Animacules

Smith enjoys studying the bacteria and other microbes of pond water because it gives him some perspective of how big we as a species are in relation to the universe. He cites the intimate nature of studying specimens under a microscope versus through a telescope as another reason he enjoys the study of microscopic organisms so much. Smith is really just fascinated with life and biology and gets a kick from studying small living things. He mentions wondering about the level of consciousness each amoeba might have while he was only a small child and tells many anecdotes about spending time with microscopes when he was younger. His love of studying living things extends a little bit further than animolecules though. As a child he had many pets (some common like a dog or cat, and some not so common) and would often go out into the woods and collect specimens such as snakes and mosquitoes.

How We Evolve

The article's author, Benjamin Phelan, fears that evolution is leading humans to a "self inflicted extinction". What this means is that the capacity for thought created by natural selection and evolution is what is allowing humans to make inventions and weapons that could potentially lead to our destruction. He cites the creation of nuclear weapons and refrigerators that used to be cooled by ammonia as inventions that could have lead to our extinction. He feels that the more the human brain evolves, the greater the risk for us wiping ourselves out.
I agree that there is some merrit in worrying about our increased intelligence. As humanity has progressed through history we've continued to find new and unique ways of killing each other. And besides weapons technology increasing over the last century, the more we look into science the more oppertunities we have for inadvertantly causing us to go extinct.

Climate Change

Broome recognizes that the decision of how to deal with climate change will be an ethical one. He points out that in order to avoid harming the people of the future, we must make sacrifices now. Broome explains a basic ethical principle, that most people will not willingly do something to further themselves at the cost of harming someone else; but if harm must be done, some type of compensation should be given. We know the climate is changing, and that it can potentially lead to millions of people being harmed. So we must make choices to alleviate them. Broome analyzes different ethical views, discussing whether or not benefits going to a less fortunate person are more important than those going to a wealthy person. He also questions if the people of the future, unable to influence or change the damage we do now, should be considered a less fortunate party.

It will cost money as well as lifestyle adjustments to implement the changes needed to begin repairing the environment. Most of these changes will need to be made by the wealthy industry owners. Should they help the people of the future and the less fortunate of today? In this situation, like other ethical dilemmas, we must look at the costs and benefits and see which one out ways the other. The only way people will make changes to their lives now is if the benefits in the future will far out way the losses now. But most people would rather have a content present than plan for the future, so the solution to the ethical dilemma is not easy to come by. Broome offers us food for thought and hopes that further climate change can be avoided.

Blogging to me is...

...an interesting way to write and voice your opinions. I think writing on the internet in general is pretty fascinating simply because it makes for a much bigger audience than a printed medium. It's much easier for someone to stumble upon a blog or article online and read it than for them to stumble upon a book and decide to read it. You never know who might read something you post online, which can be exciting as well as intimidating depending on what you write or your confidence level in it.
I don't really mind blogging for class, I actually prefer it to handing in assignments in most other mediums. But I'm not crazy about the idea of blogging in general. I feel like for every well thought out and poignant blog there are a dozen, or even a hundred, blogs simply devoted to someone's irrelevant or mundane opinions. They lack real meaning. The whole proliferation of blogging has given almost anyone the chance to be a writer. For those people who have intelligent things to say, it's a great advancement. But there's a reason why not everyone was able to get published in print, and blogging allows a lot of people the chance to ramble to anyone willing to read.

Reality Tests

So here's my attempt at making some kind of sense of the article...

The best way I can understand Roebke's query: "Do we create what we observe through the act of our observations?" is that he's questioning the proof of reality. Maybe I'm missing the mark, but it sounds like he's wondering if we only find things because we look for them. In the article he mentions how performing tests on one molecule can effect others around it (or something along those lines) without us realizing it. So we only get the results we do because of the method in which we tried to answer the question. When we observe the world around us, what we call reality, how can we be sure what we're really experiencing? Isn't it possible simply in trying to observe reality we are inadvertently effecting the metaphorical surrounding molecules, warping the data we perceive? As far as I'm considered, it doesn't make sense to start doubting relity. I'm pretty sure I'm sitting on an actual chair typing this on my actual computer.

So, there's a very good chance what I wrote is completely unrelated to Roebke's article, but oh well. At least I tried. I'm not much of a sciene person.

Just Add Water

What more do I need to know?:
Actually, a lot of my questions got answered within the parts of the movie we watched today, so I don't have 6

1. What is in the box?
2. What are Ray's brother's real motives for crying in the hospital and the funeral?
3. What cheered up Charlene the day she asks about dessert? What in particular was different about that day than others?
4. What is the importance of text in the film?
5. Why did the state government divert the town's water to LA?

