That damned conception of Authority

What I will take away from this class is that my standpoint, in what I thought was opposition to "hard" science, has no more authority than the opposing epistemology I so readily criticized. Both sides, if you will, are guilty of abusing positions of authority, knowledge, and power in order to lay claim to the dominant ideologues of the world.

The stakes are large.

What I'll be taking with me is the same skepticism I had for science, except that I will be turning it inwards instead.

Clearly I can't click publish post until I address the conception of "reality". Given that it was the first question of the class review, I think that in these cases where we put into question what exactly it is that we consider reality to be, we are relying far too much on the presumed authority of "reality". Claims like "we have different realities because each of our world experiences is uniquely different" are almost true, except that it ignores the existence of a communal reality, a reality in which large structures such as a capitalist mode of production, can't escape our individualized, competing realities.

Given that, I believe in reality. I believe that something outside of our mental cognition exists, but that we can't and won't ever know its true essence.

Thanks for everything, Ben and Robin.

One thing I will definitely take with me from this class is a shift in perspective about sex and gender. From reading Sexing the Body and the discussions we have had in class about our cultural sex binary and intersexuality, I've gained a drastically different idea of what sex is and how "natural" it really is. As with many other topics we talked about throughout the semester, we found how a multitude of cultural factors influence and construct the "reality" we see as our concept of sex. From the language we use to the way we assign value to different kinds of bodies, our supposedly biologically rooted classification of people based on their genitals turns out to be thoroughly filtered through our own perceptions and constructions. As evidenced by our investigation into intersexuality with Sexing the Body, there is a huge amount of variation in anatomy, leading into the debate over whether it's "truer" that there are five sexes than two, etc etc... The point is, the things we had assumed about sex were not as clear-cut and simple as they had seemed, and by picking apart the gray areas more and more we found a very complex hybrid, well ingrained into our ways of thinking and living. Its interconnectedness makes it a difficult mindset to change.

i am now more comfortable

Why am I now more comfortable? This class, like some before it, has opened my eyes to the blurring of "reality" and "truth" with bias and perception. While I knew before that everything presented as "truth" and "real" in the softer hard sciences (i.e. biology, as opposed to the harder hard sciences such as physics and math), was biased and an approximation to the ever elusive Reality. When I capitalize Reality, I am referring to the concept that there is, somewhere out there, yet to be discovered, One Way that things Are. However, I was uncomfortable with that. I wanted to know, to solve the problem of eliminating bias and reducing approximation, and replacing it with secular data whose existence was not determined by the human who made it- that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (measuring something inevitably alters it in some way, thus rendering the measurement inaccurate) could somehow be eliminated, if we found the right way of researching, or experimenting, or presenting information.
However, no longer is it important to me that the bias be eliminated from knowledge, "truth", and "reality", because it informs that "truth" and does not necessarily render it False. Would it really matter if we found the exact point on the phallo-meter where a baby penis turned into a baby clitoris? No! Because it still would not predict the questions of an individual's identity or sexual preference, or avoid the need for future medical intervention. Does it matter if we determine exactly which errors in chromosome duplication and separation result in where on the sex scale between male and female lies an individual? No, because what we decide to do with that information, and how each individual feels is informed by a multitude of factors. This is so exciting! I can now stop my fruitless endeavor to create a method for producing a "reality" that accurately reflects Reality, but rather spend my time teasing out the nuances that make the data meaningful, and bring about more, and greater questions.

Not accepting face value

The main thing that I will take away from this class is not to accept everything at face value. Over the course of the semester I have learned to analyze people, concepts, thing, etc. carefully. Perhaps legitimation is one of the major ideas we covered in this course that falls under this category. While I'm reading articles or listening to people speak/comment on something I find my self asking, "who is this person, and what do they know? Or what can I trust that they know?"

I really see the importance of the idea of legitimation and I think it is for my benefit to ask these guiding questions. If the person, in my mind is not legit, then I won't waste my time listening or hearing them out. If they are legit, then I'll listen, but whatever they say will not necessarily be accepted at face value.

