Monday, May 10, 2010
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Monsieur René and his Gridlock Kids
Before reading Descartes' meditations, I only had enough of a grasp on his influence as to say, 'there's this guy that is a major proponent of Western culture's domination for the past 400 years' - a statement of which, predictably, I could convince no one.
It's still hard to sell to people the idea that we're living in our the shadow of a father many of us never knew or have even heard of.
Nearly every day I am reminded of some latent bastion of his work and the rules by which we try desperately to live. This is evident as one confronts any situation that imposes a binary mindset, a polarized black and white scenario which doesn't quite seem to envelope the weight of the choice at hand; a key example being neoclassical economics: according to the rudimentary grid, a Cartesian coordinate plane, we will behave as rational consumers in order to make the system work... And indeed the system functions on some level, but the rationality of the rational thinkers might be, in a relative way, totally fucked.
Look at it this way: this system of economy is nearly impossible to run the way it is supposed to be, because it presumes a simplistic ideal of rationality and facilitates human suffering; so if we're being true Cartesians, our long-standing attempt to maintain it is a failure.
But it works for some, no?
Obviously it isn't that simple then. The failure of economics is not complete, thus the binary model is what truly fails us here.
I'm getting an uncanny connection to The Matrix here, in more ways than I'd care to admit: for one, in Keanu Reeves' feeling that 'something just doesn't seem right about reality,' which applies in the sense that in fact, something does not seem quite right about the rules we follow for the sake of participating in society, with our irrational minds and bodies; and yet to be told of the existence of an Architect who built a system at odds with these qualities is going to mean nothing unless we can think of another way to run their invention.
Now I'm not saying I think we're literally subjects connected to an artificial reality while our bodies float in a pod of bile on a giant mechanical hive that harvests our physiological energy into a power grid. But you've got to appreciate the metaphor.
It's still hard to sell to people the idea that we're living in our the shadow of a father many of us never knew or have even heard of.
Nearly every day I am reminded of some latent bastion of his work and the rules by which we try desperately to live. This is evident as one confronts any situation that imposes a binary mindset, a polarized black and white scenario which doesn't quite seem to envelope the weight of the choice at hand; a key example being neoclassical economics: according to the rudimentary grid, a Cartesian coordinate plane, we will behave as rational consumers in order to make the system work... And indeed the system functions on some level, but the rationality of the rational thinkers might be, in a relative way, totally fucked.
Look at it this way: this system of economy is nearly impossible to run the way it is supposed to be, because it presumes a simplistic ideal of rationality and facilitates human suffering; so if we're being true Cartesians, our long-standing attempt to maintain it is a failure.
But it works for some, no?
Obviously it isn't that simple then. The failure of economics is not complete, thus the binary model is what truly fails us here.
I'm getting an uncanny connection to The Matrix here, in more ways than I'd care to admit: for one, in Keanu Reeves' feeling that 'something just doesn't seem right about reality,' which applies in the sense that in fact, something does not seem quite right about the rules we follow for the sake of participating in society, with our irrational minds and bodies; and yet to be told of the existence of an Architect who built a system at odds with these qualities is going to mean nothing unless we can think of another way to run their invention.
Now I'm not saying I think we're literally subjects connected to an artificial reality while our bodies float in a pod of bile on a giant mechanical hive that harvests our physiological energy into a power grid. But you've got to appreciate the metaphor.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Therese Neumann
The thing from this class that I will remember most is the case study of Therese Neumann. It really intrigues me and I still think about it on occasion. It kind of changed the way I see the world. It’s a prime example of something that can’t be explained no matter how hard you try. Faith is a powerful thing and it allows people to view what is possible in a very different light. For example, everything we know tells us that it is entirely impossible for a person to survive for 40 years by eating nothing but The Holy Eucharist but faith allows some people to view this as possible. I find it odd how scientific fact can be totally dismissed if you believe hard enough in something (ex. Evolution, inedia, stigmata, etc.) and we see this as a totally acceptable fact of society. I guess it leads me ask the question, why is it ok to dismiss the facts sometimes and not others?
C@|^T3$!@N
There were actually quite a few things that i will take away from this class so i might be a little random in what i am talking about, but the thing i will try to focus on is the concept of our Cartesianized culture cuz that is the one thing i will be most likely to remember if asked about this class in ten years.
Does anyone else feel like when the term "cartesian" was used in the classroom it was often said with some contempt? At first it was somewhat enlightening to me to understand what cartesian meant and to consciously recognize how ingrained the concept was in society. But I don't fully understand the negative connotation attached to it in the classroom. I think the fear of cartesianism, if you will, is that it will annihilate all other ways of looking at things and though i understand the concern i don't think it could ever completely take over. For example...
I know that even if i was given a recipe and followed it perfectly i could never cook as well as someone who just new what to do and measured things "by eye"
I would much rather watch a baseball game then look at a sheet of paper that had every possible stat about the game.
If i meet a girl I like i more than likely wouldn't graph her attributes and see what the R squared value is between the function of my ideal girl and the one i just met... then again I think that may be what e-harmony does... ok I may have just talked myself out of any reasonable argument i had lol
I know there are many more example but i suppose the fact that i couldn't think of many more maybe gives some credibility to the fear of the cartesian takeover.
I also think that maybe a lot of things would be similar even if they weren't cartesianized. For example i was told that at one point their was a kind of split in the way writing music was seen. One group of people wanted there to be rules to everything, if an exception was found then another rule was there to account for it, the other group thought that it should be up to the musician to do what he thought sounded "good". Well as it turned out both groups of musicians ended up sounding exactly that same. You could say that the rules were unnecessary and inconvenient or you could argue that they allow a better understanding to a less advanced musician.
I think maybe that last argument hold part of the answer. To the untrained musician, or whatever it may be, a cartesian layout is greatly helpful in gaining an understanding of the topic, but to someone who is very skilled at something (musician, chef, economist, even engineer perhaps?) it shouldn't be seen as an absolute boundary but rather as a generally good thing to base your work on. So yes I think it is beneficial to recognize that we are cartesian and we should understand its influence on us but if those two things are done i think there is nothing to fear from the cartesian takeover itself.
Anyway back to what i will take from this, I guess I always "knew" that things tended to be based on graphs and grids and ratios in our society but that fact that it was given a name in this course definitely got me thinking about it more and i think it will be good for me as an aspiring engineer to better understand the benefits and limitations of a cartesian way of looking at things.
Have a great summer everyone!
Does anyone else feel like when the term "cartesian" was used in the classroom it was often said with some contempt? At first it was somewhat enlightening to me to understand what cartesian meant and to consciously recognize how ingrained the concept was in society. But I don't fully understand the negative connotation attached to it in the classroom. I think the fear of cartesianism, if you will, is that it will annihilate all other ways of looking at things and though i understand the concern i don't think it could ever completely take over. For example...
I know that even if i was given a recipe and followed it perfectly i could never cook as well as someone who just new what to do and measured things "by eye"
I would much rather watch a baseball game then look at a sheet of paper that had every possible stat about the game.
If i meet a girl I like i more than likely wouldn't graph her attributes and see what the R squared value is between the function of my ideal girl and the one i just met... then again I think that may be what e-harmony does... ok I may have just talked myself out of any reasonable argument i had lol
I know there are many more example but i suppose the fact that i couldn't think of many more maybe gives some credibility to the fear of the cartesian takeover.
I also think that maybe a lot of things would be similar even if they weren't cartesianized. For example i was told that at one point their was a kind of split in the way writing music was seen. One group of people wanted there to be rules to everything, if an exception was found then another rule was there to account for it, the other group thought that it should be up to the musician to do what he thought sounded "good". Well as it turned out both groups of musicians ended up sounding exactly that same. You could say that the rules were unnecessary and inconvenient or you could argue that they allow a better understanding to a less advanced musician.
I think maybe that last argument hold part of the answer. To the untrained musician, or whatever it may be, a cartesian layout is greatly helpful in gaining an understanding of the topic, but to someone who is very skilled at something (musician, chef, economist, even engineer perhaps?) it shouldn't be seen as an absolute boundary but rather as a generally good thing to base your work on. So yes I think it is beneficial to recognize that we are cartesian and we should understand its influence on us but if those two things are done i think there is nothing to fear from the cartesian takeover itself.
Anyway back to what i will take from this, I guess I always "knew" that things tended to be based on graphs and grids and ratios in our society but that fact that it was given a name in this course definitely got me thinking about it more and i think it will be good for me as an aspiring engineer to better understand the benefits and limitations of a cartesian way of looking at things.
Have a great summer everyone!
Friday, May 7, 2010
“What remains as an excess that can’t be assimilated and what are you going to do with the gift I bestow, I who am such strange stuff?”
Today while waiting for the bus I started reading a new book and without even getting past page lowercase x I ran into CSCL 3331:
So what did I end up doing? Making pictures and Calling for Art and (soon) curating an art exhibition (do I know how to do that? Sure!….) which has social themes related to intersections of science and culture, but was not what I’d set out to do. (I was hoping for, maybe, a writing sample.) In this class, and really, in these last months outside of class as well, I kept running into art. Not that I was running away from it, but I see now that there was a way in which I had seen it as isolated from other fields--there was a Washington Avenue next to my idea of art. Sometimes art comments on or examines other fields, or is displayed in their lobbies, but there was a separateness I felt of it not reaching or connecting with people in the same way, and pulling a different cultural weight. It is hard, visiting galleries or museums, to not have a sense of art existing in air-tight rooms and not being experienced by many.
But what I kept running into in this class is that art is again and again entering these other realms and interacting and speaking and just pretty well refusing to go away--and making an impact. Whether its Michael Chricton or youtube or poetry or dance or Olympic figure skaters or activists flown here from India by the art department, or Anne Fausto-Sterling working with a playwright, it’s going on, and apparently it’s letting me know. Again and again in the margins of my notes I wrote STORYTELLING.
Tonight, for example, I went to meet this woman who emailed me about the exhibition and is making a TPT documentary about a CSA farm and was having an open studio tonight. In the meantime, I’d heard from another artist, who, as it turns out, has exhibited all sorts of places and has an impressive background of work. So I go and see the woman and her documentary and it was great and we chatted and she said, well let’s walk around the building--and who is sitting on the couch drinking wine, but artist #2 and so we have a conversation. She shares the work she has done bringing rural people’s stories to the public in their own words and images, for the last 30 years, and, as she said, public conversation has finally caught up and includes farmers, too. And here I’ve stepped into the scene to make some collection of my impression at my moment in time. Maybe it is because it is a dark and stormy night but I feel I’ve stepped into the river of the conversation of everything.
We are so lucky to have the image of Washington Avenue, with the two sides volleying thoughts and ideas and people back and forth whether they realize it or not. You can’t create science without creating culture, and most likely, these days, a facet of culture can’t exist without science trying to come up with an explanation. A woman can’t just bleed from her hand and not eat for thirty years without someone wanting to know why. (Though the bleeding woman may never care to hear your explanation, she has her own.)
And speaking of that bleeding woman, we learned about so many strange things that people do--cutting off their own healthy limbs, raising a son as a girl after he’s been attacked by a dog, making our own food supply crappy, opting out of the gender system, building misogynistic paranoia about eco-terrorists. . . . An array of things that don’t assimilate into our idea of the typical, the known. But all of these strange people did make a little more sense and feel a little more understandable when we dropped beneath the tag line of their story, and ventured into the un-assimilated parts, investigating the strange of that which was unknown…..I leave intrigued by humanity. It really is fascinating, the things that we do, and what we think we know.
_______________________________________________________
1 Michael Taussig, Walter Benjamin’s Grave (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006)
“It is more like having the reality depicted turn back on the writing, rather than on the writer, and ask for a fair shake. “What have you learned?” the reality asks of the writing. “What remains as an excess that can’t be assimilated and what are you going to do with the gift I bestow, I who am such strange stuff?”...One intriguing thing I am thinking about from this class is the idea that we often think we are doing one thing but we might really be doing something completely different. Here I was taking this class in order to start figuring out my plans for graduate school after being out of school for a while--planning to move ahead to some sort of social sciences degree (having received an undergraduate degree in art).
...we don’t think sufficiently about the fact that when we explain the unknown we reduce it too quickly to the known. That is the first problem. We strip the unknown of all that is strange. We show it who’s boss, the basic rule of a university seminar. We tolerate neither ambiguity nor that which won’t conform. The second and even greater misfortune here is that we thereby forget how strange is the known.
...Therefore the task of the writer, as I see it, is to play with this dual function of words; pretend they are what they refer to--that they do take you to the rain forests of the Pacific coast---and at the same time recognize the artifice. This I call the nervous system, one of whose functions is to make manifest the hand of the writer so as to perturb the fiction masquerading as what we call truth, which is, of course, what we call culture too.”1
So what did I end up doing? Making pictures and Calling for Art and (soon) curating an art exhibition (do I know how to do that? Sure!….) which has social themes related to intersections of science and culture, but was not what I’d set out to do. (I was hoping for, maybe, a writing sample.) In this class, and really, in these last months outside of class as well, I kept running into art. Not that I was running away from it, but I see now that there was a way in which I had seen it as isolated from other fields--there was a Washington Avenue next to my idea of art. Sometimes art comments on or examines other fields, or is displayed in their lobbies, but there was a separateness I felt of it not reaching or connecting with people in the same way, and pulling a different cultural weight. It is hard, visiting galleries or museums, to not have a sense of art existing in air-tight rooms and not being experienced by many.
But what I kept running into in this class is that art is again and again entering these other realms and interacting and speaking and just pretty well refusing to go away--and making an impact. Whether its Michael Chricton or youtube or poetry or dance or Olympic figure skaters or activists flown here from India by the art department, or Anne Fausto-Sterling working with a playwright, it’s going on, and apparently it’s letting me know. Again and again in the margins of my notes I wrote STORYTELLING.
Tonight, for example, I went to meet this woman who emailed me about the exhibition and is making a TPT documentary about a CSA farm and was having an open studio tonight. In the meantime, I’d heard from another artist, who, as it turns out, has exhibited all sorts of places and has an impressive background of work. So I go and see the woman and her documentary and it was great and we chatted and she said, well let’s walk around the building--and who is sitting on the couch drinking wine, but artist #2 and so we have a conversation. She shares the work she has done bringing rural people’s stories to the public in their own words and images, for the last 30 years, and, as she said, public conversation has finally caught up and includes farmers, too. And here I’ve stepped into the scene to make some collection of my impression at my moment in time. Maybe it is because it is a dark and stormy night but I feel I’ve stepped into the river of the conversation of everything.
We are so lucky to have the image of Washington Avenue, with the two sides volleying thoughts and ideas and people back and forth whether they realize it or not. You can’t create science without creating culture, and most likely, these days, a facet of culture can’t exist without science trying to come up with an explanation. A woman can’t just bleed from her hand and not eat for thirty years without someone wanting to know why. (Though the bleeding woman may never care to hear your explanation, she has her own.)
