited from Indonesian. This is a response paper, and by no means have been thoroughly studied and accepted as a fact; thus all debates and comments are welcome.

Chinese Diaspora: Not How China Survived

As a Chinese descendant myself, I find it interesting to find out about my culture's past, whatever remains of it now. Thus, I present this essay, a reviewed translation of a part of my World History paper about half a year ago. There was a 500 word limit, and there were further discussion on the implications for Indonesian students, but I'll simply stick to the more interesting part.

___

Throughout history, numerous civilizations rise and fall. Ancient Egypt, Greece, and the Roman Empire were but three such civilizations whose impacts are still felt until this day, but could only be seen through archeological finds and ancient texts. Meanwhile, the Chinese culture and civilization, as old and as far-reaching as Egypt, Greek, and Latin, found their way to the light of globalization. Some would argue that the Chinese diaspora, or people originating from the same Chinese culture that spread across the world, was what made China survive as a civilization for longer than most. However, by comparing and contrasting China's history with those of the other cultures, factors for the survival of a civilization could be found.

The main cause of the decline of the Egyptian kingdoms was that they never expanded far out from their origins on the banks of the Nile. After being conquered by Alexander the Great at 323 BC, Egyptian culture, one that has developed for more than a thousand years, were covered under the Greek culture brought by the Ptolemaic pharaohs. 

With the submission of all Egypt for a very long time--in fact, no Egyptian pharaohs shall ever be restored to the throne--the Egyptians slowly forgot their old ways, to be assimilated into the Greco-Egyptian culture (Dodson, 2011). From here, we could conclude that the end of a culture would happen only if all its people were conquered under a different civilization.

Meanwhile, the Greek colonies, either Doric or Attic or any other branch of Greek culture throughout the Mediterranean were also conquered by Rome. The Latin culture brought by the Romans was not all that different from the Greeks, as Rome was a Greek colony, over time influenced by Etruscan and other Italian cultures, (Gill, 2015). After the split of the Roman Empire, the West was quickly overran by Frankish, Celtic, and Germanic peoples, and all that was left were an assimilation of cultures: French, Spanish, German, and British as we know today. 

The remains of old Greco-Latin culture could still be seen in the Byzantine Empire, however after Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks at 1431, only traces of Greek culture could be seen (History.com, 2010; Toynbee, 1981). From here, we could conclude that if the conquering civilization is not that different, then the change would not be drastic enough, such that it could be said that the people still follow the same culture.

China, on the other hand, did fall into the Mongols under the Yuan dynasty of the 13th century, but they reigned for merely a century, until being deposed by the Han Chinese (China Highlights, 2015). During the Qing dynasty, the last of the line of dynasties, the Manchurians that held power also was not all that different from the Han Chinese, so that they changed so little. Furthermore, it was during the Qing dynasty that the Chinese spread throughout the world, partly due to the European colonization that invited them. (Theobald, 2000; Jacques, 2011)

The fact that Chinese diaspora mostly colonized the world when and after they were ruled by foreign powers proves that it wasn't them, the diaspora, which helped restore China. On the contrary, China simply never fell to foreigners for a time long enough that their essence and culture changed enough to be unrecognizable, unlike Egypt and the Greco-Latin world.

However, while the diaspora played but a little role in the history of Chinese culture and civilization, currently, China faces an economic problem in the near future, one which the diaspora could help restore the 'glory' of old. 

China has the largest population which makes it an economic powerhouse, but its long-standing one child policy, though already revised, caused their numerous population to grow old; in reality, they face a shortage of working-age people. (Shorbert, 2013; McElroy, 2008). This time, with the advent of globalization, China could muster its equally numerous diaspora in other countries, unhampered by this law, to establish a strong economic connection. Indeed, the diaspora wasn't the reason how China survived, but it might well be the reason how they will survive.

Religion: The Scapegoat of Conflicts, Part V: Conclusion

INDEX
Part I: Introduction
Part II: The Axial Age Religions
Part III: Religion as a Casus Belli
Part IV: The Extremists
Part V: Conclusion

It is without a doubt that religion plays a role, however little or much, in the presence of conflict and war. Though so, its role is not the main cause of war, such as many thought. Hinduism and Buddhism are two perfect examples as they are two very close religions, with similar ideas and the same goal for peace. Both are also misused to initiate war.