Overall, I guess this way of going about life is kind of skeptical and that is exactly what I got out of this course. Being skeptical is important for two reasons I can think of 1) provides a system of checks and balances and 2) it helps to generate knowledge. However, there is a fine line between skeptical and challenging authority and this is where legitimation once again comes in!

The Science and Humanities of... Tables?

The best way I can describe my feelings towards this class are analytically. My analogy consists of the class and the tables in the class room. In the beginning of the year, the tables were all in rows, overflowing with people, sort of like everyone in the class room; they came with pretty structered, overflowing ideas of how they felt about certain... things for lack of better word. The tables stayed like this for a couple of classes, until we formed our working groups. The circles we formed allowed us to share and exchange our beliefs, ideas, and reflections with other people, in a circulation, referencing our readings. The "stuff" we would learn in class would circulate from one person to another, slowly changing minds and ideas. Then at the end of class, we would put the tables back together, in some almost normal formation. As we left, we tried to get a grip on our thoughts, putting together with what we've learned in some new formation. This would repeatedly happen everyday, for a whole semester. Then as we sat in class on the last day talking about uncertainties and certainties, we for the last time, put the tables back in a formation very different than the way in which they started on the first day. We left the classroom for the last time with new views, opinions, beliefs, morals, thoughts etc. Some of us have no idea what any of it means, yet. Some of us are pissed that we are now uncertain. Some of us still have the same ideas that have only be reinforced. What ever the case, we have a new foundation, understanding, realization about the world we live in. Our tables are all holding different items, but they are holding them with a strong foundation built by each individual, thanks to this class.

reality vs. perception of reality

I'm still having problems with Robin's/Latour's idea that X(microbes, etc..) didn't exist before they were named/discovered. I understand that historically that there have been many different paradigms that have influenced the human understanding of the "state of things" (and that there will probably be many more in the future), yet when Robin says they actually did not exist is where my conflict arises. This seems so anthropocentric, that something could not exist unless humans know of it or have experienced it. I still firmly believe that science exists to discover the underlying reality of things, and that humans may just not have the mental capacity to do so. But, I think this is still the best way we have to to make sense of the universe. I believe that knowledge and information are created, but that facts and observations are discovered. I think this serves to delegitimize science by inferring that since scientific paradigms change, we shouldn't trust science. But what other way do we have to understand the universe? Religion? Faith? Authoritative decree? Not for me. Anyone can do science, and in fact, the best science is done in the face of the status quo. It's what will win you a Nobel prize.
I think we've used the word science a bit loosely in this class and that most of the things we've talked about have had more to do with technology than science. I propose a re-naming of the course to 'The Application of Technology and the Humanities'. Because the reason most of the general public cares about science at all is because of the technologies that come out of it, and not the science itself.
Another conflicting idea for me in this class is the proposition that science cannot say anything about morality. I'm not sure about this. Here is a neurologist that says maybe it can. I'm not sure all of his arguments are sound, but some of the things he says make some sense.

http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html

This has been a fun class, it was nice to have met all of you.

The Realness of Reality

The topic that still intrigues me and kind of puzzles me is the idea of 'reality', and whether or not it exists or if we believe in it.
This subject made me extremely curious because I had never once in my life questioned the existence of reality. I just thought everything was the way it was and we lived this life we were given and everyone lives it together. But in even being asked the question- do you believe in reality- I had to force myself to really think outside of the realm.
I now do think I can confidently say that I believe in reality, but to extent to which I believe is what I struggle with. In our last class on Thursday the idea of different realities possibly coexisting together was very interesting to me, it made me think, Does everyone live in their own reality which therefore collide with other people's realities to make one larger reality? Are the truths within these realities what enables us to call them reality? There are so many questions still lurking in my mind about reality and I believe it is kind of like a taboo religion topic- you can't see it, you may even not be able to prove it exists but you still need to believe in it.
In thinking about the topic of reality, it helped me go out into the world and question everything in front of me more. Now, I don't just except something as "the way it is" but instead I want to know more, why it works the way it does, the influences, the biases, the truths. I thank this class for enabling me to open my eyes to the world around me and not be affraid to be curious and ask questions- I believe the search for knowledge and truth is one of the most difficult, yet useful and rewarding paths in life.