And speaking of that bleeding woman, we learned about so many strange things that people do--cutting off their own healthy limbs, raising a son as a girl after he’s been attacked by a dog, making our own food supply crappy, opting out of the gender system, building misogynistic paranoia about eco-terrorists. . . . An array of things that don’t assimilate into our idea of the typical, the known. But all of these strange people did make a little more sense and feel a little more understandable when we dropped beneath the tag line of their story, and ventured into the un-assimilated parts, investigating the strange of that which was unknown…..I leave intrigued by humanity. It really is fascinating, the things that we do, and what we think we know.
_______________________________________________________
1 Michael Taussig, Walter Benjamin’s Grave (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006)
Final Post
Things I learned in CSCL3331:
-Michael Crichton did more than just Jurassic Park.
-The origins of soap.
-Germs didn't exist before Louis Pasteur
Living in a world where people carry around pocket sized containers of hand sanitizer and working for a woman who is a germophobe, it's hard to imagine a world where germs don't exist. I was really interested by this idea that was brought up in class. Things don't "exist" until you find them and name them. Or the things down at the bottom of the ocean that don't "exist" as far as I'm concerned. This class made me very intrigued by all of the things that have come into existence and all of the paradigm shifts that have happened throughout history because of them. It's crazy–what a completely different world people were living before DNA existed!
I am also coming away with the idea that people live in different "realities". Like the discussion in class on Thursday about using this idea to help with a stubborn professor, maybe this will help me too in my relationships with my extended family who (good, bad, or otherwise) comes from a different reality than mine.
Thanks for a fun semester!
-Michael Crichton did more than just Jurassic Park.
-The origins of soap.
-Germs didn't exist before Louis Pasteur
Living in a world where people carry around pocket sized containers of hand sanitizer and working for a woman who is a germophobe, it's hard to imagine a world where germs don't exist. I was really interested by this idea that was brought up in class. Things don't "exist" until you find them and name them. Or the things down at the bottom of the ocean that don't "exist" as far as I'm concerned. This class made me very intrigued by all of the things that have come into existence and all of the paradigm shifts that have happened throughout history because of them. It's crazy–what a completely different world people were living before DNA existed!
I am also coming away with the idea that people live in different "realities". Like the discussion in class on Thursday about using this idea to help with a stubborn professor, maybe this will help me too in my relationships with my extended family who (good, bad, or otherwise) comes from a different reality than mine.
Thanks for a fun semester!
The CSCL 3331 Experience
I can honestly say I feel like I've learned more about myself, life, and other people in this class than I've learned in any class I've taken throughout high school or college. For once, I felt as though I was in a class that was strictly based around each individual and all of our unique opinions, thoughts, theories, etc. Rather than a class where we're presented with information, expected to memorize it, learn it, and apply it, and basically just go through the motions day after day until it's over. I felt like every person that spoke out had the ability and the opportunity to alter the entire path that our topics were going in, and feeling like we has students had control over some of the information we were learning, and how we wanted to learn it, is something that I'll always appreciate about 3331. And there are many things that I feel honored to be taking away from Science and the Humanities (now "Culture"), that I know will be stuck with me for the rest of my life.
One of these things is my newfound confidence to never stop asking questions, and to never be afraid to ask questions about everything. I'm guilty of reading studies, experiments, reports, news stories, you name it, and just agreeing with whatever the author says and not allowing my thoughts to stray far from the point that he/she is stating, and the facts that he/she has to back it up. It's something that I'd never given a second-thought to before. They're the experts, they know what's best, so I'll just shut up and listen. But SciHum gave so much insight into how insulting it is to us as humans to just accept what we're given at face value, without ever questioning its "legitimacy" (Thanks to Ben, I'll always associate that word with him). I remember reading Not in our Genes by Richard Lewontin early on in class, and him mentioning that scientists are never free from biases or outside influences, and this is something that until reading that, I'd never given consideration to before. Scientists, after all, are still humans, like the rest of us (well, maybe except for Esther, that cyborg) and therefore are still susceptible to falling for all of the weaknesses that we as humans face. Our society really puts an emphasis on the scientists and the experts for legitimation, so much that we've stopped being able to trust ourselves when it comes to anything.
Crichton's book, State of Fear also aided in making me think more about taking whatever it is we read at face value. His book is a prime example of how facts can be skewed in almost any which way, in order to help support or disprove a certain standpoint or belief. Like many said in class while we were discussing State of Fear, we know better than to believe Crichton, but the way he presented all of the information and facts, along with the fictitious story used to weave them all together, it was hard not to find our thoughts drifting toward his side of the field now and then.
So, I might be royally fucked now after this class because I'll be skeptical of everything and never admit to believing in something until I've had the opportunity to ask every question, read all the information on it that I can find, and consider the possibilities of the opposite side of the spectrum. But I figure, I'd rather be crazy and confident in what I believe, than indifferent and ignorant of all of the knowledge and opinions that there are out there.
I hope you all have an awesome summer, I had a great time with everyone this semester, and I'm genuinely sad that this class has come to an end. And thanks Ben and Robin for making this class as remarkable as it was.
Art and corruptions and blather
On Thursday we discussed the supposed structure of a 19th century Utopia credited to a German individual whose name I don't remember (sorry, Ben). It involved the different spheres of what I'll collectively call "life" existing separately--science, politics, religion, art, what have you. When the spheres overlap or bleed into each other, that is called a "corruption." It is these corruptions that disrupt the Utopia.
In a class built on examining these intersections and overstepped boundaries, it's easy for us to agree that what makes life at all interesting is these corruptions. Science and culture (media and politics, school and religion, Thing 1 and Thing 2) go hand in hand. Purism will only lead to the death of the medium.
While the blending of science and ideology/money/etc. is the reason something called "science studies" can exist, the complications are often as frustrating as they are fascinating. No study can reach the public without layers of "non-science" resting above or below it, and in the end the corruptions seem to keep us from the truth (whatever the truth is). Whether Crichton is telling us that ideology funds research and alters the published findings or Pollan is explaining that friendly government support of corn farmers is actually destroying America's health, it's pretty clear that the facts are hard to get to.
I thought, originally, that the art sphere might be the only one that has doesn't do much to disguise the truth (or "truth"). If art imitates life, its existence is dependent on collision with the other spheres. No matter what statement it's making, no matter how the public receives it, in the end art is only art and always up for interpretation. Fiction is not equal to fact. After learning about the effect State of Fear had on powerful decision-makers (/Deciders) and revisiting how storytelling has reshaped ethics and policy in the past, however, I rethought this. We all might be hardened skeptics, rearing to point out sensationalism or fat cats when we see 'em, but a carefully constructed story--even one that uses sensationalism to critique sensationalism--can catch anyone off-guard. Instead of being the least known or most innocent part of the equation, I believe that art and its emotional power might be the most dangerous part. It is not sitting back and taking in religion and war and science--it is pushing outward and, through mixed media especially, passing admirably for truth.
As scary as State of Fear's power is, I think the sneaky, oft-underestimated power of art is awesome.
Morphing
The lyrics of a song that I like by a weird french band called Elsiane are going to be the inspiration for this post. Because I feel like what I am taking away from this class, or this semester in general, or this period in my life, relate to this song. The title is "Morphing".
Look in the interior it's all full of life
look in this shadow but always leave the light on
mysterious all full of life
loom into shadows but always kept the light on
I'll discover it over I'll be hovered and mostly gone
I'd like to restart it all over with mountains full of gold
Discover the way only in the inferior
Constantly followed holding into light
Mysterious all full of love
Doom into shadows but always leave the light on
I realize it's in my mind installed
I find it's in my mind in stone
I'll discover it over I'll be hovered and mostly gone
I'd like to restart it all over with mountains full of gold
I've been stumbling all over I'll be stuck in this lonely and
I'll minimize the evil kind of love destroying
All the evil kind of thoughts installed
Settle down my evil start minimize my evil side
One of the most intriguing concepts discussed in class this semester, in my opinion, was that of "Viral Information". Fetishes spread because people are made aware of the fetish. Fetishes are created because someone with a bizarre perspective posted it on the internet. Information can change us - and one of the environmental factors which dictates how we are going to 'play out' in this world is exposure to ideas. 100 years ago someone with an identical genome to mine would not have been the same person. There would have been a LOT of similarities, for sure. Maybe even the same general temperament. But she wouldn't have birth control, she wouldn't know about apotemnophilia, she wouldn't be studying Computer Science and she would probably have been raised either orthodox Jewish or Catholic. Can you imagine? Because I really can't.
What I am taking away from this is simultaneously humbling and empowering. It is a realization that hurts my pride, on some level, and it is this: There are in fact things that I don't want to know. I have taken pride for a long time in being someone who wants to know everything, all the time. I thought that a great sign of my strength and awesomeness was that I could know things, experience things, and come away with little to no baggage. But I'm getting older. I'm realizing that there is always baggage. I'm realizing that there are a lot of things that, once known, will never allow me to go back. I can do my best to learn new things which are better than the old things, to construct fantasies which allow me to cope, to "cast things in a new light"... I can do mental push ups and exercises in emotional control, but fundamentally, my own brain is a black box, even to me. And that is scary!
While walking in the rain today, I tried not to kill earthworms. But when I see a centipede, I want it to be dead. Immediately. I am not a rational being. I can try to rationalize the impulses I have using my toolbox; evolutionary psychology, past experiences, things which turn randomness into concrete, validated reality. But Sartre was right - we are just justification machines, and what we learn at any given moment, what we decide about a thing at any given moment, is tweaking our self projection into both the future and the past. And even with that, I don't feel consistently "me". I can't tell you why my knees were shaking at my final performance yesterday. I can't tell you why I was desperate for my boyfriend's attention on Tuesday and nearly indifferent enough to break up with him on Wednesday. Sometimes I just want to conclude that I'm crazy - but then I look around, and I realize - the very desire to rationalize my actions, to be consistent, is making me crazy. Because its like trying to fit a square peg into a circle. And in that sense, sanity is just accepting the bliss of ignorance - it is accepting not that you can't know, but that sometimes there really isn't anything to know. There is no way to take control. There is the black box sitting on my shoulders, taking information in and doing who-the-hell-knows-what with it. But I HATE that! So I am going to keep trying to force myself into some rational framework, I know it.
So this is two-fold, I suppose. On the one hand, destroying some of life's illusions can really take the fun out of things. Plenty of illusions can't be destroyed, but some are destroyed by science, by studies of human nature, and by statistical 'facts'. On the other hand, when you learn things, the knowledge can change you.
Here are a list of things that I have recently considered that I don't want to know:
1. When and how I am going to die.
2. When and how my future relationships will fail (or really, even that they are all statistically likely to fail. Whoever told me that, I hate you. And thanks, I guess.)
3. Older men are attracted to younger women (my dad is 20 years older than my mom and pretty much hasn't dated a woman his own age since he was 20.) Pretty much I am just going to believe that, if this is a general truth, I will be the exception to the rule. Alternatively, I will never get married because I don't want to be fighting stupid ugly human nature.
4. People are highly likely to cheat on their spouses.
5. I'm never going to be a super hero. Or if I am, I will probably never be 100% sure I am totally, rock solid, doing the right thing.
6. There is a fetish for young amputee girls.
7. I am prone to alcoholism, and it makes me stupider.
8. I like beer.
9. Hangovers suck.
10. Growing apart is easier than growing together.
11. My brain is going to trick me into making the same mistakes twice... or a million times.
Alright, enough of this moroseness. Happy summer, everyone! I had a great semester with y'all.
Look in the interior it's all full of life
look in this shadow but always leave the light on
mysterious all full of life
loom into shadows but always kept the light on
I'll discover it over I'll be hovered and mostly gone
I'd like to restart it all over with mountains full of gold
Discover the way only in the inferior
Constantly followed holding into light
Mysterious all full of love
Doom into shadows but always leave the light on
I realize it's in my mind installed
I find it's in my mind in stone
I'll discover it over I'll be hovered and mostly gone
I'd like to restart it all over with mountains full of gold
I've been stumbling all over I'll be stuck in this lonely and
I'll minimize the evil kind of love destroying
All the evil kind of thoughts installed
Settle down my evil start minimize my evil side
One of the most intriguing concepts discussed in class this semester, in my opinion, was that of "Viral Information". Fetishes spread because people are made aware of the fetish. Fetishes are created because someone with a bizarre perspective posted it on the internet. Information can change us - and one of the environmental factors which dictates how we are going to 'play out' in this world is exposure to ideas. 100 years ago someone with an identical genome to mine would not have been the same person. There would have been a LOT of similarities, for sure. Maybe even the same general temperament. But she wouldn't have birth control, she wouldn't know about apotemnophilia, she wouldn't be studying Computer Science and she would probably have been raised either orthodox Jewish or Catholic. Can you imagine? Because I really can't.
What I am taking away from this is simultaneously humbling and empowering. It is a realization that hurts my pride, on some level, and it is this: There are in fact things that I don't want to know. I have taken pride for a long time in being someone who wants to know everything, all the time. I thought that a great sign of my strength and awesomeness was that I could know things, experience things, and come away with little to no baggage. But I'm getting older. I'm realizing that there is always baggage. I'm realizing that there are a lot of things that, once known, will never allow me to go back. I can do my best to learn new things which are better than the old things, to construct fantasies which allow me to cope, to "cast things in a new light"... I can do mental push ups and exercises in emotional control, but fundamentally, my own brain is a black box, even to me. And that is scary!
While walking in the rain today, I tried not to kill earthworms. But when I see a centipede, I want it to be dead. Immediately. I am not a rational being. I can try to rationalize the impulses I have using my toolbox; evolutionary psychology, past experiences, things which turn randomness into concrete, validated reality. But Sartre was right - we are just justification machines, and what we learn at any given moment, what we decide about a thing at any given moment, is tweaking our self projection into both the future and the past. And even with that, I don't feel consistently "me". I can't tell you why my knees were shaking at my final performance yesterday. I can't tell you why I was desperate for my boyfriend's attention on Tuesday and nearly indifferent enough to break up with him on Wednesday. Sometimes I just want to conclude that I'm crazy - but then I look around, and I realize - the very desire to rationalize my actions, to be consistent, is making me crazy. Because its like trying to fit a square peg into a circle. And in that sense, sanity is just accepting the bliss of ignorance - it is accepting not that you can't know, but that sometimes there really isn't anything to know. There is no way to take control. There is the black box sitting on my shoulders, taking information in and doing who-the-hell-knows-what with it. But I HATE that! So I am going to keep trying to force myself into some rational framework, I know it.
So this is two-fold, I suppose. On the one hand, destroying some of life's illusions can really take the fun out of things. Plenty of illusions can't be destroyed, but some are destroyed by science, by studies of human nature, and by statistical 'facts'. On the other hand, when you learn things, the knowledge can change you.
Here are a list of things that I have recently considered that I don't want to know:
1. When and how I am going to die.
2. When and how my future relationships will fail (or really, even that they are all statistically likely to fail. Whoever told me that, I hate you. And thanks, I guess.)