Recalls: The movie Garden State. Zach Braff's character is emotionally detached and going through the motions of everyday life until his mother dies and he returns to his hometown for the funeral. While home he meets a girl who changes him by shaking up his life and encouraging him to do new things. In Just Add Water, Ray is going through the motions every day, and his life seems to be changing around the same time as his mother dying.

What is A Writer?

A writer is more than someone who commits thoughts to paper. Simply acting out the verb "to write" is not enough. A writer has purpose. Whether they write to convey or express an idea, or they write for enjoyment, they have a purpose in mind. To me, someone writing only because they have to for school or work isn't a writer. There has to be some higher level of making meaning behind the writing.
A Facebook post or text message is literally writing, but the authors aren't necessarily writers because those messages have no special meaning behind them. Most people don't carefully consider words when making a short post. If someone were to actually take their time when writing a message, and attempt to convey something important in it, I would call it writing.
I consider myself a writer because I enjoy writing and take a certain amount of pride in something I write that I feel turns out well. Someone who writes a paper for a class just to get the grade, who doesn't really care about making meaning, isn't a writer. I guess to me, being a writer is more about having the right mindset than actually forming words on a page.

Big Foot

A few days ago I saw the article called "Big Foot" in the book and hoped it was about the legendary animal. While turning through pages to get to the article I ended up in the middle of it and enough "green" words jumped off the page for me to realize the title was just a clever way of describing our carbon footprint. I shut the book, disappointed, and put it out my mind until now...

Specter uses the term "food miles" as a way of describing the distance between the farms food products are grown on and the homes of the people buying them, and the greenhouse emissions associated with that distance. In England many food products are having their total carbon output labeled on the packaging, but many people don't know how to interpret the numbers and there are different ways of considering the total amount of emissions. Different considerations could include anything between the fertilizer used to grow the food to the energy it would take the consumer to cook it. Near the end of the article, Specter includes a claim that "we are in an era of creative destruction". The claim deals with the fact that companies and technology today strive to reduce carbon emissions but these same companies are also the ones causing the damage. It's an interesting claim because we certainly do continue to find new creative ways to destroy things.
I don't really feel personally responsible for global warming. While I recognize it as a problem that needs taking care of, so much damage has been done even before I was born or a consumer myself that I can't feel personally to blame. While we as a society tend to be wasteful, I don't really think anything I do is that damaging. At least in the sense that I'm no more damaging than anyone else. I don't mean to come across as holier than thou, but with all the damage corporations/industries/factories are doing, and all the potential resources they have to correct the damage, they should probably be the ones looking into the situation.

Just Add Water

Observations: man in a toll booth, repeating the same phrase, rocky/desert setting, abandoned buildings, rundown town, picks up trash, landlord is young and possibly a drug dealer, pet turtle, bad neighbor, upset wife, Norah works at the supermarket, Ray is a generous person, unhealthy food, Charlene is not attractive, she seems timid

Inferences: Ray has feelings for Norah and she will become a love interest in the movie. Change will be coming into Ray's life in some form. Town wasn't always deserted. Ray is an optimist. Charlene used to be beautiful

Recalls: Ethan Frome. Ray seems like Ethan, Charlene is like Zeena in that they both are shut ins, and Norah is like Maddie; who is a young, vibrant girl in the main character's otherwise mundane life.

The Meaning of Greed

Greed is wanting as much of something as possible, or the biggest and the best of something, regardless of the cost/consequences. Greed is an unstoppable force. Once greed gets its hooks in something it grows and grows at the same rate as various desires are accumulated. The more wealth a person gains, the more they want to hang onto it and accumulate more. Someone who has given in to greed does not think about the consequences of their desires, they are only focused on their goal. A greedy being can never be satisfied, because they will always want what they don't have. Such is the nature of greed.