As we have learned using those two religions as an example, all religions had their roots during the Axial Age, where widespread conflict at the time led to the integration of moral standards to the preexisting rituals. However, this does not change the role of religion in the human life as central to a human being's desire to understand their world, and as such, remain a sensitive matter.

This sensitivity is used by factions and nations to initiate a war for their cause, either for political or economic reasons. On the other hand, extremists who zealously defend their religion forces their own beliefs, using the difference in religion as a justification for violence. On both cases, the teachings of all religions do not approve the violence, as violence is the exact opposite of the peace sought out since the Axial Ages. Considering that religion is only used as a premise to start a war while nothing in its teachings approve of it, then we could say for certain that religion is actually merely a scapegoat of wars and conflict. 

The fault lies in the humans themselves, the followers of a religion either overly zealous or understands too little of their religion. Those people will not hesitate to use religion to start a conflict, for their own profit. Knowing that, all that is left to be done by everyone is to embody each of their own morals according to their religion. Even people without a religion should understand about how to treat others as humans, appealing to everyone's desires for peace.

References

Bartoli, A., & Coleman, P. T. (2003, September). Dealing with Extremists. Retrieved from Beyond Intractability: http://www.beyondintractability.org/

Blakkarly, J. (2015, May 29). Buddhist Extremism and the Hypocrisy of 'Religious Violence'. Retrieved from ABC News: http://www.abc.net.au/

Bugnion, F. (2004, October 28). Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, and Non-International Armed Conflicts. Retrieved from International Comittee of the Red Cross: https://www.icrc.org/

Center for Reduction of Religious-Based Conflict. (n.d.). Sri Lanka: Hindus Versus Buddhists. Retrieved from Center for Reduction of Religious-Based Conflict: http://www.center2000.org/

Ranganathan, S. (n.d.). Hindu Philosophy. Retrieved from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://www.iep.utm.edu/

Schmidt-Leukel, P. (2007, September). Facets of the relationship between Buddhism and Hinduism. (F. Usarski, Interviewer)

The Economist. (2008, December 18). Why Wars Happen. Retrieved from dari The Economist: http://www.economist.com/

Religion: The Scapegoat of Conflicts, Part IV: The Extremists

INDEX
Part I: Introduction
Part II: The Axial Age Religions
Part III: Religion as a Casus Belli
Part IV: The Extremists
Part V: Conclusion

The last point to be discussed is about the fact that most religious conflicts, including the cases used in the previous parts, were started by extremists. Extremism is started by the the most fanatic, left-wing members of a belief, who want to impose their ways to others, due to them thinking that they are the rightest ones. The extremists are usually the most conservative believers of an ideology. These conservatives are inflexible, their minds less open to and unchanged by new ideas and other perspectives.

The paradoxical problem is that the conservatives should be the most loyal followers of an idea, so that they should've been the ones most opposed to violence, as it does not match the core tenets of a religion described before. It seems that this is the 'byproduct' of beliefs being one of the most important human natures, sensitive and almost impossible to be changed. They were blinded by their own belief that they alone are right and everyone else are infidels who must submit or be cast away. Evidently, this means that even the most loyal followers are not the ones that understand their belief's teachings completely.

The rebellion in Sri Lanka was made worse by Buddhist extremists who persecute Hindus, further increasing the death toll of the conflict. That case is only one example of extremist groups in Buddhism, widely considered to be a peaceful religion. There are also cases of persecution of Islamic followers in Myanmar by other extremists. In each case, these radicals use the difference in religion as a sort of casus belli, using violence to 'protect' their religion. Once more, returning to the original intent of these beliefs to bring about peace, violence done by these extremists already violate their own central beliefs.

