Through the Microscope

Clearly Mark Smith loves to immerse himself in the world of the small. He describes his delight in finding so much life in such a small space. He finds it fascinating how we are connected to these "animalcules", humans have a symbiotic relationship with these millions of microscopic organisms living around us and inside us. We need them and they need us. They help our bodies function properly and we basically provide them with a place to live (us).

While a lot of this article was a little too scientific for me to follow, it did spark my imagination. There is a whole world that we are not able to see without a microscope. And for the most part we never give that world a second thought, if any of us think of it at all, and yet without it we would not be able to survive. It makes me wonder...astronomers are always saying how small the Earth is compared to the universe as a whole. There are even theories that our universe is sandwiched between hundreds if not thousands of other universes. That makes us all very small indeed. So in a way it's all relative...we're just as small as all those little animalcules that Smith talks about.

Evolution

Phelan's theory of how we are currently evolving is quite interesting. I was impressed at the amont of scientific evidence that he had to support his idea, all the examples of ancient DNA and how through comparing skeletons from different regions of the Earth one could get a sense of where and when a genetic mutation occurred, if it was a successful mutation and how and where it spread. I've always had the impression that evolution took place over such a long period of time that it would be close to impossible to actually find DNA that was missing some of the traits that humans have today. I distinctly recall my biology teachers repeating that evolution, if mentioned at all given its religious implications, took place over hundreds of thousands of years and that it took all that time to develop even the smallest of changes. In this article it is shown that the evolution of certain traits occurs much faster than I originally thought. Which is pretty cool...=P

"It makes sense that some alleles present in Europe, Asia, and the rest of the world wouldn’t appear in Sub-Saharan Africa, and vice versa; population flow has not yet had time to spread all alleles to all parts of the world. However, it’s hard for many of us not to hear in Lahn’s musings on brain genes the ugly implication that Africans are inferior. But such was not Lahn’s intention, nor was that his finding. It was not even what he was investigating."

This is the part of the article that interested me the most. Because now that Phelan has shown that Lahn's theory has merit scientifically, he now discusses its implications on the morals of our current culture. All through human history there are stories of different peoples and cultures fighting each other to gain equal status. Clearly this value of equality is incredibly important to us, so now to possibly have scientific proof that some races are truly not equal to others because they have yet to receive a certain gene is worrying to me. In reality, these genetic differences are mostly too small to really cause a noticeable difference in how civilized certain races are compared to others, but the fact that they exist gives people the excuse to discriminate. And from humanity's rather dirty history of discrimination, it's fairly safe to say that an unfortunately large amount of people will use any excuse to make themselves seem better than others. So the introduction of scientific proof that these acts of discrimination may actually be based on fact could be disastrous. Perhaps I'm a pessimist but I get this vision of all the progress we've made to try to accept racial differences being undone and because the cause would be scientific people would be more willing to believe it and it would be much harder to get back to a level of acceptance.

But when you take the time to think about this idea that some populations have evolved past others you realize that it's not quite so simple as saying that one population is better than another. Mutations occur in all human races, so while the Europeans might possess a gene that allows them to drink milk into adulthood that Asians don't have completely, I bet you could easily find another gene that the Asians possess that the Europeans don't have yet. Take Africans for example, probably one of the worst cases of physical discrimination in human history, dating back hundreds of years. Because Africans have dark skin they were considered inferior by all the lighter skinned races when in reality their dark skin gives them a huge advantage over any "white" person. "Black" skin was developed through generations of exposure to the African sun, and defensive evolution against the harm that the suns rays can cause to human skin. Melanin is a chemical in the skin that when exposed to a certain amount of sunlight is basically released to protect the body against said amount of sunlight. Basically melanin is what allows humans to tan. You can think of Africans' melanin as being permanent, they don't have to go through the whole tanning process. They have evolved to have permanent sun protection. They don't have to use sun-screen, they don't get sun burns, and they have much less chance of developing skin cancer than any light-skinned person. Isn't it ironic that the reason "Whites" discriminated against "Black" is also what makes them, in a way, "better" than their discriminators?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that while, yes, there will be certain traits that a certain race will have that others will not; but it goes both ways, the other races will have traits that that certain race does not. So while it might be scientifically proven that certain populations have evolved beyond others in certain ways, this inequality would be canceled out when you take into consideration that while race A does not possess a certain trait that race B does, race A probably has a different trait that race B doesn't have.