Faustian Economics

Berry believes that America is one of the most wasteful societies in the world because of our belief in the mantra of limitlessness. He argues that we will always strive to be bigger and better, regardless of the costs. Our limitlessness harms the environment and causes our economy to harm people. According to Berry obsession with "freedom" has lead to a free market economy where one's success requires another's failure. Berry also cites a variety of other sources to support his claim.
Berry discusses the characters of Dr. Faustus and Satan in Paradise Lost to warn against limitlessness. Faustus sold his soul to the devil in order to gain limitless knowledge but ultimately dies alone. Mephistopheles in the Faustus story also declares that hell is wherever the damned dwell, in other words hell is limitless.
Berry finally suggests that it is our obsession with science and technology that lead to our issues with limits and advocates a shift to the arts. He points out that all art forms whether painting, music, or writing, are bound by some type of limit or endpoint. Another important difference between art and science is that every scientific experiment, regardless of success, will be followed by more experiments. There is always a second chance. But with art if certain opportunities are missed, nothing will come along later to fill that gap. Berry specifically mentions King Lear and The Divine Comedies as important works of art that would never have been written if not by their own authors.

Making Meaning

The two poems both utilize flowery writing to describe nature, but this is very misleading. What we sometimes think of as a "beautiful dance" that a tree might do actually serves a purpose for the three. Simple movements and events in nature have a selfish, important purpose. Things aren't beautiful just so we can admire and describe them.
Language is a slippery vehicle because many words can employ a double meaning. Additionally, different readers can find different meanings in the same writing, which could lead to a piece being interpreted in ways the author didn't mean for.

Derrida: Fear of Writing

Derrida's fear is that his writing is going to hurt or offend everyone. While writing everything flows out of him, he doesn't censor himself. But when laying in bed at night and thinking back over what he's written that day he second guesses it and fears he has gone too far. He doesn't want to alienate anyone, but at the same time but at the same time must remain true to himself in his writing and be edgy and interesting. But when he wakes up the next morning he realizes he cannot be afraid of what he has to say and take ownership of whatever piece he is writing. To him, the written word has a power most people don't attribute to it.
Sometimes I wonder about what I'm writing, not necessarily because I feel it is too powerful, but because when writing something for the world to read you become very vulnerable. To me it's a weird feeling to write something that people you don't know will read; or to express something in your writing about yourself or your beliefs and have someone you know read it when you never would have told them about that subject in the first place. Writing can shed light on a side of you that others would have no way of knowing about otherwise.

Collaborative Learning and "The Conversation of Mankind"

I believe that knowing does require contact of some kind with another intellect. If there were only only one person in the world, and they were left to make observations and inferences about everything in nature, it would take them quite a long time for them to get anywhere. Considering all of human history, it's taken us a long time to get to where we are as it is. Without another being to have a conversation with, to bounce ideas off of, it's hard to make sense of things. The only way great new things get discovered are by reading the work of another great thinker, and wondering what they're missing or what doesn't make sense. Once you realize that you can form your own opinions about the subject the next person can analyze what you think.
Merely taking ideas from your own head won't get you anywhere. And simply taking in your surroundings and writing about them won't achieve anything either. It's only when you combine your own opinions with outside influences like another intellect or the environment that you can come to a radical new conclusion. If humanity never started thinking like this the Scientific Revolution would have never happened and we would know much less than we do today. There needs to be debate among intellects to keep ideas alive and keep students learning new ideas.
Collaborative learning is a good way to teach someone because allowing students to talk things out amongst themselves creates the opportunity to have a subject explained many different ways. If a teacher cannot explain an idea in a way that makes sense to everyone, perhaps at least one student can take the idea and rework the argument so it makes more sense to the students. Peer tutoring can also be beneficial, if both parties know their jobs. If the student looks to the tutor for everything they learn nothing. And the tutor can not assume that they are a teacher or an expert. Both sides of the pair must work together to stimulate learning and knowledge.

Viola: I am the man [II.ii.25]
Viola is saying that she is the man Olivia loves, even though she is not really a man. This posses a problem for several characters in the play because it creates a love triangle. Orsino loves Olivia, who loves Viola, who loves Orsino. The confusion could be avoided if Viola's true identity were revealed but she continues to use her disguise. But while in her disguise she can never be with Orsino and Olivia will continue to persue Viola, so nothing can be resolved.

Malvolio: ...and yet to crush it a little, it would bow to me... [II.v.143-45]
Malvolio is talking about part of Maria's trick letter that does not seem to expressly be about him as the earlier parts were. But if he "crushes it a little" and bends the meaning he can work the letter to suit him and make it seem to be about him again. The diction of "crush" and "bow" further illustrates the idea that Malvolio feels he is above everyone and is of a higher class.

Viola: Then think you right. I am not what I am.
Olvia: I would that you were as I would have you be. [III.i.148=9]
Viola hints at her deception but Olivia does not pick up on it. Instead she flirts more with Viola and says she wishes Viola would act more the way Olivia wishes her to and return her love. But Viola cannot because she is not a man and is serving a man trying to win Olivia's love, a man she also happens to be in love with. Olivia, like all those lovestruck, wants the object of her desire to behave exactly how she wants them to, because otherwise her perfect notion of them is ruined.