3. Older men are attracted to younger women (my dad is 20 years older than my mom and pretty much hasn't dated a woman his own age since he was 20.) Pretty much I am just going to believe that, if this is a general truth, I will be the exception to the rule. Alternatively, I will never get married because I don't want to be fighting stupid ugly human nature.
4. People are highly likely to cheat on their spouses.
5. I'm never going to be a super hero. Or if I am, I will probably never be 100% sure I am totally, rock solid, doing the right thing.
6. There is a fetish for young amputee girls.
7. I am prone to alcoholism, and it makes me stupider.
8. I like beer.
9. Hangovers suck.
10. Growing apart is easier than growing together.
11. My brain is going to trick me into making the same mistakes twice... or a million times.
Alright, enough of this moroseness. Happy summer, everyone! I had a great semester with y'all.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
black box
One of the things im taking away from this class is the idea of the black box. how things such as atoms have alawys existed, but were never accepted until they were proven toe exist. what else in the world fits into this claim? from this claim i am reminded of a certain Simpsons episode where Mr. Burnes' father fired an employee for having 4 atoms on him. it kinda shows the level of thinking most people display in a certain period of time, and how we fear what we do not know.
The Real Danger of State of Fear
One thing that I actually really enjoyed was reading Crichton’s State of Fear. It was his profound statement that “the footnotes are real” that really made me pay more attention to what he was actually saying. He was legitimizing his work, with what many people believe as “truth” aka science. What is unsettling about Crichton’s work is his ability to make the readers question their own beliefs, especially in regards to the “reality” of science. Science is the one thing that people go to to prove something. But Crichton makes one think twice about doing this. He focuses on the fact that science data can be interpreted in a way that fits one’s hypothesis. Now, when I look at scientific papers I realize that I cannot take them at face value just because they are “scientific” and have footnotes with references to other works.
I worked through Crichton’s reading in depth because of the debate. My working group randomly picked the affirmative side and we ended up changing a lot of the minds in the class. I was actually shocked by the amount of people that did not agree his book was dangerous when we started the debate. We tried to make it very clear that we were not trying to censor his work in any sort of way, but just that it was dangerous to the public. It was his use of science in legitimizing his argument that really blurred the line between narrative (his fictional work) and “reality”-what we know as science. It was interesting to see as the debate went on, that we gained a lot of support. I think it was the fact that Crichton and his work questioned the one true thing many believe as “reality.”
As you can see throughout this post I do not say reality but “reality.” I put it in quotes because throughout this class I think what once was reality became “reality.” I have come to notice that it seems as though what one may perceive as “reality” is different from another. I thought it was disappointing that someone brought this up at the end of class so there wasn’t much discussion but I would have liked to hear other thoughts about it.
Final post
Something that really made me think more than anything else in this class was Descartes. What made it...bother me (I'm not sure that's the right word, but nothing else seems to fit) is that without it, we wouldn't be as advanced as we are today. But with it, it creates so many challenges to us because it is so ingrained in our cultural and scientific consciousness that we think that there isn't any other way to view the world. The natural world isn't so cut and dry, no matter how many little categories we create. Creating different, separate categories isn't practical or useful in any way. By using Cartesian maps, even it helps us see the tress in the forest, it gets harder to see the forest.
But without it, we'd be completely overwhelmed and lost. I must admit that I was/still kind of am stuck in the Cartesian way of thinking. When we are younger, we think in terms of absolutes, black and white, no shades of gray, and as we get older we gain more experience that real life isn't always one way or the other (even though it would be much simpler that way). But we never lose our Cartesian way of thinking unless we are presented with it and shown that things don't have to be seen this way, like what happened in this class with Anne Fausto-Sterling.
It was disconcerting at first, and I'm still grappling with this because it's a major change in my way of thinking. I don't like gray areas or uncertainty, and both of those things make me extremely anxious and sometimes give me panic attacks. So this change in thinking is going very slowly for me, so I don't get overwhelmed and start freaking out unnecessarily. But I think this change will be for the better. Like everything else in life it's about finding that balance and re-adjusting every so often.
Have an excellent summer everyone!
But without it, we'd be completely overwhelmed and lost. I must admit that I was/still kind of am stuck in the Cartesian way of thinking. When we are younger, we think in terms of absolutes, black and white, no shades of gray, and as we get older we gain more experience that real life isn't always one way or the other (even though it would be much simpler that way). But we never lose our Cartesian way of thinking unless we are presented with it and shown that things don't have to be seen this way, like what happened in this class with Anne Fausto-Sterling.
It was disconcerting at first, and I'm still grappling with this because it's a major change in my way of thinking. I don't like gray areas or uncertainty, and both of those things make me extremely anxious and sometimes give me panic attacks. So this change in thinking is going very slowly for me, so I don't get overwhelmed and start freaking out unnecessarily. But I think this change will be for the better. Like everything else in life it's about finding that balance and re-adjusting every so often.
Have an excellent summer everyone!
Blog posting #10 (due FRIDAY 5/7, 11:59 P.M. (comment due SATURDAY 5/8, 11:59 P.M.)): Final reflection/discussion
This last post is real open...and meant as a kind of final reflection/discussion. We'd like you to do the following:
1) Choose one thing from this class (a text, an issue, a concept, an object, a theme, a case study, etc.) that you are taking away with you from this class -- something that still excites you, or bothers you, or intrigues you. Ideally, something that has changed, even in some small way, the way that you see and act in the world.
2) Describe it, briefly: what it is, and why it excites/bothers/intrigues you.
3) Reflect on what about it you are taking away from this class, and how it has (in whatever way) altered your thoughts about and actions in the world. If possible/appropriate, make reference to how the issue played out in class discussion, in the context of other topics/issues/themes/texts/concepts/cases we have been dealing with. If you recall what one or two of your colleagues had to say about it, bring that in too!
1) Choose one thing from this class (a text, an issue, a concept, an object, a theme, a case study, etc.) that you are taking away with you from this class -- something that still excites you, or bothers you, or intrigues you. Ideally, something that has changed, even in some small way, the way that you see and act in the world.
2) Describe it, briefly: what it is, and why it excites/bothers/intrigues you.
3) Reflect on what about it you are taking away from this class, and how it has (in whatever way) altered your thoughts about and actions in the world. If possible/appropriate, make reference to how the issue played out in class discussion, in the context of other topics/issues/themes/texts/concepts/cases we have been dealing with. If you recall what one or two of your colleagues had to say about it, bring that in too!
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
More on The Pill
Here's an article that was in the New York Times this week on The Pill:
It started more than one revolution
It started more than one revolution
2x2
There have been several presentations about various drugs and ethics that I've been thinking about for the past few days. For example, the presentation on steroid use along with the one of the more recent presentations on ADHD were two that I noticed some pretty close similarities on. Two of the most noticeable of them both being how easy and readily people can get these drugs, regardless of most, if not all, factors, and how many people have taken, or currently are taking these drugs. The ADHD medication is dosed by 'severity' of the supposed ADHD - mild, moderate, or severe - and how doctors claim to be able to diagnose the different severities, especially on young and naturally energetic kids, is beyond me. The steroid generation we are living in is almost so common now, it doesn't even surprise most people when they hear the 'breaking news' of one of their favorite athletes being busted for doping. Another thing I found interesting, is how easy and often the system seems to be beat when it comes to getting these drugs, or being tested for them. Many athletes who have tested positive for anabolic steroids seem to get off the hook with just a slap on the wrist and a "don't do it again" speech, and I have known several people who have never considered themselves as having ADHD, but found a way to test positive for it to get the prescription medication. One question I have about these scenarios, is do doctor's realize how easily the system can be played, and do they even care about stopping it? Or is the idea of how much money they can make with all of the prescriptions, or the bribes for getting athletes off the hook just too tempting to keep them from intervening? The black box of what really goes on in between the process of testing kids (or adults) for ADD/ADHD and determining whether they truly suffer from this "disease," and what happens in between the testings and the results of athletes who are almost always rumored to be doping, is a process I don't think I'll ever understand.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Toxic Garbage Dump in the Pacific: the Movie
http://www.vbs.tv/watch/toxic/toxic-garbage-island-full-length
Thanks to Alex and his group; here's a follow-up.
This is a powerful piece. Explains the science pretty extensively, and they wouldn't need much embellishment... it's all there.
Thanks to Alex and his group; here's a follow-up.
This is a powerful piece. Explains the science pretty extensively, and they wouldn't need much embellishment... it's all there.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Redesigning "Facts" - Our daily bread
I've had some major technical difficulty posting this. Kind of a 2x3...
What sticks out to me is the extensive web that we've illuminated through our rain of presentations - a web of thought processes and ideologies that build discursively upon, and thus depend upon, one another. Although their manifestations in say, the pill controversy as opposed to the prison system may seem to emerge at a distance, they are of course directly linked.
For starters, without the social atmosphere required for the Eugenics movement, neither of these phenomena could exist in the way that they do today. As the prison group pointed out, the criteria for 'most likely to be disposed to criminal behavior' was at a time largely based off of physical indicators such as one's build; since certain builds might have seemed more genetically prone to particular races or types of people, and because anyone in prison would be considered a degenerate, the Eugenics folks were likely on the same page with those at the penitentiaries.
The hard work of Margaret Sanger helped to define what sort of pills one can take legally for certain purposes which some deemed immoral; on the other hand, many tenants of the prison system are there because of different results in the same battle, over what constitutes immoral medication and thus what medication is made illegal.
In the evaluation of my own group's poster on the Large Hadron Collider, our benevolent facilitator noted his relief in the depth of our presentation, mostly in light of initial doubts springing from his first look at the poster itself. The potential problem, built into our display, was that it fit the form of a 'conventional science fair' backdrop, listing facts in their respective places... in other words, it appeared to uphold what we might call a model of gridlocked reference, relying on a more or less Cartesian plane to separately list the 'science' of the LHC versus the 'skeptic' point of view - binary and basic, but as we know, not that simple.
Fortunately my group was aware of the discursive circulation in and around the LHC, including the wealth of "YouTube experts" and "cranks" whose rhetoric pervades public awareness more than I had known.
The first thing this course emphasized for me is the notion that there are no objective facts, and yet I think we continue to struggle with the years we have spent consuming just that. After all, we are irrational beings still plugging ourselves into rational grids. Our grades for this project will be charted on a grid. This course in the future will be listed on a database that depends on thousands of binary codes (the internet and the University's registration software).
I've been toying with talking about "facts" as artifacts... pieces of meaning that we find here and there and from which we build a sense of place and reality; like shards broken off of a massive and mythical black box called Life, the Universe, and Everything, facts are often interpreted through science as simple elements of truth, regardless of whether or not we know the big picture: eventually, we'll put it all together once we have enough of these little shards. Wrong!
Keep up the work. By remembering what we see in front of us now, we can continue to remind each other, and hopefully those who find themselves "settled" into reality as well, that we are not just receivers or discoverers of fact, but that we work hard to make them.
What sticks out to me is the extensive web that we've illuminated through our rain of presentations - a web of thought processes and ideologies that build discursively upon, and thus depend upon, one another. Although their manifestations in say, the pill controversy as opposed to the prison system may seem to emerge at a distance, they are of course directly linked.
For starters, without the social atmosphere required for the Eugenics movement, neither of these phenomena could exist in the way that they do today. As the prison group pointed out, the criteria for 'most likely to be disposed to criminal behavior' was at a time largely based off of physical indicators such as one's build; since certain builds might have seemed more genetically prone to particular races or types of people, and because anyone in prison would be considered a degenerate, the Eugenics folks were likely on the same page with those at the penitentiaries.
The hard work of Margaret Sanger helped to define what sort of pills one can take legally for certain purposes which some deemed immoral; on the other hand, many tenants of the prison system are there because of different results in the same battle, over what constitutes immoral medication and thus what medication is made illegal.
In the evaluation of my own group's poster on the Large Hadron Collider, our benevolent facilitator noted his relief in the depth of our presentation, mostly in light of initial doubts springing from his first look at the poster itself. The potential problem, built into our display, was that it fit the form of a 'conventional science fair' backdrop, listing facts in their respective places... in other words, it appeared to uphold what we might call a model of gridlocked reference, relying on a more or less Cartesian plane to separately list the 'science' of the LHC versus the 'skeptic' point of view - binary and basic, but as we know, not that simple.
Fortunately my group was aware of the discursive circulation in and around the LHC, including the wealth of "YouTube experts" and "cranks" whose rhetoric pervades public awareness more than I had known.
The first thing this course emphasized for me is the notion that there are no objective facts, and yet I think we continue to struggle with the years we have spent consuming just that. After all, we are irrational beings still plugging ourselves into rational grids. Our grades for this project will be charted on a grid. This course in the future will be listed on a database that depends on thousands of binary codes (the internet and the University's registration software).
I've been toying with talking about "facts" as artifacts... pieces of meaning that we find here and there and from which we build a sense of place and reality; like shards broken off of a massive and mythical black box called Life, the Universe, and Everything, facts are often interpreted through science as simple elements of truth, regardless of whether or not we know the big picture: eventually, we'll put it all together once we have enough of these little shards. Wrong!
Keep up the work. By remembering what we see in front of us now, we can continue to remind each other, and hopefully those who find themselves "settled" into reality as well, that we are not just receivers or discoverers of fact, but that we work hard to make them.
roids vs. cosmetic
when it comes to the sports worlds its all about competition, and trying to one up your opponent. so some athletes decide to take steroids to become stronger and to extent the longevity of their careers. players who can play longer and stronger usually get paid more money so in the end its mainly about getting paid as much as you can and just take the effects the steroids will have on your body.
for the cosmetics, the group mentioned how each year over 12 billion dollars are spent on cosmetic procedures a year. in our fashion driven society the person who gets the job is not always the person is the most qualified, but sometimes who dresses the part. so again the issue of price is shown as a means to drive the demand.
for the cosmetics, the group mentioned how each year over 12 billion dollars are spent on cosmetic procedures a year. in our fashion driven society the person who gets the job is not always the person is the most qualified, but sometimes who dresses the part. so again the issue of price is shown as a means to drive the demand.
2x2
The two posters that struck me was the plastic surgery and the performance enhancing drugs.
One of the concepts I got from the performance enhancing drugs is where can the line be drawn for using drugs to make a living vs. cheating? I honestly believe if it is a safety issue or a legal drug, then it should be fine to use. But when people, like fans, are paying for a sport that should be deemed "clean," then 'roids, meth, etc. should not be used. I think it's okay for truck drivers to use things to keep them awake so they don't run my car over while they're passing out.
A concept I got from plastic surgery is that it can become an addiction like a drug. More of an addiction to achieve "perfection" vs. feeling that high that you can never get after the first use.
The one link I see between the two is money. Models, actresses/actors, and adult film stars use plastic surgery to help make more money, like some athletes use steroids to pad their stats and get that fat contract and achieve perfection. It is weird to know that society wants to know who has what kind of plastic surgery done and be perfectly fine paying to watch their movies or buy the magazine that they're on the cover on. On the other hand, in the sports world, any illegal drug that an athlete uses to gain an advantage is something most of society would not want to pay for.