The Art of Blogging

I had never been really that interested in blogs before this class. When I first heard that we had to blog in this class I was like "really....blogging???...puhlease....". My first few blog posts were really monotone and analytical but as I discovered the freedom one can have in writing blogs my posts became more and more casual. I believe that blogging has definitely helped improve my individual "voice" in my writing. I'm writing more and more like how I would discuss a subject out loud in a vocal discussion. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is up to you, my readers to decide. I'm still not really into blogging on a regular basis but I definitely appreciate it more than I did before. When you add the comments into the experience it's like having a vocal discussion but without anyone interrupting your ideas, which I think is quite nice, because I've never really been able to hold my ground in vocal discussion, usually other people end up talking over me and I don't particularly like to fight over who gets to speak when, so this whole blogging thing is a much less stressful experience for me.

Ethics and Climate Change

Honestly, I found this article hard to follow. I have never been good at understanding the nuances of economics...

John Broome talks a lot about how we should try to focus on how our current lives will effect those of future generations as opposed to focusing on the here and now. While I agree that we should be aware of possible repercussions we might have on our descendants, I'm a believer in the philosophy that if you help the people around you in the present day that the future will be a better place. So if we were to focus on bettering our world in the present day, than the world would be a better place for future generations as well. So I guess I just don't understand why Broome says that we shouldn't focus on the present day, I mean, how else are we supposed to make the future better if we don't make the present day better? Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding the article...?

Another thing that bothered me was Broome's question, given the choose, would you save a child of the future or a child in the present day? To me this is just not a fair question...its impossible to know what situation this "future child" would be in, so how are you even supposed to chose?? I guess I'd argue that by saving a child in the present day you would indirectly save an entire line of decedents therefore saving one or more future children.

The Human Footprint

John Murlis talks about the futility of buying food with a carbon stamp on it and that in reality half the carbon emissions come from cooking the produce anyway so it's useless to buy these foods. While I believe he is right that money spent to try to make the produce's journey from the farm to the store more "green" is ultimately useless and that that money could be spent better elsewhere, I do take issue with his statement that buying organic produce is also futile. Hate to break it to y'all, but carbon emissions aren't the only thing that's killing the Earth. Yeah global warming gets all the hype so it's understandable that some people only freak out about them and overlook the other factors. But if we were to only focus on global warming and ignore the other pollution problems than it won't matter if the Earth is nice and cool because we'll still be in serious trouble. People sell organic produce because it has no pesticides on it, not because less gas is spent on transporting it. And you might be thinking "Oh, well pesticides are okay...much less worse than global warming..." Well you're wrong. While it hasn't been confirmed yet, it is firmly believed that the use of pesticides is starting to kill off the wrong kind of insects, most importantly bees. Bees populations around the world are dying off with terrifying speed. Why are bees so important you ask? Well, they happen to be the only worldwide pollinators, yeah there are other pollinators in the world but plants are pollinated by bees about 99% of the time. Now take a moment to think about this, how many plants on Earth require pollination to survive? What would happen if all the bees died? All I can say is that you'd better like your wheat products...cause without bees that's about all that would be left...

So it bothered me that Murlis simply dismissed the impact of organic produce. I firmly believe that everyone should buy organic produce, maybe it won't stop global warming but it will save the Earth from an equally devastating fate.