CSCL 3331

What am i taking away from this class?

To be frank, my biggest struggle with this prompt is how to say what i want to say without being totally cheesy & cliche.

I think the best way i can sum up my CSCL 3331 experience is with the comment robin made last class... "the more i know, the more i know i don't know" Applicable in every dimension of the class, from Pinker and Elliot and their interpretations on disorders to sex, through food and ending with Crichton's manipulative masterpiece each stage i'm left with more questions than answers.

At first this bothered me, i spent late nights rereading class notes, sure there was a "right" answer to these questions that i was simply missing. Yet, after futile hours and serious lack of sleep i simply gave up, and when i stopped questioning i began knowing more and more. Opening up my mind to these new theories and ideas some radical (there should be more than 2 sexes!) others less so (we should grow our own food) and yet together they were allowed to just digest and slowly be mulled over in my mind

And thinking about these topics and issues, not trying to SOLVE them but just pondering them in their hybrid nature lead me to complete awareness of my own naivety, each of our topics is so bound up and intertwined within other world topics, with culture and philosophy, government, ideology, politics, literature... it is impossible to fully understand any of these disciplines. Furthermore, according to Latour, we ought question whether we can fully understand anything as our reality is in part created by our own way of seeing. Like imaging infinity, my mind was just left boggled and perplexed.

So what have I learned in science and humanities in Peik room 28? A whole mess of things, but i have also learned that i dont know as much as i thought i did, but i'm okay with that. Thanks for a great semester guys

A New Way of Thinking about Science

Like I mentioned in class, I am both a CSCL major and premed, so my entire school career has been an odd, yet balancing, mix of humanities and science. The issue was that I had no concise way to bring the two together. I most other CSCL classes we've stuck to what you'd expect from a course that teaches about culture; literature, the media, tv, movies, music, sexuality, ect. But I hadn't come across a way to really fit what I've learned from being a CSCL major into my science classes.

I had previously thought of the sciences as most people do, as being pure and mostly unaffected by society. In biology and psychology I could see some of the outside influences but in my mind the harder sciences, like physics or chemistry, were pretty much solid. Regardless of where (or when) you live the acceleration on a falling object from gravity on Earth is always 9.81 m/s^2 and water will always consist of two Hydrogens and an Oxygen molecule.

What I can see know is that while these facts were always part of reality, before people had a way of "seeing" them these facts could not have been true. Before Newton was able to derive the equation for the force of gravity it could not have been true that the acceleration is always 9.81 m/s^2. You need a fact before you can say its true or not. According to Aristotle the truth of the matter was that the "nature" of the objects decided whether or not they rose or fell. Somethings fell because their natural position was in the center of the universe (which was the Earth at the time) and so they'd move downwards. While we know now that this is not reality and, for us, is wrong, in the 4th century BC Aristotle was correct. Facts are just what the majority of the people, those with authority, at least, consider to be correct, even if it turns out to be contradictory to the reality. Society creates truth.

I take from this class a heightened sense of skepticism about the world around me. I can see more clearly that many of the things I consider true or factual may be incorrect in reality. I am comfortable with this, however. I feel that a good amount of doubt is healthy, for scientists just as much as, if not more than, anyone else. If no one bothered to question the reality of an established fact we would not have seen any of the progression that has brought society to where it is today.

Gender Binaries

There's so many new topics I've been exposed to after taking this class, but what I feel really made the greatest impact was the whole argument of two sexes versus five proposed by Anne Fausto-Sterling. This issue was stressed in another one of my classes, The Body and Politics of Representation, so I got a double dose of this by reading Sexing the Body, Kate Bornstein's Gender Outlaw, and listening to a transgendered individual first-hand speak out about his own personal experience.

The material has caused me to question what I never thought twice about. Not once did I stop to think about whether or not there was more than two distinct genders. Through Science and Humanities, I was shown the differences in physiology as well as anatomy that have the potential to break the barriers between social and biological sciences that we have always regarded to be autonomous.