Thus, as all religions promote peace, the fanatics in the religion already stray from their own religion's way of thinking, their desire to preserve their belief merely a clouded justification for violence. Thus, it could be concluded that conflict started by extremists is not caused by the faulty system of a the religion itself, rather the fanatical followers who do not fully understand and enliven their religions' sacred teachings. They themselves consider themselves the most righteous, forgetting the cause of their righteousness. At the end, due to their incompetence, religion is blamed for causing conflict which it never promoted. 

Independent Writing Prompt: Experiencing the Splendor of Rome

This year, my school's English focuses of preparations for TOEFL, and one part is the independent writing. This practice essay was made for the following prompt I chose: If you could go back to some time and place, when and where would you go? For the lack of Star Wars today, I think this could be an interesting discussion about the most interesting period in time according to myself:

Of all the empires on Earth, Rome, once called the Paragon of Civilization, was perhaps the greatest of them all, bringing Western influence and culture throughout the known world. This was achieved during the reign of its first emperor, Augustus, who brought a period of peace and prosperity historians call the Pax Romana, Roman Peace. This period deeply fascinates me, and if I could go to any place and time in history, I will surely want to witness the Pax Romana, where it had many interesting places and events which would be wonderful to live through, and also was relatively safe compared to other periods.

The Roman Empire during Pax Romana reached the height of its wealth, so that the cities in the Empire, most notably Rome, were at the peak of their splendor, and I could walk through those cities myself if I went back to that period. Emperor Augustus brought Rome to victory over many campaigns and these new territories brought immense wealth to the Empire, which Augustus used to make Rome even grander than ever before. While neither the Coliseum nor the aqueducts of Claudius have been built yet, it would still be a truly wonderful experience to walk the streets of Rome where crowds of Romans gather, while witnessing the grandeur of marble landmarks such as the Baths of Carcalla, the Temple of Jupiter, and the Circus Maximus still whole and vibrant, where today only their ruins remain.

During the Pax Romana, there were also many important events which happened that shaped the Empire, and in turn shaped the course of the world. These events would be a one of a kind experience to live through with the Romans, knowing that the world’s future will depend on them. I could see for myself how the citizens of Rome went through their days waiting for the news on the Legion’s numerous exploits, living it through with them while knowing that these events will shape the Empire. However, not all interesting events involve soldiers returning victorious from a campaign in a triumphal procession. It was also in this period that many different events occurred, among them the legions in Germany defeated in the ambush at Teutoberg Forest and the birth of Jesus Christ—both pivotal to the future of the Empire and the world.

Finally, while there were many other eras which were comparably eventful, Pax Romana was the most peaceful, at least in the cities at the heart of the Empire. Augustus had just risen victorious over a civil war, reforming Rome from a republic into an empire. With these reforms, as the name Pax Romana suggests, came peace and prosperity. Travelling to Rome at the time would be relatively safe, as the barbarians such as Celts and Parthians were kept at bay on the frontiers of the Empire, far from the major cities including Rome itself. Meanwhile, the public unrest and political assassinations common during the Republic and the Empire to come reached their lowest point, due to the public being satisfied with the leadership of Emperor Augustus, and thus I could experience the landmarks and events from the safety of Rome without fear of being chased by political enemies.

To live as a citizen of Rome during the reign of Emperor Augustus, the Pax Romana, would not be a chance to miss if I could travel to any place and time. I would be able to visit the city of Rome and see the magnificent landmarks still bustling with Romans, living with them through important events that shaped the Empire and the world. Even more importantly, I could safely witness those places and events as Rome was virtually free from both internal and external conflict, unlike other equally important time periods. It is a shame that time travel is currently impossible, leaving us unable to experience these times of great significance and grandeur for ourselves.

___
EDIT 31/3/16: revised the essay on grammar and word choice

Religion: The Scapegoat of Conflicts, Part III: Religion as a Casus Belli

INDEX
Part I: Introduction
Part II: The Axial Age Religions
Part III: Religion as a Casus Belli
Part IV: The Extremists
Part V: Conclusion

However peaceful the goal of a religion is, the fact remains that there are still conflicts and wars on the behalf of religion. Numerous religious wars have happened, even between the two closely related religions that became our exemplification before: Hinduism and Buddhism. As said before, both religions were made to bring about peace and order, however, religions are still an extremely sensitive matter concerning the central belief of humans, and thus even a little difference could spark a conflict.

