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.