The spectrum with degrees of sexuality no doubt needs to be taken into consideration. People argue that the five sex system would lead to inclusion/exclusion and telling people to be a certain way. I agree with this statement and feel we shouldn't categorize people that do not wish to be given a title, but who just want to be. I've learned that gender can be classified in other ways that don't include strictly anatomy/genitals. There are more components that play a role, so I think the best we can do is keep the two female and male and allow people with variations of sexes to identify (or not identify) somewhere between the two, however they choose to do so. Overall, this class has made me more accepting of people and has caused me to consider others' opinions before coming to my personal conclusion.

birth cirtificates

I guess what still lingers with me is the whole intersex baby thing. I find it so fascinating, and something I hadn't known very much about until I read Fausto-Sterling. The diagram she has in her book, where sex lies on a continuum for a newborn baby has been stuck in my head since I first saw it. And when it is ambiguous at birth, how do you go about deciding? You can check levels of sex hormones in the blood or what the chromosomes say. That won't always answer the question. The stories about those who had a sex change operation at birth, and then became super depressed or angry later on...might just go to show that there's an actual identifiable sex that a person is supposed to live out. Also it shows that a doctor can make a wrong decision regarding the baby's sex. Reversal surgery is potentially more detrimental to the person's emotional state. A lot of talk about holding off on these new-born surgeries is just as controversial, though. Doctors have been saying to wait though, because that way when the child decides for him/herself, at least you haven't damaged anything yet. The problem becomes, what then does a parent put on the birth certificate? In Texas, for example, you aren't allowed to change your birth certificate. So if the parent arbitrarily picks a boy, and then at age 4 the kid decides "I'm a girl", in the eyes of the law she will always be a boy. And she won't ever be able to marry a man. It is that screwed up.

Excited, bothered and intrigued

The one topic from this class that excites, bothers and intrigues me all at the same time is the omnivore's dilemma. Not only was the book thought provoking, life changing and identity shaping but the whole conflict of what we eat and why stays with me. I would have eventually read Micheal Pollan's book, if not for this class, but having it as part of the curriculum made it an even richer experience.

I think a lot about what I eat and have become aware of the far-reaching effects the industrial-agriculture system. I believe every person only has one body and since you rely on that body for literally everything, you should make sure the things you put in it are appropriate. This issue riles me up because most other people don't consider what they eat to be as big of a deal as I think it should be. I know it is a constant struggle to eat what is "right" and "fair" and it really helped me put it in to perspective to see those same issues posed for my classmates. The food journal was an amazing glimpse at what other people eat and how food decisions are made. In addition, the corn hybrid diagrams that each group created helped me gain a well rounded perspective on the issue.

I no longer look at McDonalds, Taco Bell or even Cub Foods the same. And I am always asking myself... "How much corn did it take to produce this meal?" In the end I hope the food system in the world can be refined so it can provide healthy, sustainable meals for the globe for years to come. However, this class as taught me that a lot of 'knots' will need to be unraveled for that to ever happen.

Final Thoughts

I’m still very fascinated by the issue of apotemnophilia and semantic contagions. The idea that people identify with “always” being a certain way after they find out about a condition makes me wonder how much other “conditions” or “identities” follow that model. We discussed in class how apotemnophilia “developed” with the internet, and the possibility that people find out about it and then start to believe they have it….which then means they actually do. People then express themselves not as “I recently decided I need my arm cutoff” but “I have always needed my arm cutoff, recently I found a name for my condition”. How much does this relate to say, something like transexuality? Or eating disorders? People often express their desire to live as another gender (or change their body, or whatever–many different interpretations under the umbrella term) as “I have always been a boy”. How is the proliferation of individuals explaining their identities as an always already existing condition related to hearing more about those conditions? I did my very first post on this issue (kind of) about my identity as a lesbian. I still wonder how various components of who I am are actually based in the way I’ve heard other people express themselves. I don’t know if this idea will change how I act per se, but certainly how I think about the issue of identity in general. I think most people are a little uncomfortable with the idea that something can “spread” by hearing about it (I am as well–what if tomorrow I decide I don’t want my arm?!). Somewhat disturbing, mostly just continually curious

Final Thoughts

The work we did on Apotemnophilia was a great way to start off the class because it was not only shocking and a surprise but also an interesting way to look at science and the humanities. This topic doesn’t excite me because I feel empathy for the people that choose they have to do this to complete their ideal body image. It is very thought provoking how they consider that they must do this to themselves. I never could imagine how any doctor could get away with this.