Hinduism and Buddhism have a central difference, in the belief of castes. Thus, they did not always get along, since the start of Buddhism's rise in India, especially after the death of Emperor Ahsoka Maurya, the religion's most powerful supporter, at the 3rd century BC, where his empire was fractured into different Hindu factions.

This battle continues even until today, such as in Sri Lanka the past decades. Hindu Tamil separatists fight against the Buddhist Sinhalese majority for more political autonomy. Though the center of the conflict is those political reasons, it has been heated up even more with the difference in religious beliefs.

If scrutinized, almost all holy wars among nations have a political background. In the Hindu-Buddhist conflict in Sri Lanka, the political reason was for freedom, and fueled by difference of religion. Wars were, and still are, almost always fought over lands and resources; even holy wars (i.e. crusades) and wars fought over ideology (i.e. the Cold War) always have economic reasons, as a costly war could never logically be fought when there are no profit to be gotten by the belligerents.

However, in international relationships, according to human morality, and reminded even further as the rules of war, Jus ad Bellum, were laid out, a side must have a justifiable cause for war. To further their political and economical reasons, a nation could drag along the sensitive matter of religion and ideology as a casus belli (reason for war). With this, a holy war is started, by pointing out that their rival has a lesser belief according to their doctrine. Thus, a religion is only used as the 'motor' in a conflict, which means that while religion still plays a factor, it is merely a tool to initiate a war, fought over political and economic reasons.

___
Next time, we will discuss the importance of extremists in making religion the scapegoat.

Once more I must say, due to the sensitive matter of these posts, please discuss your disagreements in an educated manner.

Religion: The Scapegoat of Conflicts, Part II: The Axial Age Religions

INDEX

Part I: Introduction

Part II: The Axial Age Religions

Part III: Religion as a Casus Belli

Part IV: The Extremists

Part V: Conclusion

The large religions as we know them today has their roots during the Axial Age (c. 8th-3rd century BC). As its name implies, this age is pivotal to the development of human beliefs as it gives a moral essence to the preexisting rituals. Before the Axial Age, human beliefs are mostly comprised of sacrificial rituals for gods that symbolize the forces or nature, such as the gods of Ancient Egypt and China, or the animistic religions of many secluded tribes. Those gods and forces are stagnant, subject to cosmic law, and even difficult to be reached by the peasants, where only priests and kings could raise their prayers.

Once again, religion was central to the human belief as people always search meaning in life. Without a foundation for their lives, people look away to newer forces of change, such as gods of war. This lack of foundation and morals would form a bloodthirsty, 'barbaric' culture, and so skirmishes and pillaging grow prevalent.

At its heart, religion and belief is something malleable, always being adapted to the need of humans. Philosophers across the world see this degradation of human morals, and thus they construct and spread word of these new beliefs--the Axial Age religions--which remind people of their conscience, by inserting the lost values from before. Across the world, the same background compelled people to spread the main belief, "Do not do to others what you do not want  to be done to yourself." Certainly, this idea is one that support peaceful coexistence.

One, or rather two examples of this axial age religions are Hinduism and Buddhism, two very closely related religions in India in terms of history and beliefs. Hinduism was a very early religion, more than a thousand years BC, formed during the fusion of cultures of the Dravidians of India and the invading Indo-Aryans. At the beginning, the religion existed mostly for the political reason to categorize the Dravidians on the lower castes, thus they would not revolt against the Aryans. Meanwhile, Buddhism was the teachings of Siddharta Gautama, the Buddha, as a protest to the caste system.

Both Axial Age religions have the same core belief, the Dharma (or Dhamma), which governs the relation between living beings and their surroundings. In Hinduism, every person must do Dharma according to their caste, to ensure order and peace. In Buddhism, the caste system is removed; as the goal of every life is to escape suffering, then Dharma must be done to everyone (and everything) to break the chain of reincarnation, according to their karma.