Do I believe I am responsible for global warming? Well that's a complicated answer, yes and no...I do everything that I am aware of and find myself capable to do to be more "green" but I do think that the human race, Americans especially, are responsible for global warming, and as a member of both the aforementioned, I am also responsible. A lot of people think that they can't really help by buying "green" products, or investing in renewable energy cause they think, "I'm only one person what impact can I possibly have? Not to mention it's kind of expensive to go "green"..." And so they do nothing...Think of is as investing in the future of the human race. Yeah maybe you won't be around to see things get really bad, but does that mean that you should sit back and let the next generation deal with it? Everyone should be as "green" as they can, there are billions of people so while you might think that your contribution is too small to even count, in reality every little bit does count, if billions of people each do their "little bit" than the collective effect would be huge. So if you're one of those people that just shrugs off your responsibility to do your part to help get our world out of this mess we've made with excuses like "Well, it doesn't really affect me..." or "I wouldn't make a difference..." or if you simply are too comfortable and lazy to sacrifice a little, than I'm sorry for you. No one is going to force you to help, it's your choice, but just don't be surprised when suddenly all these problems become crises and everyone is pointing his/her finger at you and you'll be thinking "If only I had..." Trust me you don't want to be in that position. We've only got one shot at this so let's make it count.

Just Add Water Questions

1. How on Earth did the teenage punk manage to get control of the whole town?

2. Why is Charlene afraid of the sunlight/light in general? Is it because she's been hiding her indiscretions in the dark for so long that now, metaphorically speaking, she is afraid that the light will show her sins?

3. What kind of father offers to take his son to a whore house?

4. WHAT IS IN THE TIN BOX????

5.Why is Ray still in this backwater town? Why doesn't he just grab the blond girl and get out of there?

6. Why does the grandmother hate her daughter?

Your Own Little World

The article The Reality Tests was really hard to understand for me. I know very little about quantum mechanics other than it presents a theory of how the universe works contradictory to just about every other theory out there. So for the most part this article went over my head, there was a lot of it that I just couldn't follow because I don't possess the scientific background necessary to understand the concepts being discussed.

What I did get for the article was that there is currently a team of physicists who are exploring the idea of reality and what reality truly is. The idea that we create the world we see around us because of our limited ability to perceive true reality while rather frightening to me is really quite interesting. Apparently our human bodies can barely even begin to take in true reality because the way we observe the universe, through our senses, just isn't even remotely precise enough. So how do we tell what true reality is if our minds have to construct our own world because they are incapable of completely understanding the quantum mechanics reality? I don't know about you but this idea has my imagination up and running. This gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "in your own little world".

Faustian Economics

Ok so while I agree with the majority of this article there are a couple of parts that bother me. Toward the end of the article Wendell Berry talks about how to recover from our "disease of limitlessness". I wholeheartedly agree with his insight that humanity has this idea that natural resources are entirely limitless. I mean, do you realize that less than 5% of the water on Earth is fresh water?? That's not a lot...AT ALL. Yes, it is true that water does sort of recycle itself so that 5% will always be there but there is also the human factor, we keep growing in numbers, at an exponential rate. So in other words in the next hundred years we're in for some serious water shortages, and I'm not talking about just not having enough water to brush your teeth every night, I'm talking about not having enough water to SURVIVE on. Are there ways to fix this? Short answer: Oh of course, we simply have to cut down our use of water now. Just take shorter and fewer showers and stop using buckets and buckets of water to keep your lawn alive if you live in a desert; I mean come on...if you decided to live in a desert than why on Earth are you surrounding yourself with a lush green lawn after claiming to adore the great natural beauty of the desert? I don't buy it...that water could be much better used elsewhere. Anyway that whole rant right there was an example of how our natural resources are far from limitless, yet for some reason the majority of the Earth's population is intent on believing that it is. Perhaps they simply don't want to think about a problem as huge as this.

But unlike Berry, I don't think that we think of ourselves as "god-like animals", that believe that we can control all we touch. I think that it is more that we just don't CARE. We Americans have yet to experience the limits of our Earth's resources. I would bet good money that if you went to one of the dirt-poor villages in one of the third world African countries you would find people that are experts of water conservation and how to make do with little to no water where as you or I would cringe at the idea. The problem hasn't affected us yet so we do nothing about it.

The main thing that aggravates me about this article is the idea that we need to give up technology and our pursuit of knowledge to fix our problems. While I believe that it is true that technology and the pursuit of knowledge are a big part of the reason that we're draining the Earth dry of all its resources, I also believe that they are essential to help put things right. This problem has gone beyond being fixed by just stopping what we're doing wrong, we need actually fix it. Yeah, it would be easy to just stop making the problem worse but it will still be there, wouldn't it be better to try to get rid of it entirely. It would be harder and maybe we won't see any changes for the better in our generation but at least we can help ensure that there will be generations after our own.