It was a rather unpleasant thing to read because these people want to be disabled. I have to use the disability services at the U and it still bothers me that people would believe by making themselves handicapped they would be happier. I was really surprised when Ester said they she searched on youtube for this and there were a lot of videos involving sexual fetishes relating to this disease.

What we thought of that first day of class was: how does one measure insanity? The debate on this topic was intense. It was a great topic for the first debate because the way in which the underdog team (with out the debaters) came up with such a good game plan to win.

What themes and concepts I am going to take away from this is that our world is an extremely complex place. With the rise of technology, science and the humanities it will be every more complex years from now. This class was a great experience for me because it allowed me to learn about so many new things that I couldn’t learn about in another class in my major. I have always liked reading about science and this class has made me like it more and I am glad for that.

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!

blah

this post is really late and I have no excuse and if I don't get the points for it, that's fine, because I'm not putting that much effort into it anyway, and I'm sure I'm not saying anything new. But basically, I've been thinking about some of the presentations we've seen, and I think quite a few of them come down to power and ownership, at the personal level, at the family level, and at the governmental level.

Cosmetic surgery has a lot to do with body ownership... Does god/nature "own" your body, or do you have the right to change it as you see fit? This idea gets more complex with designer babies, since the parents may feel like it's their right to choose for their child, but others might think that the baby has its own rights.

This would lead me to birth control, which to me is also entirely an issue of who owns the body. Does god own your body? Does your husband own your body? Or do you? And do you own the body of your hypothetical fetus, or does the hypothetical fetus have its own rights?

Incest is more to do with power at the family level. It upsets family power structures or our idea of what family should be, and we're afraid that it would introduce societal instability. In other words, when your dad is your lover, he's not really just your dad anymore, so it makes family relationships (and who has the power) more unclear.

A lot of these topics made us uncomfortable, and we may have wondered if the government would be justified in imposing laws on people to control their behavior (in terms of incest, steroid use, or "too much" plastic surgery). I guess I really have nothing new to add, but I thought it was interesting that we saw some of the same recurring themes in a lot of the posters!

Designer Babies and Prisonz

The reason this is devastatingly late is because I was at a debate tournament that lasted till today, and we were in late elims (yay!) so I didn’t really have the chance to do this till now (boo).


I was interested in the link between the genetics of sin questions raised by the prisons group and the “designing” parts of designer babies. The prisons group examined the “origins” of criminal behavior and discussed theories that some individuals are born genetically predisposed to be violent. These ideas also reminded me of the eugenics tree on the designer babies poster and some of the questions raised about the future of genetic testing–will we try and create perfect kids? If we can isolate a gene for violence, can we then remove it using the same technology for eliminating certain genetic diseases? Both of the genetic components of the projects (crime theories, arguments on/about the genetic tree) are based on the idea that we are separate from culture, violence (for example) is not a product of someone’s upbringing or the media or whatever, but something they are predisposed to. We are born who we are going to become kind of thing, ala Pinker. This was not as apparent in the designer babies group, but I think part of the concerns raised over designs is not just that we can physically mold children but control how they turn out by manipulating genes. I think it is uniquely interesting with designing children’s personalities–if we accept that we are cultural subjects, that you can teach a child not to be violent or act a certain way, we are encouraged to do it. So, if we are not, or discover that this “parenting lessons” are actually determined by genes, why can we not control it that way as well?