FFW

In II.iii.170, Maria calls her manipulation of Malvolio "sport royal..." What do you make of this?

Maria considers her manipulation a sport, this is all a game to her. And she believes she is very good at this game. The fact that she calls her game "sport royal" indicates she believes this to be a high class or difficult game, given the fact she confers royal stature on it. Nonetheless she feels up to the challenge and enjoys the game. Perhaps she considers the act of manipulation in general to be "sport royal" as well. It could also be a play on the fact that Malvolio believes he is above everyone else and is "royalty".

Ink Shedding

Fool: I did impeticos thy gratility, for Malvolio's nose is no whipstock, my lady has a white hand, and the Myrmidons are no bottle-ale houses (II.III.27-29)

The fool is saying here that he has earned his tip for entertaining Toby and Andrew, and then precedes to talk more nonsense for them. The three statements Feste makes are all obvious truths, such as the fact that Olivia is beautiful and Achilles' men were not inferior taverns. Certianly, Malvolio's nose isn't part of a whip, which could imply Feste thinks he is rather harmless when all is said is done. He could be implying that Malvolio's bark is worse than his bite and even though he threatens Toby and Andrew and breaks up their parties, he has little real authority.

6 Questions

1. Why does Olivia choose not to be seen for seven years? What is the significance of the number seven in her decision? Why not five years?
   
2. Why does Shakespeare write such confusingly intricate romance storylines where everyone is in love with the wrong person?
3. How does no one notice that Viola is a girl? Is her disguise that good?
4. Why does Toby encourage Andrew to not give up on Olivia?
   
5. Why does Viola help Orsino try and woo Olivia if she loves him?
6. Is Viola's brother really drowned?
   

To Take Wildness In Hand

Michelle Nijhuis' central claim in her article "To Take Wildness In Hand" is that climate change is greatly affecting plant and animal life, but there is much debate over how to combat the change. Specifically the article deals with Florida Torreya, an endangered plant. Some scientists think the best way to handle situations like this is to manually move the plants or animals in danger, but others think this oversteps our bounds in nature. Either way, you can't deny the danger of climate change on ecosystems. "Climate change is begining to make good on its threats, and news of its work is now hard to avoid. Escalating global temperatures? Check. Rising seas? Check."

Besides environmetal factors working against the plant, it faces an anatomical hurdle as well. The plant grows in male and female varieties, so in order to successfully reproduce a male and female must survive in close proximity to each other, no easy task when the species is rapidly dying already. Some say the plant isn't even native to its current Floridian home, and that it was left behind a glacier during an ice age. Reguardless of views on migrating the plants, it is clear they can not long survive their current habitat.

Nijhuis uses testimonies from various naturalists and conservationalists to convey her argument about the danger of climate change. She utilizes sources from both sides of the debate over manual migratoin of speces, while focussing in on the point that something must be done. She assumes the reader has some interest in conservation, and knowledge of global warming. She hopes to move the reader and promote more involvement in conservation.

Another Abstract

Sue Halpern's article "Virtual Iraq" focused on how virtual reality immersion therapy may have significant effects on treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Many soldiers suffering from PTSD didn't want to accept therapy, until it was presented to them in the form of VR, a video game that they could relate to. In fact Virtual Iraq was developed from the video game Full Spectrum Warrior. So far the program has shown success in treating patients of PSTD. The premise for this therapy is a simple one, "The idea is to disconect the memory from the reactions to the memory, so that although the memory of the traumatic event still remains, the everyday things that can trigger fear backfiring... are restored to insignificance." In the article, a man named Travis Boyd undergoes this thearpy.

Halpern uses personal experiences to support her claims that VR therapy is effective and powerful. She experienced Virtual Iraq herself as well as witnessed others such as an actor researching a role trying out the device. She also interviewed Travis, who was able to get over his insomia and feelings of guilt about the death of a squad memer through the therapy. She also cites various numbers and figures about the percentage of patients showing results from the various trials of Virtual Iraq. Halpern assumes that the reader is familiar with the nature of the war in Iraq and how stressful a situation it is, and other traumatic events such as 9/11 as well.