Bottom line - both subjects involve two different industries putting something forgein in their body to achieve "perfection" and/or make more money.
One of the concepts I got from the performance enhancing drugs is where can the line be drawn for using drugs to make a living vs. cheating? I honestly believe if it is a safety issue or a legal drug, then it should be fine to use. But when people, like fans, are paying for a sport that should be deemed "clean," then 'roids, meth, etc. should not be used. I think it's okay for truck drivers to use things to keep them awake so they don't run my car over while they're passing out.
A concept I got from plastic surgery is that it can become an addiction like a drug. More of an addiction to achieve "perfection" vs. feeling that high that you can never get after the first use.
The one link I see between the two is money. Models, actresses/actors, and adult film stars use plastic surgery to help make more money, like some athletes use steroids to pad their stats and get that fat contract and achieve perfection. It is weird to know that society wants to know who has what kind of plastic surgery done and be perfectly fine paying to watch their movies or buy the magazine that they're on the cover on. On the other hand, in the sports world, any illegal drug that an athlete uses to gain an advantage is something most of society would not want to pay for.
Bottom line - both subjects involve two different industries putting something forgein in their body to achieve "perfection" and/or make more money.
limbo
Birth Control and Designer Babies.
Of course they are both related to babies, and controlling the outcomes related to babies--but on the surface maybe you hear “birth control” and hear “no babies,” and hear “designer babies” and think “yes babies!” But really they just seem to circle around and around to each other. No babies, no babies now, yes babies, these babies not those babies, yes any and all babies.
In our everyday political dialogue, we are usually divided into two camps related to reproduction: Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. In this class we’ve often seen that two categories can be deficient, but this is what we are given.
So if you are pro-life, you could be for or against birth control, but you are more likely to be against the morning-after pill, and most likely against RU-486. If you are pro-choice, it’s assumed you are pro-birth control, pro-morning-after-pill, and probably pro-RU-486.
The ideas, I gather, behind the pro-life argument include that anything that denies the existence of a human that is “supposed” to be here is immoral, interfering with the work of God, and ultimately, an act of murder. This is often backed up by Science that details the workings & legitimacy of the life of the fetus. The ideas behind the pro-choice argument include that a woman who exists in this life already should be able to control what is created by her body, esp. in the case of something that will require care for 18 years or more. You could say, in terms of God, that it recognizes the woman also as a creature made by God, given the ability to make choices by God. Science is also used in these arguments to state how a fetus is different from a person.
If we think about Designer Babies, how do they fit in to the idea that some life is “supposed” to be here? Would a pro-lifer potentially argue that if a woman cannot get pregnant, it is because God has not willed it? Would her use of in vitro then be just as unnatural as birth control? I do not feel that I have heard this argument coming out of the pro-life camp as often as we hear anti-abortion sentiment--perhaps it is because fertility treatments are “right” because they are bringing to life something we all know is right: cute babies who wear sunglasses and hiccup inside the womb. Alternatively, it could be argued that God sent us genetic testing and IVF and so they are all fair game, or that it is simply a biological urge that cannot be denied, so women can’t help but strive to have a baby by any means.
Beyond fertility treatments, designer babies include modifying specific genes or traits in a potential baby--this can further enter into the discussion of whether or not we are playing God/interfering with natural creation as we make these decisions. What types of human life do we prefer, accept, and avoid? Are some of our technologies un-natural? Immoral?
We saw the image on the Birth Control poster stating “The Pill Kills.” We saw the eugenics tree on the Designer Baby poster. Driving on 35 in any direction we see the use of scientific “facts” on billboards to legitimate the idea that the fetus is a person already. Making your opposition out to be murderers is a powerful tactic. Doing so with accompanying numbers and statistics and research institutions is even more powerful.
This makes me think of cord blood banking--an expensive procedure when done privately, to save your baby's cord blood for a later date, if needed for disease treatment. Telling a parent (who can afford it) that banking cord blood may save their child’s life someday is probably going to make them do it, even if the evidence doesn’t exactly say that the blood will actually be effective. Similarly, both birth control and “designer baby” procedures are relatively new on the scene of mankind, and both take significant action to alter the functioning of a human body--and we may or may not have anticipated the long-term effects. (Are women gaining in freedom while risking their bodies and hormones to a larger experiment?)
These particular “scientific” issues are extremely emotional. It seems clear that trying to be objective about birth control or babies is a really, really, really hard task. No one wants to lose a child, no one wants their child to suffer a painful disease, and no one wants to inadvertently kill a child. These issues are complicated.
When we pretend they are not complicated is when it all gets extra dangerous.
We began this class reading the work of a bioethicist with a background in medical science, but I get the feeling that most (“hard”) scientists do not consider themselves to be working primarily to create society’s ethics. However, these various debates sift out our values, deciding what is acceptable and what is not. If you really want to declare what is or is not acceptable, backing it up with Science sure seems to help a position gain strength.
Its easy for this to invite cynicism. Instead what Latour points out to us is that we must be honest with ourselves, not expect way too much of our efforts and our conclusions. We must come around again and again, exploring our current ideas of reality, until, eventually death trumps us and the next person takes over.
Of course they are both related to babies, and controlling the outcomes related to babies--but on the surface maybe you hear “birth control” and hear “no babies,” and hear “designer babies” and think “yes babies!” But really they just seem to circle around and around to each other. No babies, no babies now, yes babies, these babies not those babies, yes any and all babies.
In our everyday political dialogue, we are usually divided into two camps related to reproduction: Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. In this class we’ve often seen that two categories can be deficient, but this is what we are given.
So if you are pro-life, you could be for or against birth control, but you are more likely to be against the morning-after pill, and most likely against RU-486. If you are pro-choice, it’s assumed you are pro-birth control, pro-morning-after-pill, and probably pro-RU-486.
The ideas, I gather, behind the pro-life argument include that anything that denies the existence of a human that is “supposed” to be here is immoral, interfering with the work of God, and ultimately, an act of murder. This is often backed up by Science that details the workings & legitimacy of the life of the fetus. The ideas behind the pro-choice argument include that a woman who exists in this life already should be able to control what is created by her body, esp. in the case of something that will require care for 18 years or more. You could say, in terms of God, that it recognizes the woman also as a creature made by God, given the ability to make choices by God. Science is also used in these arguments to state how a fetus is different from a person.
If we think about Designer Babies, how do they fit in to the idea that some life is “supposed” to be here? Would a pro-lifer potentially argue that if a woman cannot get pregnant, it is because God has not willed it? Would her use of in vitro then be just as unnatural as birth control? I do not feel that I have heard this argument coming out of the pro-life camp as often as we hear anti-abortion sentiment--perhaps it is because fertility treatments are “right” because they are bringing to life something we all know is right: cute babies who wear sunglasses and hiccup inside the womb. Alternatively, it could be argued that God sent us genetic testing and IVF and so they are all fair game, or that it is simply a biological urge that cannot be denied, so women can’t help but strive to have a baby by any means.
Beyond fertility treatments, designer babies include modifying specific genes or traits in a potential baby--this can further enter into the discussion of whether or not we are playing God/interfering with natural creation as we make these decisions. What types of human life do we prefer, accept, and avoid? Are some of our technologies un-natural? Immoral?
We saw the image on the Birth Control poster stating “The Pill Kills.” We saw the eugenics tree on the Designer Baby poster. Driving on 35 in any direction we see the use of scientific “facts” on billboards to legitimate the idea that the fetus is a person already. Making your opposition out to be murderers is a powerful tactic. Doing so with accompanying numbers and statistics and research institutions is even more powerful.
This makes me think of cord blood banking--an expensive procedure when done privately, to save your baby's cord blood for a later date, if needed for disease treatment. Telling a parent (who can afford it) that banking cord blood may save their child’s life someday is probably going to make them do it, even if the evidence doesn’t exactly say that the blood will actually be effective. Similarly, both birth control and “designer baby” procedures are relatively new on the scene of mankind, and both take significant action to alter the functioning of a human body--and we may or may not have anticipated the long-term effects. (Are women gaining in freedom while risking their bodies and hormones to a larger experiment?)
These particular “scientific” issues are extremely emotional. It seems clear that trying to be objective about birth control or babies is a really, really, really hard task. No one wants to lose a child, no one wants their child to suffer a painful disease, and no one wants to inadvertently kill a child. These issues are complicated.
When we pretend they are not complicated is when it all gets extra dangerous.
We began this class reading the work of a bioethicist with a background in medical science, but I get the feeling that most (“hard”) scientists do not consider themselves to be working primarily to create society’s ethics. However, these various debates sift out our values, deciding what is acceptable and what is not. If you really want to declare what is or is not acceptable, backing it up with Science sure seems to help a position gain strength.
Its easy for this to invite cynicism. Instead what Latour points out to us is that we must be honest with ourselves, not expect way too much of our efforts and our conclusions. We must come around again and again, exploring our current ideas of reality, until, eventually death trumps us and the next person takes over.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
cosmetic surgery and athletic enhancement drugs (the name of the poster escapes me)
I realize that it doesn't exactly take an enormous amount of brain power to see the connection between the two but they both brought about some really good discussion that I'd like to take a stab at sorting through.
I knew cosmetic surgery was not uncommon but the dollar amounts they threw out (12 billion a year was it?) astounded me. I am kind of bothered by the vanity that that number exposes but at the same time I realize that i am by no means above the influence given by society to try to be attractive. The difference between makeup and surgery seems pretty clear cut but procedures like botox blur the line. Maybe botox or even surgery aren't in themselves harmful but in my opinion the over-obsession with appearance is.
Athletic enhancement drugs have very similar issues. Its fairly easy to differentiate between vitamin or protein supplements and anabolic steroids, but cretin and countless other drugs and supplements lie in varying degrees between the two.
I was especially fascinated by two opposite comments that were made pertaining to what should be allowed in sports. One person proposed that the only clear line that can be drawn is right at the start, saying that all supplements should be banned. The other stated that anything should be allowed. In my opinion both of these have serious problems associated with them.
How strict can you really set the standard if you want to exclude everything. Is protein not allowed? What if it is needed for health purposes? If vitamins are banned are vitamin enriched genetically modified foods banned too? But the other side of the spectrum has its own share of difficulties. If steroids are allowed in pro sports are they allowed in college? High school? Little league? It is known that long term use of steroids is harmful to the body but if "everyone is doing it" do aspiring athletes really have a choice?
This struggle is paralleled in cosmetic surgery. Though most peoples jobs don't rely directly on appearance, it certainly plays a role in how people are perceived which is hugely important when giving a business proposition or interviewing for a job or almost anything.
I think I agree with Robin when he says that each new technology brings its own share of troubles (or something along those lines). We can now be stronger and more "beautiful" than ever but at what cost? Not even to mention the whole new set of standards and regulations that will be brought about if/when machines and computer chips are able to enhance the human body far past it's natural limitations.
I knew cosmetic surgery was not uncommon but the dollar amounts they threw out (12 billion a year was it?) astounded me. I am kind of bothered by the vanity that that number exposes but at the same time I realize that i am by no means above the influence given by society to try to be attractive. The difference between makeup and surgery seems pretty clear cut but procedures like botox blur the line. Maybe botox or even surgery aren't in themselves harmful but in my opinion the over-obsession with appearance is.
Athletic enhancement drugs have very similar issues. Its fairly easy to differentiate between vitamin or protein supplements and anabolic steroids, but cretin and countless other drugs and supplements lie in varying degrees between the two.
I was especially fascinated by two opposite comments that were made pertaining to what should be allowed in sports. One person proposed that the only clear line that can be drawn is right at the start, saying that all supplements should be banned. The other stated that anything should be allowed. In my opinion both of these have serious problems associated with them.
How strict can you really set the standard if you want to exclude everything. Is protein not allowed? What if it is needed for health purposes? If vitamins are banned are vitamin enriched genetically modified foods banned too? But the other side of the spectrum has its own share of difficulties. If steroids are allowed in pro sports are they allowed in college? High school? Little league? It is known that long term use of steroids is harmful to the body but if "everyone is doing it" do aspiring athletes really have a choice?
This struggle is paralleled in cosmetic surgery. Though most peoples jobs don't rely directly on appearance, it certainly plays a role in how people are perceived which is hugely important when giving a business proposition or interviewing for a job or almost anything.
I think I agree with Robin when he says that each new technology brings its own share of troubles (or something along those lines). We can now be stronger and more "beautiful" than ever but at what cost? Not even to mention the whole new set of standards and regulations that will be brought about if/when machines and computer chips are able to enhance the human body far past it's natural limitations.
Plastic Surgery + Birth Control + Women's Lib
I thought that the presentation on plastic surgery was really interesting. It's interesting how some people can be so absorbed in looking perfect that they spend that kind of money to "fix" themselves. It's understandable that celebrities would go to such lengths, since nowadays they are popular because of looks and personal style rather than talent. (Reality stars, Lady Gaga?) But what about us little people? Do people that aren't celebrities think that they have no self-worth if they don't look perfect?
I am the first to admit that I am a VH1 junkie. They are airing a show now that I think is the best that they've had in a long time, called "Jessica Simpson's Price of Beauty." In this show, Jessica Simpson and her friends travel to different countries to learn about standards of beauty. They get a regional beauty treatment, and interview a person who has been negatively affected by the standards of beauty. The most recent episode is about beauty in Brazil. Apparently there, it is commonplace to get plastic surgery. They even have discounted plastic surgeries for poorer people. In this episode, Jessica Simpson interviewed a poor person about her views on getting plastic surgery. This woman stated that she spent her money on getting a plastic surgery procedure instead of moving herself and her daughter to a better apartment. Since plastic surgery is seen as investing in the future (as in finding a man to support them) she sees no problem with it and would in the future encourage her daughter to do the same.
This presents a black box to the American mind. We see that Brazilian women (and men? it wasn't discussed) commonly get plastic surgery, and are not ashamed of that fact. They show it off freely. But what is in plastic surgery black box? Is it brimming with confidence and liberation? Or does it hide body insecurities?
This sort of ties in with the birth control presentation. Does a woman's worth stem solely from beauty and reproductive ability? Of course not. But we get into the gray area of choice: when a woman chooses to get breast implants by herself, is that a feminist act? I'm looking at this website: http://www.womensliberation.org/about/what-we-want-what-we-believe.html and they completely oppose plastic surgery. Then again, they oppose makeup, dieting and acting flirty. (Dieting isn't necessarily bad. Self-image is the problem.) Maybe I'm not a "feminist" after all! To think that all of this feminism madness stemmed from the birth control pill!