I think the desirability of this brings up questions of control over bodies/life in general. Suppose a link is discovered between extreme violence and a certain gene. Should people who carry it be forbidden from reproducing (on the basis that it saves more lives/trouble later on?). Or, should we develop tech to remove said gene–design a baby to avoid crime. If we can design a baby to avoid crime, can we design them to do other things? Be talented in a certain way? Should these things even be regulated? Government over sexual/reproductive practices was something I explored in my groups presentation on Incest, and I think the issues there are similar to those in Prisons/designer babies. If a brother and sister having sex necessarily results in a problematic genetic mutations (questionable..) should they be forbidden from reproducing? I say no, but maybe the situation changes with criminality. Are their situations mandating designing babies could be good? Unsure.

When Change is Scary

I also agree that cosmetic surgery and sport enhancements are very closely related. As I am writing this, I am watching a special on E TV about celebrity cosmetic surgery. Some of the people on here have seriously changed their identities as people. They turned their natural beauty into something constructed. Heidi Montag for example go ten surgeries in one day! And now her mother can't even look at her the same. The thing about cosmetic surgery is the beauty to one person, is viewed quite different to another person and many times the wants of the patient aren't completly satisfying to the end result. Cosmetic surgery can be used in very healthy, helpful ways like in reconstructive surgery or for cleft pallats etc. But getting a boob job, a nose job, eyebrows raised, lipo suction, and butt implants in one day is very extreme. But whatever the case, if these people end up happy and satisfied, then who's to tell them they are wrong. If they think they look better than they did before, why should they be condemed for having control of their own bodies. Just as girls put on makeup and color their hair, they are changing the way they look to make themselves happier, by looking good for other people. Cosmestic surgery is just a more permanent, expesive approach, some might argue.

Sport Enhancements fall into the same category of changing ones self to be better for themselves and for others. Athletes want to set records, win, be the best in the eyes of their fans. Taking steriods or bettering your eyes so that you can see a ball better is just a way of playing the game outside of the game. Why should a model be able to reconsrtuct her body to make it 'perfect,' giving her more job opportunities, money, fame, and so on, but a golfer can't get lazer eye surgery so that he can make his game better? Who shoudl draw the line in these cases? When does an additive turn into cheating? Why are vitamins and protein shakes okay but steroids are not? As in Descartes eyes, if the mind and body are really separate, why do so many people need to change their body, or outward appearance, to feel that they can be successfull. Why does the media feed people false imaging, that still leads to thoughts of imperfection of their own bodies. Why does an athlete think they will only play their best, if they take supplements instead of naturally gaining muscle. Are these answers found in science, or in our culture, or in both? Perhaps society finds that changing physical characteristics is the easy way out; Change in any other aspect (attitudes, beliefs, behaviors) that's the stuff everyone likes to avoid, because it's scary and hard.

Cosmetic Sport?

Cosmetic Surgery and Sport, seemingly opposite in all every way, marketed towards different audiences, using different mediums, emphasizing different qualities, and yet comparison reveals there to be much in common between the two.

The first part of the 2x2 prescribed assignment is the identification of 2 poster projects (check) the next step is to connect them to 2 central themes of the class. Like previously stated cosmetic surgery and sport have more in common than what lies on the surface.

Let us begin with an examination of the Brave New World theme... what is the role of the government in deciding the lives we live? Hobbs vs Locke, in an unending battle to determine the extent of necessary government intervention. This concept is one addressed in every stage of the class, can the government (which for arguments sake lumped with the makers of the DSM, as we know they're related) declare apotomophelia to be a true disorder, worth of insurance coverage? Likewise, can the government decided that there are only 2 true genders? Or how about Pollan's battle with the FDA? Government regulation as a whole has been an integral and unavoidable part of the class discussion, therefore it is only natural that government regulation would appear in the poster projects as well. For cosmetic surgery the questions are centered around the WHO... who decides what is a necessity? what qualifies as sane-- in reference to patient's emotional state? etc. Contrastingly the for the use of performance enhancing drugs in sport it is a question of HOW. How much is too much? Where does the line for drug use lay? How can they combat this existing evil?

Although both industries engage varing specific question words of the central issue remains the same that is battled between John the Savage and Mustufa Mund what is extent to which government ought to regulate the literal bodies of its people?