These core teachings remain unchanged through the millennia. Certainly, looking from those teachings and the background for it, both religions certainly have a common goal in mind: social order and peace, by treating humans as human beings. Most, if not all religions today have their foundations during the Axial Age, and were formed based on those principles and morals of keeping the peace.

Thus we return to the case at hand, where religion is considered as the source of conflicts. After looking at their history, we could conclude that religion is not the one to blame for those conflicts, as no religion ever justifies war, due to their goal of creating a peaceful society. Basically, religion and conflict has mutually exclusive ideals, as conflict is the very thing religion sought to eradicate.

___
Next, I shall discuss why there are still wars which involve religion.

As a disclaimer, I acknowledge that this is a very sensitive matter, which I think is important to be discussed. If anyone is uncomfortable or offended with this, please do comment and discuss.

Religion: The Scapegoat of Conflicts, Part I: Introduction

INDEX

Part I: Introduction

Part II: The Axial Age Religions

Part III: Religion as a Casus Belli

Part IV: The Extremists

Part V: Conclusion

Conflict is a natural part of the social nature of humans, so much that there is little doubt that the course of the world's history is shaped by conflict. As a result, the historical events that are most thoroughly recorded in the books and internet are those of war.

Meanwhile, religion is another central belief in a human's nature as social beings. This belief is so sensitive and sacred, that when others violate it, a conflict is inevitable for most of the time. Most of the historical conflicts mentioned before brought with them the morals of a religion, pitting them against each other. Such was the frequency that religion became a highlighted point in a conflict, that in the minds of many people, the names of many religions are soiled, as the cause of war.

However, if we dig further, the place of religion in the human nature is actually to fill the human curiosity, to answer unanswered questions, to search for meaning for every action or phenomenon. This resulted in religion becoming a moral compass for people.

Violence, brought by conflict, is amoral. That fact should be agreed upon by everyone. Looking at the common goal of all religions, to bring peace based off morals, then, logically, religion and conflict are mutually exclusive. Religion could not be the root cause of war, however, it still plays a large factor in many conflicts--as a scapegoat.

Over the next few posts, I shall talk about this problem, using Hinduism and Buddhism as an example, two large religions that embodies the peace a religion should have, but still had their share of conflicts. First, we shall rewind to the Axial Age, where the basis of modern religions were laid out. After that, we seek the true reasons of war, where religion becomes justification for a conflict. Finally, we see the reason why currently many religions become scapegoats: their extremists and radicals.

___

This essay was made as a mid-term assessment for my World History class, on the chapter about Axial Age Religions. I made quite a long essay, where each part could be considered a stand-alone essay, that I decided to cut it up in my blog. Originally made in Indonesian, translated and edited.

Following through on what I said about religions being a sensitive matter, people feeling offended by this problem--most of all Hindus and Buddhists--should comment and we could discuss on what I should edit, or tear down this post. However, I would like to say, please do not let the truth be covered.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens - Re-Awakening the Forces

I did a rant back at December when I first watched The Force Awakens, but now, as my English lesson requires an essay, I made it quite better and complete. Special thanks to my team members: Helen, Hugo, Phoebe, Tania, and Wintama.

I think, at the very least some of you who have watched this show must have simply admired it, and you couldn’t have your minds separated from this show until now. I know that this show has been fascinating for all of us who have watched it, and so we thought that it could fascinate us all even more if we could take a more in-depth look at the mechanics of The Force Awakens, and to criticize it.

By the mechanics, I meant physics, which is almost always a frightening subject, am I right? However, however bad we are at physics, however much we resent it, we all must have known that Star Wars is, indeed, a fictional world, and in fictional worlds, almost no laws of physics are followed. Thus, let us investigate some of the physical laws that are disobeyed in The Force Awakens.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens is, without a doubt, science fiction, where there are always gaps in the science. Actually there are also gaps in its storytelling, one being that in a world of fiction, what I learned was that a writer should always show and not merely tell. That crawl at the beginning dropped a tremendous amount of events that happened over the thirty years between episodes six and seven. But what can I say, that opening crawl is tradition, and The Force Awakens did follow that Star Wars tradition of being an epic, with very nearly tear-jerking moments and lighthearted ones, plus astounding CGI, along with tense action.