It's frustrating how birth control (pills and otherwise) have such political implications. Then again, sex is a touchy subject. It's amazing how something so private can divide people into different paradigms. How can a pharmacist tell if a birth control pill was prescribed to prevent pregnancy or alleviate severe cramps? Women on the pill are privy to the preconceived notions of many people. So, too, are those that have undergone plastic surgery. A paradigm shift that would benefit both of these groups would be toward giving people the benefit of the doubt. Women with conditions that they have little control over do, in fact, exist. In my experience, birth control helped with my terrible cramps and migraines (one of which needed an MRI to make sure I wasn't hemorrhaging). Although I haven't had any experience with plastic surgery, I know that it can help reconstruct normal facial structures like sinuses and cure cleft palates.
I guess my real point here is give people a break. Oftentimes there is a bigger story behind their actions than you can know just by looking at them.
I am the first to admit that I am a VH1 junkie. They are airing a show now that I think is the best that they've had in a long time, called "Jessica Simpson's Price of Beauty." In this show, Jessica Simpson and her friends travel to different countries to learn about standards of beauty. They get a regional beauty treatment, and interview a person who has been negatively affected by the standards of beauty. The most recent episode is about beauty in Brazil. Apparently there, it is commonplace to get plastic surgery. They even have discounted plastic surgeries for poorer people. In this episode, Jessica Simpson interviewed a poor person about her views on getting plastic surgery. This woman stated that she spent her money on getting a plastic surgery procedure instead of moving herself and her daughter to a better apartment. Since plastic surgery is seen as investing in the future (as in finding a man to support them) she sees no problem with it and would in the future encourage her daughter to do the same.
This presents a black box to the American mind. We see that Brazilian women (and men? it wasn't discussed) commonly get plastic surgery, and are not ashamed of that fact. They show it off freely. But what is in plastic surgery black box? Is it brimming with confidence and liberation? Or does it hide body insecurities?
This sort of ties in with the birth control presentation. Does a woman's worth stem solely from beauty and reproductive ability? Of course not. But we get into the gray area of choice: when a woman chooses to get breast implants by herself, is that a feminist act? I'm looking at this website: http://www.womensliberation.org/about/what-we-want-what-we-believe.html and they completely oppose plastic surgery. Then again, they oppose makeup, dieting and acting flirty. (Dieting isn't necessarily bad. Self-image is the problem.) Maybe I'm not a "feminist" after all! To think that all of this feminism madness stemmed from the birth control pill!
It's frustrating how birth control (pills and otherwise) have such political implications. Then again, sex is a touchy subject. It's amazing how something so private can divide people into different paradigms. How can a pharmacist tell if a birth control pill was prescribed to prevent pregnancy or alleviate severe cramps? Women on the pill are privy to the preconceived notions of many people. So, too, are those that have undergone plastic surgery. A paradigm shift that would benefit both of these groups would be toward giving people the benefit of the doubt. Women with conditions that they have little control over do, in fact, exist. In my experience, birth control helped with my terrible cramps and migraines (one of which needed an MRI to make sure I wasn't hemorrhaging). Although I haven't had any experience with plastic surgery, I know that it can help reconstruct normal facial structures like sinuses and cure cleft palates.
I guess my real point here is give people a break. Oftentimes there is a bigger story behind their actions than you can know just by looking at them.
Addictions and Cosmetic Surgery x2
Like my follow group member Holly, I was interested in the connection between cosmetic surgery and addiction. However, I did take a slightly different angle mainly rooted in media.
The media frowns upon addiction. Plain and Simple. Actually, not really. It would seem that shows about interventions with addicts would really shed some light on what an addiction is and how it can possibly ruin your life. However, the media acts as a circulating reference. It fools the viewer into investigating the black box of what is "socially acceptable." Maybe I've lost you...but how many commercials are there for Miller Beer? Can't alcohol be addictive? People see that it is "socially normal" to drink but also see the damage it can really cause. Media can create new perspectives, especially with such a circulating idea such as addiction that is portrayed in a negative light--the light being the positive of scarce use.
As far as the presentation on cosmetic surgery, I think it was important to notice the impact of media. It is everywhere--tv, magazine articles, billboards--that "beauty" is defined. What is interesting is that "beauty" changes over time. Media also touches on this black box--the black box of what is "socially acceptable." Millions of women go through cosmetic surgeries to change how they look just to fit in to what is beautiful socially. All the forms of media impact how women feel about their bodies and how they look.
I'm trying to make sense but it doesn't really seem to be happening. I just think that media has a great deal to do with both addiction and cosmetic surgeries. Our society uses media to retain morals of right and wrong, and to determine what is socially acceptable, or deemed correct. Media plays a large part in the formations of opinions.
2x2
Dang it Robin! Those were the projects that I wanted to compare. Uh whatever, I’m doing them anyway.
I thought that both of these presentations were very interesting. I wish that we could have talked about them more in class because we were having a very good discussion. There is clearly a link between addiction and prison so these are perfect projects to compare. After all, a vast number of inmates are in prison in part due to the fact that they are/were addicts at one point in their life. Being addicted to illegal substances can often directly get you sent to prison where as being addicted to legal substances can indirectly get you sent to prison. For example, alcohol impairs your judgment and makes it easier for you to rationalize illegal acts. I think that it would be really interesting to know what percentage of violent crimes (murder, rape, etc.) are committed while under the influence of mind altering substances. I bet that it would be pretty high. The prison group also talked a lot about how people with a low IQ tend to get sent to prison more often than those with a higher IQ. While this may be true I believe that that many high-end crimes are committed by brilliant people. For example, a very high number of serial killers have genius level IQ’s (ex. Ted Bundy). Someone in our class mentioned that this probably has something to do with fact that only the dumb criminals get caught. I would have to agree with this statement which is why we, as a society, we find it so interesting when a smart person gets caught. I feel like this same idea is true when it comes to many different types of addicts. It seems like very intelligent people are more prone depression and mental illness (By the way, I have no proof behind this statement, it’s just what I’ve seen in my life that lends me to believe this). This leads them to find something to make the pain go away and often times they turn to drugs and alcohol. Those are just some of my thoughts on the projects, now to actually link them to our class.
Paradigm shifts seem to be very pertinent to the prison project. As displayed by the group’s timeline, prison used to be thought of as a place to rehabilitate. It was a place where they would be prepared to go back into the real world and be productive members of society. Prisoners also seemed to be viewed as someone who had something “wrong” with them and needed help. Today prison is viewed very differently. Prisoners are often seen as horrible people who need to be locked away and “punished” for the rest of their lives. It is also just a place to keep them away from normal members of society and no longer a place to rehabilitate them. Prison just seems to be viewed as a more horrible place than it used to be.
When it comes to the addictions project, legitimation seems to apply. Some addictions are more socially acceptable than others. For example, we legitimize alcoholism, prescription drug addictions and sex addiction, because they are legal. After all, they can’t be that bad if they are legal, right? In reality they can be just as dangerous as illegal addictions.
As a side note, check this out because it links very well to the incest project (I really hope that it’s not real).
http://nz.lifestyle.yahoo.com/new-idea/real-life/article/-/7124792/im-in-love-with-my-grandson-were-having-a-baby/
I thought that both of these presentations were very interesting. I wish that we could have talked about them more in class because we were having a very good discussion. There is clearly a link between addiction and prison so these are perfect projects to compare. After all, a vast number of inmates are in prison in part due to the fact that they are/were addicts at one point in their life. Being addicted to illegal substances can often directly get you sent to prison where as being addicted to legal substances can indirectly get you sent to prison. For example, alcohol impairs your judgment and makes it easier for you to rationalize illegal acts. I think that it would be really interesting to know what percentage of violent crimes (murder, rape, etc.) are committed while under the influence of mind altering substances. I bet that it would be pretty high. The prison group also talked a lot about how people with a low IQ tend to get sent to prison more often than those with a higher IQ. While this may be true I believe that that many high-end crimes are committed by brilliant people. For example, a very high number of serial killers have genius level IQ’s (ex. Ted Bundy). Someone in our class mentioned that this probably has something to do with fact that only the dumb criminals get caught. I would have to agree with this statement which is why we, as a society, we find it so interesting when a smart person gets caught. I feel like this same idea is true when it comes to many different types of addicts. It seems like very intelligent people are more prone depression and mental illness (By the way, I have no proof behind this statement, it’s just what I’ve seen in my life that lends me to believe this). This leads them to find something to make the pain go away and often times they turn to drugs and alcohol. Those are just some of my thoughts on the projects, now to actually link them to our class.
Paradigm shifts seem to be very pertinent to the prison project. As displayed by the group’s timeline, prison used to be thought of as a place to rehabilitate. It was a place where they would be prepared to go back into the real world and be productive members of society. Prisoners also seemed to be viewed as someone who had something “wrong” with them and needed help. Today prison is viewed very differently. Prisoners are often seen as horrible people who need to be locked away and “punished” for the rest of their lives. It is also just a place to keep them away from normal members of society and no longer a place to rehabilitate them. Prison just seems to be viewed as a more horrible place than it used to be.
When it comes to the addictions project, legitimation seems to apply. Some addictions are more socially acceptable than others. For example, we legitimize alcoholism, prescription drug addictions and sex addiction, because they are legal. After all, they can’t be that bad if they are legal, right? In reality they can be just as dangerous as illegal addictions.
As a side note, check this out because it links very well to the incest project (I really hope that it’s not real).
http://nz.lifestyle.yahoo.com/new-idea/real-life/article/-/7124792/im-in-love-with-my-grandson-were-having-a-baby/
morals and ethics and words (oh my!).
I had to think about this one for a while. I went back and scanned the poster photos, tried desperately to find something other then prison and addiction to talk about, and gave up. I decided that speaking about what means something to me, personally, would be the only way not to sound hollow. In fact, I don't think I might have written about anything else.
I am an addict. Hardcore, not kidding, drugs you might not even have heard of, addict. I am in recovery.
I am an ex-convict. I did real, not-kidding, no joking around 1,460 days in prison because of my addiction. I am on probation until October, 2010.
Looking at the two posters that day, opposed to each other, physically, as if they might ever be opposed to each other, made me smile. Statistics don't lie, but neither do they tell anything like a useful truth that might bring a sense of betterment to questions of humanity and individual failings.
I heard a LOT of talk on the day of these poster presentations about "criminals", and I spent a lot of time wondering if I am one. I certainly have committed criminal acts and have paid the greatest of penalties for being caught in the commission of a criminal act. But does this mean that, today, one week before I finish my degree, that I am still a criminal? Am I permanently tainted? Is one only a criminal if one has a criminal record? How many of you have bought a dime-bag of pot? driven while a bit too tipsy? lied to a police officer or used a fake ID? All of those criminal acts - do they make you a criminal? Are you a criminal even though you don't have a criminal record? Am I a criminal sitting among you? I don't feel like one anymore.
Here is where the rubber meets the road for me. When literature meets statistic and the two help to provide a picture which is not perfectly representative of a truth, but yet, combined, represent something closer to truth than might have been possible alone, is that an important phenomenon? If the statistic and the piece of literature can also be used with equal efficacy to represent a non-truth, is that an important phenomenon? In both cases, of course, the answer must be yes. Still more dramatically important is the ideology of the statistic and the piece of literature; what is the intended public for the statistic or the literature? how were they framed? do they contradict each other or support each other? who is doing the talking and why? who paid for the statistic and why? why must it be about the money?
We are given the black box which is addiction and asked how to deal with it; we are presented with some options by the people we have designated to carry out our will. Before most any of you, my classmates and colleagues, were born, the will of the people said that the addict and the 'other' who supplied the addict should be segregated, separated, warehoused and obliterated. The "War on Drugs" began as a slogan, became a policy, matured into an enormous boondoggle and has become an economic engine, worldwide. It is among the easiest ways to agitate and infuriate the people - tell them it is about the children and their little son or daughter shooting heroine - the images are so dramatic that the people are willing to do anything, pay any price to avoid it. They will get behind any policy, any revenge, any breach of constitutional rights. Anything is permissible when your children are on the line, right? Have you ever heard of a politician being elected on the "let's be reasonable about sentencing non-violent, first-time offenders platform"? Hell no you haven't, nor will you ever. That might have been your kid. For MY parents, it was. Did some pusher force me to try drugs? Again, hell no - I couldn't wait to try them.
The statistics, read without rancor or hyperbole, are bleak. The mountains of money and time invested in closing a border, punishing the user, destroying the supplier, eradicating the grower, killing the cartel, are orders of magnitude larger than the original drug problem, left to die its rather short life span in a really sick body, could ever have been.
I am an addict who does not drink or use drugs. I am a criminal who no longer commits crimes (OK, sometimes I go 70mph in a 55-zone. Don't tell my probation officer). Try to picture this: I sit in a room full of people who don't know a thing about me and would never picture me sitting on a metal chair, my hands, waist, feet and ankles joined together in a heavy-gauge chain, unable to stand erect; I am ordered to stand up, I am chained to other criminals and shuffle down a hallway, I wear an orange jumpsuit and I am escorted by men with shotguns who would not hesitate to blow my head off if they felt threatened. Return with me to now: the people in the room are doing a college project and are using the word criminal as if it were a stable and well-established word with clearly defined meanings. There are statistics about addiction and prison at the liminal ends of the room. I am smiling; this day I have learned something that I will never forget, ever; I am a black box.
I am an addict. Hardcore, not kidding, drugs you might not even have heard of, addict. I am in recovery.
I am an ex-convict. I did real, not-kidding, no joking around 1,460 days in prison because of my addiction. I am on probation until October, 2010.
Looking at the two posters that day, opposed to each other, physically, as if they might ever be opposed to each other, made me smile. Statistics don't lie, but neither do they tell anything like a useful truth that might bring a sense of betterment to questions of humanity and individual failings.
I heard a LOT of talk on the day of these poster presentations about "criminals", and I spent a lot of time wondering if I am one. I certainly have committed criminal acts and have paid the greatest of penalties for being caught in the commission of a criminal act. But does this mean that, today, one week before I finish my degree, that I am still a criminal? Am I permanently tainted? Is one only a criminal if one has a criminal record? How many of you have bought a dime-bag of pot? driven while a bit too tipsy? lied to a police officer or used a fake ID? All of those criminal acts - do they make you a criminal? Are you a criminal even though you don't have a criminal record? Am I a criminal sitting among you? I don't feel like one anymore.
Here is where the rubber meets the road for me. When literature meets statistic and the two help to provide a picture which is not perfectly representative of a truth, but yet, combined, represent something closer to truth than might have been possible alone, is that an important phenomenon? If the statistic and the piece of literature can also be used with equal efficacy to represent a non-truth, is that an important phenomenon? In both cases, of course, the answer must be yes. Still more dramatically important is the ideology of the statistic and the piece of literature; what is the intended public for the statistic or the literature? how were they framed? do they contradict each other or support each other? who is doing the talking and why? who paid for the statistic and why? why must it be about the money?