Abstract

Chris Carroll's article "High-tech Trash" focuses on the danger of our society's increasing amount of "e-waste". Besides damage to the environment, people salvaging old electronic parts are being exposed to harmful chemicals. Because of many governments' stances on e-waste disposal a lot of trash ends up being sent to other countries in Asia and Africa for salvaging and resale. Carroll writes, "The result of the federal hands-off policy is that the greater part of e-waste sent to domestic recyclers is shunted overseas". And that "It is next to impossible to gauge how much e-waste is still being smuggled into China, diverted to other parts of Asia, or—increasingly—dumped in West African countries like Ghana, Nigeria, and Ivory Coast".

Of the various reasons he gives for why e-waste is dangerous the most apparent is the health risk by exposure to carcinogens. As salvagers burn wire and break tubes they are exposed to very harmful chemicals but they often need the money that can be brought in by recycling old electronics. Many legit recycling plants are unable to compete with the cheap prices of the salvage groups in overseas countries. We are not taking enough responsibility for our waste. Also, modern electronics and computers are outdated so quickly we are constantly creating an exponential amount of e-waste.

Carroll makes certain assumptions that the readers are part of the throw away society of electronics. He expects readers to be shocked at the harmful effects old electronics have on other human beings besides just environmental factors. Carroll wants to point out these problems so that readers can try and make a difference.

small object, LARGE SUBJECT

The existence of iPods in our culture illustrates our love for technology, isolation, and of course music. We love to bring our music library with us everywhere simply because we can. We want to be able to shut the world out and retreat to the comfort zone of our favorite songs as we walk down the street.
iPod promotions use catchy music, bright colors, and trendy concepts to get people to buy new versions of something they already have. Although most iPods do the same thing there are countless incarnations of them from mini to nano to classic to shuffle to touch. Sometimes the only difference I can find between models is the shape. But because they are a new piece of technology we have to have them.
Personally I get the most use out of my iPod when running. I like that depending on the song I can relax and use running as something theraputic or use the music to pump me up to run harder. I also like that the music can shut me out of my surroundings. It let's me concentrate more on myself and the way my body is responding to the run.
The manufacturers of the iPod assume Americans will continue to expand their music library and be interested in new gadgets. Apple's costomers will continue to want to brag about having the newest bit of technology when really the iPod they have now is probably sufficient.

How Do I Write An Abstract?

The controlling idea of Nicholas Carr's article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" is that as new forms of technology and media are developed they change the way we think, read and write. Google puts a great wealth of information at our fingertips which makes us lazy and incapable of reading a lengthy book for information. Carr sums up this argument with the following metaphor: "Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski". Before Google he had to slowly search through books the way a scuba diver slowly takes in their surroundings under water. But now he skips over them without being able to take in the details, the way Jet Skis move too fast over the surface to get a clear view of what's underneath. He also says the net is "chipping away at [his] capacity for concentration and contemplation".

Besides Google and the internet dumbing people down he also feels that writing implements influence the way we form our thoughts. Carr cites Nietzsche's switch to using a typewriter to prove this point. After making the switch Nietzshce's writing became more terse than usual, the same way modern changes in communication associated with the internet make us prefer to read and write in shorter increments. Concerns about switches in media date all the way back to the invention of the printing press when many people believed it would bring about the end of society.

In the article, Carr assumes that the readers are educated, and have familiarity with Google, even if they themselves do not use it extensively themselves. He also assumes that many readers may be in the same boat as him, that is to say, are also having trouble concentrating on reading the more time they spend online.

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

I think reading "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" by Nicholas Carr has ruined any chance of me reading a book ever again. For a year or so I've been sort of subconsciously aware of this phenomenon taking place in my mind, I found it harder and harder to just sit and read for hours on end. Now that the article has brought this to my attention it's all I can think about. As interested as I was in the article, I couldn't bring myself to read the whole thing straight through, I had to stop and take a break a few pages before the end and write this down. Again, about a page from the end I stopped to get a drink, not so much because I was thirsty but because I was looking for something to do that wasn't reading.
On a more analytical note, I think the title of the article is a bit misleading. To me it's not so much that Google and its quest to streamline the way we access information is making us stupid, it's the internet itself and the culture surrounding the internet that's doing it. More than that, it's most modern forms of communication that are contributing to the phenomenon. Services like text messaging and Twitter that limit the number of characters we can send train us to be as brief as possible in our writing, and to expect everything we read to be equally as brief. But that's not the case with books, newspapers, and almost any other form of printed media. I definitely feel that growing up during this time period of web browsing and surfing I've been effected mentally. As I've grown up it's been harder and harder for me to concentrate on reading the more comfortable I've grown with the internet. At least now I know why.