Learning Through Conversation

Right, well first off, was there really no group learning before the 1980s?? I find that difficult to fathom...rows of students each in their own little worlds doing their own little projects. Perhaps it is because I grew up with group learning that it seems absurd that teachers never assigned collaborative projects until about 30 years ago. It just seems odd to me that no one thought of it before then, I mean, working in groups as a child is probably what helped me most in learning to function as a part of society as opposed to a complete independent. I believe that it is necessary for a child to learn how to work with others seeing as how he/she will eventually need to get a job that will most likely require him/her to be able to work smoothly with others such as his/her boss.

So back to the idea of the article, Bruffee talks about the idea of people learning through conversation, in other words, talking ideas over with other people is more beneficial than mulling them over in your own solitary mind. I completely agree with this sentiment. Everyone has different points of view and different values that they live their lives by, and trust me, there is no way that you will ever be able to imagine all these different perspectives all on your own. These other people are necessary for you to be able to progress to stronger and more concrete conclusions. There are certain things that you will not take into consideration when interpreting something, be it literature or science, that other people will.

Discussing everyone's various interpretations

will lead to a better understanding of the subject being discussed for everyone

which will lead to better communication between individuals

which will lead to a better society

which will lead to a better LIFE in general!

so anyways....

Discussing your ideas with others will help you better defend your argument as others with different philosophies than your own will be better equipped to challenge your ideas than yourself. Who knows, through arguing with other people you may find that you agree more with what the other person is saying through his/her counterpoints and examples and through that revelation come to a better understanding of yourself. There is probably some sort of really deep moral that I could write here...but I can't think of it at the moment...so I'm just gonna say, this whole collaborative learning conversation thing...DO IT!

that's all.

kthxbye =)

GREED

When I picture greed, I see a little green monster/goblin, sort of like the Cookie Monster in Seseme Street but evil and it eats money instead of cookies. It would be one of those monsters that lives in the dark corner of your closet that you never want to look into. And it comes out when you least expect it, usually when it's dark out. It's deceptively small. You think that you can control it but if you're not careful it can overpower you in seconds.

Oh, and it's also rather partial to composted tripe...;)

The Fear of Writing

I understand Derrida perfectly. I have always been a creative writer and every now and then I go into these sort of "writing moods" where I have an idea or concept that I just need to get on paper. It doesn't occur to me to wonder what other people might think about what I'm writing while I'm actually writing it; it's only when I finish it and reread it that I start to feel self-conscious about my ideas. And when I get self-conscious I get really self-conscious, I start to second guess everything, which is probably why most of the stuff I've written is currently stuffed in a folder somewhere...

I think people are afraid of putting there written ideas out for the world to see because they won't always be around to defend it. It's a bit of a one-sided conversation; you shout your ideas out to the world, but you won't necessarily get any responses. I guess in a way silence is what we're most afraid of, if what you say starts a conversation at least you'll know that someone was listening as opposed to completely ignoring you.

The Limits of Language

While I'm not really a huge fan of the way The Problem of Describing Trees is written, I do agree with the idea that language has its limits. Robert Hass talks about how words can only go so far when one attempts to describe an experience to someone else. I am very familiar with this concept that language can only do so much. As an actor it's my job to know how to describe abstract concepts like emotions to an audience of people who all may not have the same interpretation of a certain concept. And I can tell you straight up that words don't even cover half of it, movement and facial expression often work better to communicate an idea better than language. Combining the two of course works better than either one alone, but if I had to pick just one it certainly wouldn't be words, I would choose movement. There are many ways to describe how to, for example, peel an orange through language, but the action remains basically the same, so showing someone how to peel an orange visually is more effective than trying to explain it verbally. Sometimes there simply are no words to describe something, you just have to SEE it for yourself, which is probably why people would much rather see a play/movie than read a book, and why people learn faster by watching others or by experiencing thing themselves.