We are given the black box which is addiction and asked how to deal with it; we are presented with some options by the people we have designated to carry out our will. Before most any of you, my classmates and colleagues, were born, the will of the people said that the addict and the 'other' who supplied the addict should be segregated, separated, warehoused and obliterated. The "War on Drugs" began as a slogan, became a policy, matured into an enormous boondoggle and has become an economic engine, worldwide. It is among the easiest ways to agitate and infuriate the people - tell them it is about the children and their little son or daughter shooting heroine - the images are so dramatic that the people are willing to do anything, pay any price to avoid it. They will get behind any policy, any revenge, any breach of constitutional rights. Anything is permissible when your children are on the line, right? Have you ever heard of a politician being elected on the "let's be reasonable about sentencing non-violent, first-time offenders platform"? Hell no you haven't, nor will you ever. That might have been your kid. For MY parents, it was. Did some pusher force me to try drugs? Again, hell no - I couldn't wait to try them.
The statistics, read without rancor or hyperbole, are bleak. The mountains of money and time invested in closing a border, punishing the user, destroying the supplier, eradicating the grower, killing the cartel, are orders of magnitude larger than the original drug problem, left to die its rather short life span in a really sick body, could ever have been.
I am an addict who does not drink or use drugs. I am a criminal who no longer commits crimes (OK, sometimes I go 70mph in a 55-zone. Don't tell my probation officer). Try to picture this: I sit in a room full of people who don't know a thing about me and would never picture me sitting on a metal chair, my hands, waist, feet and ankles joined together in a heavy-gauge chain, unable to stand erect; I am ordered to stand up, I am chained to other criminals and shuffle down a hallway, I wear an orange jumpsuit and I am escorted by men with shotguns who would not hesitate to blow my head off if they felt threatened. Return with me to now: the people in the room are doing a college project and are using the word criminal as if it were a stable and well-established word with clearly defined meanings. There are statistics about addiction and prison at the liminal ends of the room. I am smiling; this day I have learned something that I will never forget, ever; I am a black box.
Animal Testing x Birth Control
It's too bad that the birth control group was missing their history person. The pill has an interesting history. If any of you are interested, PBS made a film cleverly titled "The Pill" which can be found at Walter Library. The official website for the film is here. Check it out.
As for the 2x2, I'd like to direct my attention to animal testing and birth control. These two presentations were of particular interest to me because these are two big black boxes that I see and hear about daily.
What I found most interesting about the animal testing presentation was the statistics. As some people already pointed out, the numbers seemed a little strange. I don't know where the group got these numbers, but I can imagine that it would be very difficult to find completely accurate numbers (honestly, I doubt that they even exist). As far as the general public's knowledge animal testing goes, I think that researchers tend to want to create a black box. Not because they don't want anyone to know what they're doing (one of their main goals is to get published), rather they just don't care much if people outside of the scientific community are aware of details of their work. It's the idea that all the general public needs to know is the outcome and how it affects them, plus the less the animal rights activists know, the better. I wish that the group presenting had some statistics that were focused on the U. I think we're much more surrounded by animal testing than many students realize. For example, I was once in class with someone who was reading a Daily article about a recent study performed using animals at the U who stated "they must have done that off campus or in St. Paul or something, we don't have animals here"–little did she know, the entire basement of the building we were sitting in is filled with mice caged in little plastic boxes. Of course, researchers don't want to publicize their locations seeing as they already receive plenty of threats but it was interesting to me that there are students majoring in "hard sciences" that are unaware of all of the animals in labs on campus.
Birth control (well, sex ed as a whole) is a subject that gets me worked up because unlike what the group stated NOT everyone receives sex education and even those who do go through sex ed don't necessarily hear anything other than "abstinence is 100%"–but that's a different story for a different day. According to Wikipedia, more than 100 million women use the pill. In order for these women to legally use the pill (one of the many varieties of the pill), it is required that the drug go through animal testing. Companies usually spend around three and a half years doing tests in labs before the FDA allows the drug to be tested in humans. All drugs today have to be legitimized by animal testing. Back when the original pill was created, it was not only tested on animals, but it was tested on women in Puerto Rico without telling them of the possible side effects. Then, it was released to the American public and they realized that the early high-dose pill gave some women very serious, sometimes deadly, reactions. And we still don't fully understand all of the effects of the pill. As mentioned in the presentation, many mechanisms have been hypothesized and are included in the packaging. Women are given prescriptions without receiving full consultations on the risks, side-effects, and what can happen when you go off of the pill.
Anyway, enough of my rambling. One other interesting item that I didn't really pay attention to during the presentation but saw while looking through the pictures was on the bottom right of the birth control group's poster. Nine different forms of contraception: eight pink, one blue. Is it just easier to "control" fertility through the female body or does this say something about our culture? They are working on a pill for men these days...
As for the 2x2, I'd like to direct my attention to animal testing and birth control. These two presentations were of particular interest to me because these are two big black boxes that I see and hear about daily.
What I found most interesting about the animal testing presentation was the statistics. As some people already pointed out, the numbers seemed a little strange. I don't know where the group got these numbers, but I can imagine that it would be very difficult to find completely accurate numbers (honestly, I doubt that they even exist). As far as the general public's knowledge animal testing goes, I think that researchers tend to want to create a black box. Not because they don't want anyone to know what they're doing (one of their main goals is to get published), rather they just don't care much if people outside of the scientific community are aware of details of their work. It's the idea that all the general public needs to know is the outcome and how it affects them, plus the less the animal rights activists know, the better. I wish that the group presenting had some statistics that were focused on the U. I think we're much more surrounded by animal testing than many students realize. For example, I was once in class with someone who was reading a Daily article about a recent study performed using animals at the U who stated "they must have done that off campus or in St. Paul or something, we don't have animals here"–little did she know, the entire basement of the building we were sitting in is filled with mice caged in little plastic boxes. Of course, researchers don't want to publicize their locations seeing as they already receive plenty of threats but it was interesting to me that there are students majoring in "hard sciences" that are unaware of all of the animals in labs on campus.
Birth control (well, sex ed as a whole) is a subject that gets me worked up because unlike what the group stated NOT everyone receives sex education and even those who do go through sex ed don't necessarily hear anything other than "abstinence is 100%"–but that's a different story for a different day. According to Wikipedia, more than 100 million women use the pill. In order for these women to legally use the pill (one of the many varieties of the pill), it is required that the drug go through animal testing. Companies usually spend around three and a half years doing tests in labs before the FDA allows the drug to be tested in humans. All drugs today have to be legitimized by animal testing. Back when the original pill was created, it was not only tested on animals, but it was tested on women in Puerto Rico without telling them of the possible side effects. Then, it was released to the American public and they realized that the early high-dose pill gave some women very serious, sometimes deadly, reactions. And we still don't fully understand all of the effects of the pill. As mentioned in the presentation, many mechanisms have been hypothesized and are included in the packaging. Women are given prescriptions without receiving full consultations on the risks, side-effects, and what can happen when you go off of the pill.
Anyway, enough of my rambling. One other interesting item that I didn't really pay attention to during the presentation but saw while looking through the pictures was on the bottom right of the birth control group's poster. Nine different forms of contraception: eight pink, one blue. Is it just easier to "control" fertility through the female body or does this say something about our culture? They are working on a pill for men these days...
Addictions + Cosmetic Surgery
I am intrigued by the intersection of addiction and cosmetic surgery.
In the case of addiction, it is no mystery that the addict is not the only one suffering. Families are torn apart and friendships are destroyed by addictions. The "non-addicts" are likely devastated by their own helplessness in the situation. In the unlikely case that the addict is socially solitary (family- and friendless from the beginning), the general citizenry is still at risk if this individual is addicted to any dangerous substance. Anyone can get hit by a drunk driver. Anyone can have a bad encounter with a drug addict in the throes of withdrawal.
The harm done by cosmetic surgery, however, is not so "dynamic." The court of moral judgment comes down hard on celebrities like Heidi Montag, who went from uniquely pretty to alarmingly Barbie-like, or Michael Jackson, who in 10 years looked so different from his "real" self that he might have been wearing a mask. It's wrong that I find pictures of Jocelyn Wildenstein strangely vindicating, but as a poor girl without the money to make herself beautiful there's just something about botched surgeries that soothes me.
For all the well-publicized botched surgeries, however, they are severely outnumbered by successful procedures, and not just in Hollywood. Wealth bestows everlasting beauty on people who were not born that way. If their wealth is derived from fame, it is these falsely-enhanced individuals who end up on magazine covers and in cosmetic advertisements, both surgically and digitally "improved." Clearly the media-driven ideals of beauty have influenced these individuals before, so is there a chance that upon seeing digital improvements they may go ahead and make those physical improvements? The more beautiful celebrities get, the more warped the standards of beauty in the common mind become.
Interestingly, however, it is people with an "obsession" (dare we say "addiction") to plastic surgery that appear to be ruined by it. As of 2010, the human body can only take so much surgical alteration before acting out. Donatella Versace and Joan Rivers could have aged gracefully, and instead they're...well...horrifying. Perhaps they feel confident looking in the mirror, but America at large is sniggering behind them. Unlike with "classical" addictions, like substance abuse, the only people truly harmed in this equation are those who go under the knife. And, perhaps, the doctors they sue.
Its all preformace enhancement, (markets and freedom?)
So I know we were supposed to pick just two posters, but I have been thinking about what all of the poster presentations from this past Tuesday had in common. Preformance enhancing drugs, designer babies, birth control and animal testing - and then something that was brought up at the tail end of class, when Ben asked something to the effect of, "is this really freedom". I find this concept extremely intriguing and frustrating.
So, we are 'free' to compete for jobs as truckers, and in doing so, we are 'free' to use performance enhancing drugs like caffeine. This same trucker is 'free' to reject birth control, designer babies, and animal testing - but not 'free' to abstain from living in a world where these things are unavoidable. Not 'free' to avoid using products that were tested on animals (a moral trap, perhaps). Not 'free' of a world in which birth control is mainstream, nor of a world where designer babies and the potential for creating super-humans is the future.
What struck me about this project, these poster presentations, is that we are a people at the edge of a tentatively legitimated future. In order to legitimate the use of Birth Control, it was advertised as "population control". In order to legitimate animal testing, we enforce regulations to prevent unnecessary suffering and death. We improve technology like computer modeling so that we can feel as though we are on the precipice of an 'alternative' to the suffering, a way to look back at this present circumstance as barbaric. Designer babies begin as people with the 'bad genes' taken out - how can you argue with the removal of Huntington's, especially if you've been keeping up with the latest medical television drama like House MD? Performance enhancing drugs seem to encompass everything - birth control could be considered a performance enhancing drug in Women's athletics.
What wraps this all together, for me, is that we are distinctly not free to reject this world. A la Donna H and my beloved Cyborg Future, the technology isn't just going to go away, and one can imagine given our present world of conflict, that 20.. 30 years down the line, the kind of poster presentations a class like ours will be doing would blow. our. minds. Some people romanticize a sort of anarchy as a result of nuclear holocaust but short of that, we're on a trajectory here that in my mind encompasses the whole human history - technological advancement, the rise and fall of world powers, greater and greater industry and integration.
And, in general, everything we discussed on Tuesday is about performance enhancement - all of it rendering us more capable of producing, of working, of competing to produce and work more, the perpetuation of markets and of world powers. Women don't have to produce children. Truckers don't have to sleep. Animals are of less value than humans according to our $$$. And here were are, in an academic institution, educated competitively with competitive concepts like grading and performance evaluations, we're already at the "top" of some hierarchy and we're competing to be the top of the top, we're the ones who get to decadently sip our coffee and discuss through a lens of wealth and privilege whether we are really "free enough", and we're the ones who are most likely to invent, produce and consume the technologies in question, these things which don't even pertain to the vast majority of the worlds inhabitants yet.
Think about how many of these technologies we have already accepted, bought, internalized. What does it mean to be more or less 'free' than we are now? Here we are. What do we do with it, within reason - how do we work *within* our current paradigm without romanticizing some unrealistic technophobia ...
So, we are 'free' to compete for jobs as truckers, and in doing so, we are 'free' to use performance enhancing drugs like caffeine. This same trucker is 'free' to reject birth control, designer babies, and animal testing - but not 'free' to abstain from living in a world where these things are unavoidable. Not 'free' to avoid using products that were tested on animals (a moral trap, perhaps). Not 'free' of a world in which birth control is mainstream, nor of a world where designer babies and the potential for creating super-humans is the future.
What struck me about this project, these poster presentations, is that we are a people at the edge of a tentatively legitimated future. In order to legitimate the use of Birth Control, it was advertised as "population control". In order to legitimate animal testing, we enforce regulations to prevent unnecessary suffering and death. We improve technology like computer modeling so that we can feel as though we are on the precipice of an 'alternative' to the suffering, a way to look back at this present circumstance as barbaric. Designer babies begin as people with the 'bad genes' taken out - how can you argue with the removal of Huntington's, especially if you've been keeping up with the latest medical television drama like House MD? Performance enhancing drugs seem to encompass everything - birth control could be considered a performance enhancing drug in Women's athletics.
What wraps this all together, for me, is that we are distinctly not free to reject this world. A la Donna H and my beloved Cyborg Future, the technology isn't just going to go away, and one can imagine given our present world of conflict, that 20.. 30 years down the line, the kind of poster presentations a class like ours will be doing would blow. our. minds. Some people romanticize a sort of anarchy as a result of nuclear holocaust but short of that, we're on a trajectory here that in my mind encompasses the whole human history - technological advancement, the rise and fall of world powers, greater and greater industry and integration.
And, in general, everything we discussed on Tuesday is about performance enhancement - all of it rendering us more capable of producing, of working, of competing to produce and work more, the perpetuation of markets and of world powers. Women don't have to produce children. Truckers don't have to sleep. Animals are of less value than humans according to our $$$. And here were are, in an academic institution, educated competitively with competitive concepts like grading and performance evaluations, we're already at the "top" of some hierarchy and we're competing to be the top of the top, we're the ones who get to decadently sip our coffee and discuss through a lens of wealth and privilege whether we are really "free enough", and we're the ones who are most likely to invent, produce and consume the technologies in question, these things which don't even pertain to the vast majority of the worlds inhabitants yet.
Think about how many of these technologies we have already accepted, bought, internalized. What does it mean to be more or less 'free' than we are now? Here we are. What do we do with it, within reason - how do we work *within* our current paradigm without romanticizing some unrealistic technophobia ...
Saturday, May 1, 2010
To be or not to be
Two of projects I thought were most interesting were the project on sports and enhancement and the project on plastic surgery. Both deal with the pressure people put on themselves or feel from other people to make themselves look or feel better, whether they need it or not. I was able to see my own double standard in the sports and enhancements because the group mentioned a cellist taking beta blockers before an audition, which I find perfectly acceptable. I've been there, and it's nerve-wracking. I've never been a big participant in sports, so I've never understood the pressure there is to win.
Both projects dealt with the legitimization of using performance enhancing sports and getting plastic surgery. They're both enhancing natural talents or looks or improving them. The problem with using these alternatives is that they cost money. A lot of it usually, so if you're not wealthy or an established player already, getting steroids might be a problem. So once again, money gives people the advantage (no surprise there). The way it stands now, the laws cannot keep up with all of the new drugs that are appearing on the market. So the answer would be to legalize them. Whether or not it's would bring down the quality of the game would be left up to the fans to decide.