But anyway, as Star Wars is a space opera set in space, most of the more fictional moments clearly disregard the law of gravity and orbital motion, what I grazed through back at grade ten. I, or who had played Kerbal Space Program, shall investigate how much The Force Awakens follow Kepler’s rules on orbital motion, first on how the spaceships should behave in space as opposed to in Star Wars, and second on how this superweapon called Starkiller Base will fail if ever made in real life. Finally, we shall delve into the world of theoretical physics and consider how probable is hyperdrive.

credit: slashfilms.com

The first fault in The Force Awakens was in that one scene, where several starships flew past a planet's ring. That planet's ring clearly was orbiting the planet, so how could the ships have gone past it perpendicularly? According to Kepler’s law of orbital motion, to be able to head straight to a center of gravity, an object must either be travelling extremely fast so not to have its path deflected by the gravity well, or it should not be moving with respect to the center of gravity, so that gravity could pull it straight down.

Thus, to move in that manner, either the ships were travelling extremely fast, which they weren't in the scene, or extremely slowly, which they also weren't. At the velocity they were moving, they would fall under the planet's gravity well, and dragged into a hyperbolic orbit. Then, to land on the planet, they should do a de-orbiting burn, where a ship fires its engines opposite to where it is flying to decrease velocity. We haven’t even talked about how forces are applied in space, which is another long story altogether.

credit: starwars.wikia.com

Speaking about orbits, how Starkiller Base worked was peculiar. If it needs to completely drain the star it is orbiting to charge up, then at the moment it fires, it will no longer have a star to orbit. After that, it will retain its tangential velocity, thus it will be slingshoted to deep space, so that the First Order will have a much harder time targeting. We could see this principle working when a slingshot is used, in striking a golf ball, or even in the chains of a bicycle, those that turn rotation into linear velocity.

And how did it fire for the first time, when it destroyed the Republic capital system, without draining the star it was orbiting? As the planet should have been slingshoted, it would be impossible to get captured into another star's orbit in the time range of The Force Awakens. In our own solar system, the nearest stars are Alpha Centauri, 4.5 lightyears away, Barnard’s Star, 6 lightyears away, and Sirius, 9 lightyears away. Stars are sparse, and even if the planet was slingshoted in the right direction it would take tens of thousands of years to reach another star.

Actually from the original trilogy.
credit: cinemablend.com

Until now, we talked about real space in Star Wars, and the physical laws that go with it, and not hyperspace, the method of faster-than-light travel. All we can say, sadly, is that hyperdrive is completely science fiction, with no scientific facts at all to support it. We have searched, and all there were on how hyperdrive works are completely imaginative, with terms like ‘hyperdrive motivator’ and ‘interdictor fields’ that have no explanation and scientific basis whatsoever on how they work.

If we want to see a good way to fly faster-than-light, then look no further than Star Trek. Its warp drive does have a scientific basis: the Alcubierre Drive. By expanding space-time behind a ship and compressing it in front, a bubble will form where space-time itself, and not the ship, will move, bringing it faster than Einstein’s law of special relativity dictates. This is the way that the Enterprise managed to explore the final frontier, exploring new worlds, seeking new life and civilizations, and boldly go where no one has gone before. Well, certainly, this is clearly more thought out than the very imaginative hyperdrive.

However, that being said, the hyperdrive being imaginative is probably not such a bad idea in science fiction. So far, The hyperdrive, the Starkiller Base, and how the starships ignored gravity were the only faults that stuck in our minds, and we just can't remember anything else. The story and the visuals were what made The Force Awakens great, and not thinking on how everything should have worked according to the laws of physics.

In the end, those faults in science are the part of the imagination of Star Wars that made it a legendary science fiction, along with the Fore and Darth Vader. While it had been a great opportunity to understand the world of physics better, those faults remind us that Star Wars is merely a story of fiction, to be enjoyed and celebrated as an epic set in space. All along, my friends were right: in science fiction, we should always put more emphasis on the fiction. Certainly, The Force Awakens was good fiction.

___

Star Wars: The Force Awakens is a movie by Lucasfilms.