Personal beauty cannot be measured, but women get breast augmentation done to be more aesthetically pleasing and possibly to gain an advantage in getting jobs or ahead in life. Both aren't exactly accepted in mainstream culture, and if you hide either of those things, you are ostracized and looked down upon. A funny thing I just noticed is that performance enhancement is the male equivalent of women getting plastic surgery. People feel insecure with their body, and see those options as making themselves legitimate in the eyes of society
Both projects dealt with the legitimization of using performance enhancing sports and getting plastic surgery. They're both enhancing natural talents or looks or improving them. The problem with using these alternatives is that they cost money. A lot of it usually, so if you're not wealthy or an established player already, getting steroids might be a problem. So once again, money gives people the advantage (no surprise there). The way it stands now, the laws cannot keep up with all of the new drugs that are appearing on the market. So the answer would be to legalize them. Whether or not it's would bring down the quality of the game would be left up to the fans to decide.
Personal beauty cannot be measured, but women get breast augmentation done to be more aesthetically pleasing and possibly to gain an advantage in getting jobs or ahead in life. Both aren't exactly accepted in mainstream culture, and if you hide either of those things, you are ostracized and looked down upon. A funny thing I just noticed is that performance enhancement is the male equivalent of women getting plastic surgery. People feel insecure with their body, and see those options as making themselves legitimate in the eyes of society
Friday, April 30, 2010
Blog Post #9 (Due Sunday 02 May 11:59 PM): '2 X 2' responses to the Poster Projects
Let's look back at the Poster Presentations, link a couple together in some interesting ways and use some of the terms / concepts from our work to do it. We're calling this a '2 X 2' project: TWO posters, TWO concepts or terms, and as interestingly dense a linking as you can get.
I'm currently focused on the spatially-opposed 'Addictions' and 'Prisons' projects from Thursday--really intimately related in being so filled with ideology that the science is totally eclipsed and colonized. I heard Puritanism / esceticism everywhere—as we reject, fear and punish our pleasure-seeking bodies. Saw bunches of 'black boxes' sealed up because we really seem to want to impose ideology regardless of the facts. 'Crime is genetic. 'Crime is immoral and willful.' 'Crime is sinful.' 'Drunks are selfish.' 'Addicts are sick.' Yikes!, there's a field day here—theory and material.
Go for it. Make sure that we all find ourselves clearer on our common topics and ideas, and seeing things in the Poster Projects that we may have missed after we read your posts.
I'm currently focused on the spatially-opposed 'Addictions' and 'Prisons' projects from Thursday--really intimately related in being so filled with ideology that the science is totally eclipsed and colonized. I heard Puritanism / esceticism everywhere—as we reject, fear and punish our pleasure-seeking bodies. Saw bunches of 'black boxes' sealed up because we really seem to want to impose ideology regardless of the facts. 'Crime is genetic. 'Crime is immoral and willful.' 'Crime is sinful.' 'Drunks are selfish.' 'Addicts are sick.' Yikes!, there's a field day here—theory and material.
Go for it. Make sure that we all find ourselves clearer on our common topics and ideas, and seeing things in the Poster Projects that we may have missed after we read your posts.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
two cultures
did i post this before? i don't think i did...but i thought if it again today after the Humanities & Sciences presentation. It's a video from Seed magazine ("self-described as Science Couture") of interviews with "thinkers" about whether or not we are beyond the two cultures--Steven Pinker even makes an appearance in a leather jacket!
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/are_we_beyond_the_two_cultures/
And going back to Washington Avenue in relation to this topic--today at the U: Karl Rove on one side, Cloud Cult on the other!
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/are_we_beyond_the_two_cultures/
And going back to Washington Avenue in relation to this topic--today at the U: Karl Rove on one side, Cloud Cult on the other!
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
science + modern medicine
the question is asked "How Scientific is Modern Medicine Really?"
(from the Huffington Post)
"Today in America, every man, woman, and child is prescribed around 13 prescription drugs per year "
"29 percent of Americans used at least five prescription medications concurrently "
(from the Huffington Post)
"Today in America, every man, woman, and child is prescribed around 13 prescription drugs per year "
"29 percent of Americans used at least five prescription medications concurrently "
Monday, April 19, 2010
Ecuador includes rights of Mother Nature in its constitution
Hey all--
I just got this info in a newsletter that I subscribe to (from a Zen Center) which adds to our discussion. Vandana Shiva mentioned this in her talk at the U and I think I mentioned it in my re-cap, so...here is more info. on Ecuador including the rights of the Earth in its constitution (and lots of dramatic language)
—Update: Climate and Capitalism Ecosocialism or Barbarism: There is no third way, September, 2008
I just got this info in a newsletter that I subscribe to (from a Zen Center) which adds to our discussion. Vandana Shiva mentioned this in her talk at the U and I think I mentioned it in my re-cap, so...here is more info. on Ecuador including the rights of the Earth in its constitution (and lots of dramatic language)
Earth Day Exclusive: Eduardo Galeano
Nature knows full well that even the best human laws treat her as a piece of property, never as a holder of rights. But the revindication of nature is under way in Latin America.
Nature Is Not Mute
The world is painting still-lifes, forests are dying, the poles are melting, the air is becoming unbreatheable, and the water undrinkable, flowers are food and becoming increasingly plastic, and the sky and earth are going absolutely insane. At the same time, a country in Latin America, Ecuador, is debating a new constitution that opens up the possibility for the first time ever of recognizing the rights of nature.
Nature has a lot to say, and it has long been time for us, her children, to stop playing deaf. Maybe even God will hear the cry rising from this Andean country and add an eleventh amendment, which he left out when he handed down instructions from Mount Sinai: ‘‘Love nature, which you are a part of.’’
An Object that Wants to Be a Subject
For thousands of years, almost all people had only the right not to have rights. In reality, quite a few remain without rights today, but at least now the right to have rights is recognized, and this is considerably more than a gesture of charity by the masters of the world to comfort their servants.
And nature? In a way it could be said that human rights extend to nature because she is not a postcard meant to be viewed from afar. But nature knows full well that even the best human laws treat her as a piece of property, never as a holder of rights. Reduced to no more than a source of natural resources and good deals, she can legally be gravely wounded and even exterminated without her complaints being heard, and there is no law preventing those who harm her from acting with impunity. At the most, in the best of cases, it is the human victims who can demand a more or less symbolic indemnity, and this will always come after the damage has been done, though the law neither prevents nor deters assaults on the earth, water, and air.
It sounds odd, doesn’t it, that nature could have rights? Sheer madness. As if nature were a person. And yet it sounds perfectly normal in the United States that major businesses take advantage of human rights. In 1886, the U.S. Supreme Court, that model of universal justice, extended human rights to private corporations. They were recognized as having the same rights as people, the right to life, free expression, privacy, and all the rest, as if companies could breathe. More than 120 years have passed since then and it is still the same. Nobody has paid attention to it.
Cries and Whispers
There is nothing odd or abnormal about the bill that would include the rights of nature in the constitution of Ecuador. This country has suffered repeated devastation over its history. To give just one example, for more than a quarter of a century, until 1992, the Texaco oil company vomited 18,000 gallons of poison into the rivers, land, and the people. Once this gesture of beneficence in the Ecuadorian Amazon was completed, the company, which was born in Texas, was married to Standard Oil. By then Rockefeller’s Standard Oil had changed its name to Chevron and was being run by Condoleezza Rice. Afterwards, a pipeline carried Condoleezza to the White House, while the Chevron-Texaco family continued to pollute the world.
But the wounds cut into the body of Ecuador by Texaco and other companies are not the only source of inspiration for this great juridical innovation that some are trying to carry forward. Moreover, and this is equally important, the revindication of nature is part of a process of recuperating some of the most ancient traditions of Ecuador and all of Latin America. The bill under consideration would have the state recognize and guarantee to vital natural cycles the right to continue and regenerate. It is not by chance that the constituent assembly started by identifying their objectives of national growth with the ideal of ‘‘sumak kausai,” which means ‘‘harmonious life’’ in Quechua: harmony among people and between us and nature, which engendered us, feeds us, shelters us, and which has her own life and values independent of us.
These traditions remain miraculously alive despite the heavy legacy of racism, which in Ecuador, as in the rest of the Americas, continues to mutilate reality and memory. And it isn’t just the patrimony of its large indigenous population, which knew how to perpetuate them over the five centuries of prohibition and scorn. They belong to the whole country, and the entire world, these voices from the past that help us to divine another possible future.
Since the days when the sword and the cross made their way into the Americas, the European conquest punished the adoration of nature, which was seen as the sin of idolatry, with the punishments of whipping, hanging, and burning. The communion between nature and people, a pagan custom, was abolished in the name of God and later in the name of Civilization. Throughout the Americas, and the world, we are paying the consequences of this divorce.
UPDATE AFTER ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN: On September 28, 2008, the people of Ecuador voted by an overwhelming majority (64%) to approve the new constitution.
Ecuador [is] the first country in the world to codify a new system of environmental protection based on rights,” says Thomas Linzey, Executive Director of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund. The following clauses will be included in the constitution that [was] submitted to a countrywide vote.
Chapter: Rights for Nature
Art. 1. Nature or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution. Every person, people, community or nationality, will be able to demand the recognitions of rights for nature before the public organisms. The application and interpretation of these rights will follow the related principles established in the Constitution.
Art. 2. Nature has the right to an integral restoration. This integral restoration is independent of the obligation on natural and juridical persons or the State to indemnify the people and the collectives that depend on the natural systems. In the cases of severe or permanent environmental impact, including the ones caused by the exploitation on non renewable natural resources, the State will establish the most efficient mechanisms for the restoration, and will adopt the adequate measures to eliminate or mitigate the harmful environmental consequences.
Art. 3. The State will motivate natural and juridical persons as well as collectives to protect nature; it will promote respect towards all the elements that form an ecosystem.
Art. 4. The State will apply precaution and restriction measures in all the activities that can lead to the extinction of species, the destruction of the ecosystems or the permanent alteration of the natural cycles. The introduction of organisms and organic and inorganic material that can alter in a definitive way the national genetic patrimony is prohibited.
Art. 5. The persons, people, communities and nationalities will have the right to benefit from the environment and form natural wealth that will allow wellbeing. The environmental services are cannot be appropriated; its production, provision, use and exploitation, will be regulated by the State.
“Public organisms” in Article 1 means the courts and government agencies, i.e., the people of Ecuador would be able to take action to enforce nature rights if the government did not do so.
—By Eduardo Galeano, a Uruguayan writer and journalist, the author of “The Open Veins of Latin America,” “Memories of Fire,” and “Mirrors/An Almost Universal History.” 2008—Update: Climate and Capitalism Ecosocialism or Barbarism: There is no third way, September, 2008
my blog post (a week late): Christians and Climate Change
This hasn't come up in class yet, so I am going to find a site on Christians and Climate Change--I know there have been recent movements of Christians coming together saying they DO believe climate change is happening, and is part of their religious practice to care for god's earth. So here I go to find more...
(later)
Here is the website I am looking at: http://christiansandclimate.org/
It's a really beautiful, polished site, without any distracting ads flashing at you. There are, however, a few footnotes.
"As American evangelical Christian leaders, we recognize both our opportunity and our responsibility to offer a biblically based moral witness that can help shape public policy in the most powerful nation on earth, and therefore contribute to the well-being of the entire world.1 Whether we will enter the public square and offer our witness there is no longer an open question. We are in that square, and we will not withdraw."
Other issues they are working on include: sex trafficking, AIDS, and genocide. Grouped with these, Climate Change (CC from here on) is obviously a serious and dangerous matter.
They offer four claims in their Call to Action.
Claim 1: Human Induced CC is Real
(sound familiar?)
They note that "from 1988—2002 the IPCC’s assessment of the climate science was Chaired by Sir John Houghton, a devout evangelical Christian." also "In a 2004 report, and at the 2005 G8 summit, the Bush Administration has also acknowledged the reality of climate change and the likelihood that human activity is the cause of at least some of it." I guess saying that there are reliable Christians who have been working on this for quite a while.
Claim 2: Consequences will be significant and will hit the poor the hardest.
Claim 3: Christian Moral Convictions Demand Our Response to the CC Problem
emphasizing biblical passages stating god's call for the stewardship of earth, reminding people to love their neighbor
Claim 4: The need to act is urgent--for governments, businesses, churches, individuals
Many of the consequences haven't happened yet, people keep trying to build more coal plants,etc. ending with saying there is a need to help the poor adapt to the consequences of CC.
There is a section on "what others our saying about our initiative." It includes comments from the following:
DuPont
John McCain
Joseph Lieberman
Lindsay Graham
Olympia Snow
Editorial comments from newspapers in Atlanta, S. Florida, and Philadelphia
William F. Buckley
There is a Pray section and an Act section. The Pray section has prayers you can say about CC. I thought this part was nice and very friendly to science studies:
"We pray that our concern and attention to the issue of climate change would not cause spiritual division in your body, but that You would grant humility and a teachable spirit to all of us (Phil 2:1-11)."
The Act section talks about reducing carbon missions in one's own life, encouraging our country to do so, and again, helping the poor adapt. It uses the concepts of mitigation and adaptation:
"Just as in our own homes we would have to both mop up the damages from an overflowing sink (adaptation) AND fix the running faucet that’s causing the problem (mitigation), so also both adaptation and mitigation are necessary to solve the global warming crisis."
There are ten suggested actions for individuals and families, beginning with prayer and bible study, and continuing on to include compact fluorescent bulbs, renewable energy, and supporting green businesses.
Then there are steps churches can take to be more green (though they aren't using that word) and ways citizens can act to affect change.
The tone of the whole site is very calm and rational and not excited, though urgent. I find fascinating the continuing return to the care for the poor. This of course is central to the life of Jesus and to the teachings of the Bible (well, depending upon who you ask I guess). But it seems that, though in a lot of ways this site is a typical liberal CC call to action, there is this very human element thrown in. They do allude to science, but it the bulk of the site is not slinging facts at facts at facts. The bulk of it is tapping people's, or Christian's, sense of their humanity and their sense of caring and connectedness. In a way this is similar to the idea of a drowning polar bear (and the site opens with an image of two presumable poor kids, cute and smiling by a pile of rubble), but the drowning polar bear is working mainly, I think, of identifying with something cute and beautiful dying. This site is alluding to that, but also to a sense of moral obligation it knows its audience must have, as Christians.
In a way, this makes their job easier--there are known people identified as Christian leaders, who have groups of people that follow and trust them. (unlike Politicians, whose followers most likely distrust them a lot of the time). There is also, of course, God backing them up. And, for a believer, God probably trumps science in reliability. So fascinating.
I haven't figured out who specifically made this site and runs it....that should enter in here as well...
Of course this website could totally have holes shot through it by Kenner. What is really unique about it in the midst of all the CC dialogue (rhetoric?) is that it appeals to humans responsibility to each other. I feel like so much of the dialogue these days is a lot of F-U, I-don't-want-to-help-you-as-long-as-things-are-working-for-me dialogue. I think a lot of the "scientists are all corrupt and dishonest" arguing fuels that sentiment. It reminded me of when Amy asked in class "What's wrong with living sustainably for the sake of living sustainably?" instead of just doing it because the planet is about to blow up? In that sense, I think this site is giving individuals more credit and agency, and not just leaving them in the hands of the facts of scientists. Or at least making them feel that way???
(later)
Here is the website I am looking at: http://christiansandclimate.org/
It's a really beautiful, polished site, without any distracting ads flashing at you. There are, however, a few footnotes.
"As American evangelical Christian leaders, we recognize both our opportunity and our responsibility to offer a biblically based moral witness that can help shape public policy in the most powerful nation on earth, and therefore contribute to the well-being of the entire world.1 Whether we will enter the public square and offer our witness there is no longer an open question. We are in that square, and we will not withdraw."
Other issues they are working on include: sex trafficking, AIDS, and genocide. Grouped with these, Climate Change (CC from here on) is obviously a serious and dangerous matter.
They offer four claims in their Call to Action.
Claim 1: Human Induced CC is Real
(sound familiar?)
They note that "from 1988—2002 the IPCC’s assessment of the climate science was Chaired by Sir John Houghton, a devout evangelical Christian." also "In a 2004 report, and at the 2005 G8 summit, the Bush Administration has also acknowledged the reality of climate change and the likelihood that human activity is the cause of at least some of it." I guess saying that there are reliable Christians who have been working on this for quite a while.
Claim 2: Consequences will be significant and will hit the poor the hardest.
Claim 3: Christian Moral Convictions Demand Our Response to the CC Problem
emphasizing biblical passages stating god's call for the stewardship of earth, reminding people to love their neighbor
Claim 4: The need to act is urgent--for governments, businesses, churches, individuals
Many of the consequences haven't happened yet, people keep trying to build more coal plants,etc. ending with saying there is a need to help the poor adapt to the consequences of CC.
There is a section on "what others our saying about our initiative." It includes comments from the following:
DuPont
John McCain
Joseph Lieberman
Lindsay Graham
Olympia Snow
Editorial comments from newspapers in Atlanta, S. Florida, and Philadelphia
William F. Buckley
There is a Pray section and an Act section. The Pray section has prayers you can say about CC. I thought this part was nice and very friendly to science studies:
"We pray that our concern and attention to the issue of climate change would not cause spiritual division in your body, but that You would grant humility and a teachable spirit to all of us (Phil 2:1-11)."
The Act section talks about reducing carbon missions in one's own life, encouraging our country to do so, and again, helping the poor adapt. It uses the concepts of mitigation and adaptation:
"Just as in our own homes we would have to both mop up the damages from an overflowing sink (adaptation) AND fix the running faucet that’s causing the problem (mitigation), so also both adaptation and mitigation are necessary to solve the global warming crisis."
There are ten suggested actions for individuals and families, beginning with prayer and bible study, and continuing on to include compact fluorescent bulbs, renewable energy, and supporting green businesses.
Then there are steps churches can take to be more green (though they aren't using that word) and ways citizens can act to affect change.
The tone of the whole site is very calm and rational and not excited, though urgent. I find fascinating the continuing return to the care for the poor. This of course is central to the life of Jesus and to the teachings of the Bible (well, depending upon who you ask I guess). But it seems that, though in a lot of ways this site is a typical liberal CC call to action, there is this very human element thrown in. They do allude to science, but it the bulk of the site is not slinging facts at facts at facts. The bulk of it is tapping people's, or Christian's, sense of their humanity and their sense of caring and connectedness. In a way this is similar to the idea of a drowning polar bear (and the site opens with an image of two presumable poor kids, cute and smiling by a pile of rubble), but the drowning polar bear is working mainly, I think, of identifying with something cute and beautiful dying. This site is alluding to that, but also to a sense of moral obligation it knows its audience must have, as Christians.
In a way, this makes their job easier--there are known people identified as Christian leaders, who have groups of people that follow and trust them. (unlike Politicians, whose followers most likely distrust them a lot of the time). There is also, of course, God backing them up. And, for a believer, God probably trumps science in reliability. So fascinating.
I haven't figured out who specifically made this site and runs it....that should enter in here as well...
Of course this website could totally have holes shot through it by Kenner. What is really unique about it in the midst of all the CC dialogue (rhetoric?) is that it appeals to humans responsibility to each other. I feel like so much of the dialogue these days is a lot of F-U, I-don't-want-to-help-you-as-long-as-things-are-working-for-me dialogue. I think a lot of the "scientists are all corrupt and dishonest" arguing fuels that sentiment. It reminded me of when Amy asked in class "What's wrong with living sustainably for the sake of living sustainably?" instead of just doing it because the planet is about to blow up? In that sense, I think this site is giving individuals more credit and agency, and not just leaving them in the hands of the facts of scientists. Or at least making them feel that way???
Thursday, April 15, 2010
npr is all over this stuff
on fresh air tonight:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2010/04/dont_get_too_comfortable_the_p.html
Fresh Air with Terry Gross On today's show: Jeff Goodell on the international battle against global warming...
on us 'n' them, "over here" and "over there":http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2010/04/dont_get_too_comfortable_the_p.html
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
The Science of Empathy...
"First direct recording made of mirror neurons in the brain"
Really interesting study, gives a neurological basis for understanding each other, and in a way, being human.
At one point it suggests that autism may be caused by a non-firing of these mirror neurons; I wonder if it could help explain the apathy and void of sympathy from which some humans suffer...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100412162112.htm
Really interesting study, gives a neurological basis for understanding each other, and in a way, being human.
At one point it suggests that autism may be caused by a non-firing of these mirror neurons; I wonder if it could help explain the apathy and void of sympathy from which some humans suffer...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100412162112.htm
EEK! What are we going to tell the children?
"Global Warming is Hot Stuff!...no pun intended"
...
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/caer/ce/eek/earth/air/global.htm#effect
...
I'll offer a more regional look at global warming... if it is indeed possible that this exists.
Yes, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is another state service doing its part to keep younger folks up to speed with the ever-heating debate (hah!) on Global Warming, through a section of its site called EEK! (Environmental Education for Kids!).
They start with a rudimentary introduction, careful to explain that the sun is not evil, but provides us with life and cold Wisconsin winters; in some ways one might say this is a great approach - relating the focal topic to students' immediate surroundings, keeping the tone objective...
Oh wait, I almost forgot! How did this site for kids get past my science studies lens?
Could it be the years I spent in elementary school - in Wisconsin no less - internalizing the settlement of a reality that I had no way of challenging at the time?
Alright, reading on...
"For the past 10,000 years, the earth has had relatively stable temperatures. But, for the past 100 years or so, scientists have noticed the Earth seems to be warming up more than usual. This phenomenon is called global warming."
I think the stakes become clear at this point: whoever the authors are, they know that they can't be 'objective' and support one side of this issue, and yet it seems that they do favor the the science behind the GW argument. So they compromise and put out the science around - what led us to - Global Warming, explaining the Greenhouse Effect, but including little bits of 'what if it's real.' That is, "What might happen if the Earth heats up?" followed by a list of the worst-case scenarios (cue our classmate's GW-disaster-movie montage from last week). What it's missing, in my opinion, is the list of "Who might lose a lot of money if it does, and who has the most to gain?"
The "fact" is, we're doing the kids a disservice by simply "catching them up to speed" without really going into the nitty-gritty, violent, money-driven, twisted struggles that make it possible to 'settle' into this no-win realm of objective storytelling in the first place.
The DNR, and most 'straight-forward education' is skipping a step - and in Comic Sans, no less.
...
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/caer/ce/eek/earth/air/global.htm#effect
...
I'll offer a more regional look at global warming... if it is indeed possible that this exists.
Yes, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is another state service doing its part to keep younger folks up to speed with the ever-heating debate (hah!) on Global Warming, through a section of its site called EEK! (Environmental Education for Kids!).
They start with a rudimentary introduction, careful to explain that the sun is not evil, but provides us with life and cold Wisconsin winters; in some ways one might say this is a great approach - relating the focal topic to students' immediate surroundings, keeping the tone objective...
Oh wait, I almost forgot! How did this site for kids get past my science studies lens?
Could it be the years I spent in elementary school - in Wisconsin no less - internalizing the settlement of a reality that I had no way of challenging at the time?
Alright, reading on...
"For the past 10,000 years, the earth has had relatively stable temperatures. But, for the past 100 years or so, scientists have noticed the Earth seems to be warming up more than usual. This phenomenon is called global warming."
I think the stakes become clear at this point: whoever the authors are, they know that they can't be 'objective' and support one side of this issue, and yet it seems that they do favor the the science behind the GW argument. So they compromise and put out the science around - what led us to - Global Warming, explaining the Greenhouse Effect, but including little bits of 'what if it's real.' That is, "What might happen if the Earth heats up?" followed by a list of the worst-case scenarios (cue our classmate's GW-disaster-movie montage from last week). What it's missing, in my opinion, is the list of "Who might lose a lot of money if it does, and who has the most to gain?"
The "fact" is, we're doing the kids a disservice by simply "catching them up to speed" without really going into the nitty-gritty, violent, money-driven, twisted struggles that make it possible to 'settle' into this no-win realm of objective storytelling in the first place.
The DNR, and most 'straight-forward education' is skipping a step - and in Comic Sans, no less.
More on Vaccines
Here's an article written by a woman who has a child with cancer and her take on the anti-vaccine craze. I think this goes back to what we were talking about in class regarding even IF vaccines cause autism is it "better" (maybe I should say less bad?) to have x amount of people with autism than to have y amount of people with MMR?
Even separately from autism, vaccines are constantly in question regarding their safety. There are always risks and possible side effects. It's a matter of weighing the risks and the benefits. For example, another vaccine that is talked about a lot in recent years and has created a little bit of controversy is the HPV vaccine. I think that this visualization does a great job of presenting probabilities to help people see the likelihood that they would be putting themselves at risk or benefiting from getting the vaccine.
Do any of you know anything regarding laws which require that kids be vaccinated before going to school and what has to be done to get around this? I know that there have been laws proposed at the state level to require that girls have the HPV vaccine in order to enter middle school and only a few of them have passed and all of them have included an opt out policy. I assume that the laws for vaccinations before entering kindergarten are similar but I really don't know anything about it.
Also, just out of curiosity: Have you guys received the chicken pox vaccination or did you get the disease when you were a kid or neither? I, personally, got the disease and have scars to prove it and I only recently realized that most kids now never get the disease because public schools require the vaccination.
Even separately from autism, vaccines are constantly in question regarding their safety. There are always risks and possible side effects. It's a matter of weighing the risks and the benefits. For example, another vaccine that is talked about a lot in recent years and has created a little bit of controversy is the HPV vaccine. I think that this visualization does a great job of presenting probabilities to help people see the likelihood that they would be putting themselves at risk or benefiting from getting the vaccine.
Do any of you know anything regarding laws which require that kids be vaccinated before going to school and what has to be done to get around this? I know that there have been laws proposed at the state level to require that girls have the HPV vaccine in order to enter middle school and only a few of them have passed and all of them have included an opt out policy. I assume that the laws for vaccinations before entering kindergarten are similar but I really don't know anything about it.
Also, just out of curiosity: Have you guys received the chicken pox vaccination or did you get the disease when you were a kid or neither? I, personally, got the disease and have scars to prove it and I only recently realized that most kids now never get the disease because public schools require the vaccination.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
vandana shiva and lucy lippard
hey all-
here are the links to the two talks at the U i blogged about earlier (and a few more), for your enjoyment:
*Lucy Lippard*
http://mediamill.cla.umn.edu/mediamill/embed/65150
*Vandana Shiva*
http://mediamill.cla.umn.edu/mediamill/embed/66584
*Water Dance Spoken Word*
http://mediamill.cla.umn.edu/mediamill/embed/65667
*Gemma Bulos*
http://mediamill.cla.umn.edu/mediamill/embed/65886
*Sandy Spieler*
http://mediamill.cla.umn.edu/mediamill/embed/67215
here are the links to the two talks at the U i blogged about earlier (and a few more), for your enjoyment:
*Lucy Lippard*
http://mediamill.cla.umn.edu/mediamill/embed/65150
*Vandana Shiva*
http://mediamill.cla.umn.edu/mediamill/embed/66584
*Water Dance Spoken Word*
http://mediamill.cla.umn.edu/mediamill/embed/65667
*Gemma Bulos*
http://mediamill.cla.umn.edu/mediamill/embed/65886
*Sandy Spieler*
http://mediamill.cla.umn.edu/mediamill/embed/67215
Climate Change for Kids!
Complete with bright colors, games, and kid friendly fonts, I give you the EPA's site on climate change directed at kids:
http://epa.gov/climatechange/kids/index.html
I find this site particularly interesting for a lot of reasons. First of all, you know it has to be easy to read and won't find an excess of "scientific lingo" that only a small percentage of the population can comprehend.
What is really interesting to me is the way that the information is presented in comparison to the "typical" global warming websites. The website seems to take advantage of the idea that all children need to hear in order to believe "facts" is that the information came from scientists. Just the word scientists is enough to establish authority and legitimize the information that is presented. No need to cite studies or provide evidence–the only links that are provided lead to "fun sites for more games and information about Climate Change". And of course, politics are completely left out (kids just repeat what they hear their parents say about politics anyway). This is definitely the most upbeat view of global warming that I've seen. This site isn't trying to play on the fear of children or make the "other side" of the debate look bad. It's just trying to tell kids that We Can Make a Difference! (and maybe even have fun while doing it)
This website also has a link for teachers, which makes me wonder if this is a topic which is frequently discussed in schools and to what extent. Do they have "skeptic" sites for kids? Is this subject banned in schools in Texas? Do kids care about global warming?
http://epa.gov/climatechange/kids/index.html
I find this site particularly interesting for a lot of reasons. First of all, you know it has to be easy to read and won't find an excess of "scientific lingo" that only a small percentage of the population can comprehend.
What is really interesting to me is the way that the information is presented in comparison to the "typical" global warming websites. The website seems to take advantage of the idea that all children need to hear in order to believe "facts" is that the information came from scientists. Just the word scientists is enough to establish authority and legitimize the information that is presented. No need to cite studies or provide evidence–the only links that are provided lead to "fun sites for more games and information about Climate Change". And of course, politics are completely left out (kids just repeat what they hear their parents say about politics anyway). This is definitely the most upbeat view of global warming that I've seen. This site isn't trying to play on the fear of children or make the "other side" of the debate look bad. It's just trying to tell kids that We Can Make a Difference! (and maybe even have fun while doing it)
This website also has a link for teachers, which makes me wonder if this is a topic which is frequently discussed in schools and to what extent. Do they have "skeptic" sites for kids? Is this subject banned in schools in Texas? Do kids care about global warming?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)