Another similarity between cosmetic surgery and sport is the principle that ultimately the standard of excellence is decided by culture which also works to establish the science to legitimate this standard. Through the creation/invention of various procedures and drugs culture has driven people to strive for a specific standard of both beauty and athletic achievement. This correlates to the class for culture is alway enmeshed with science, forever people have studied what is culturally relevant, and when something is "discovered" that is not presently popular the cultural viewpoint shifts to incorporate the new advancement, as in the case with the invention of microbes as discussed in Latour. In constant circulating reference fashion, culture makes science and science makes culture.

Overall, although they appear to be in conflict, with emphasis on completely opposite values. Through examination, and perhaps the help of some strategic posters, one can see that there are central underlying parallels between cosmetic surgery and performance enhancing drug use.

addiction and animal testing

Although the presentation on addiction focused mainly on the individual, much of what was said can be easily translated to society as a whole. As a society, we (in America) are addicted to personal care products, over-the-counter (and prescription) medicine and medical treatment in general. We are addicted to the idea that the medical industrial complex can and will save us (at least for a time) from our eventual demise and help us to be more comfortable in the meantime. Every product, pill and procedure is extensively tested on animals before it is added to the myriad of personal care and medical product inventory. In our earlier discussions on capitalism, we have seen the disconnect between our desire for monetary gain and the moral implications of the ways we choose to earn our welfare. I think most people I know would find it difficult to torture animals in such a brutal fashion. Yet, masked behind the blackbox of corporatism/capitalism and the opaque windows of the testing process, we can easily indulge our addiction. When groups like PETA show us the suffering that these animals endure, our moral neurons fire and in some cases it becomes easy to refuse to buy certain beauty creams; However, when our life or personal welfare is at risk, our built-in predilection for life and comfort easily override any moral questions. Our choice is 'will we torture animals to save our own lives?', while the corporate choice is 'how many bunnies must we torture to make a profit?'. These corporations use our addiction to the medical industrial complex to make a profit off the suffering of these animals. Behind all the marketing mumbo jumbo we all know the corporate interest is in the bottom line. So i ask you, how much would you charge to torture a rabbit? or How many rabbits would you torture to cure disease X?

Human enhancement and Designer Babies

As humans we are constantly striving to make ourselves better. From eating healthily, to working out and staying in shape, we attempt to form ourselves into the optimal shape. However, as we develop new techniques what is defined as optimal has changed. The definition of perfection has modified along with the methods of obtaining it. We can now inject ourselves with a little bit of hormone or take some steroids and become more than we used to be. Harder, better, faster, stronger. We can also design our babies. Blue eyed, blonde hair.

Beauty is not something that can not be placed on a cartesian scale, for as they say, it's in the eye of the beholder. The concept of natural beauty is not exactly relevant any longer. In our culture it takes more to be perfect. Airbrushed bodies and unrealistic athletes present a form of perfection that cannot be obtained. It doesn't make sense to desire these things, they are impossible to achieve! But does it make sense to want to cut your leg off? Ask Carl Elliot. We are just a crazy species that constantly strives to make ourselves better, but with a constantly changing definition of what better is we're just back at crazy.

Soap science

I had a hard time picking which presentations to look at for this blog post, but I decided that I thought the intersections between the projects on soap and "Humanity and the Sciences" (not sure I got that title right but the one about the flow of funding toward different kinds of research and education) created a good illustration of the broadest themes that have directed this class. Between these two we see a process of legitimation that develops historically and socially, which leads to an end goal of a monetary value for the result of this process and the result only. We see how facts and scientific truth are constructed, and that both their creation and acceptance are inevitably influenced by their broader contexts. We see how in turn this process is continually rewarded and that this creates a cycle that perpetuates the currently unequal distribution of value and importance on different ways of looking at and understanding the world. We go so far as to deem some almost unquestionably "truth" and others at best speculation and and worst bullshit. And we're starting to see the risks we take in creating this stratification. It seems that the key concepts here are legitimation and context, and the two are inextricably linked. What we understand and accept as representing or upholding reality and truth, and consequently worth the investment of our time and money, is constantly molded by our ever-changing settings.

invasive species and animal testing

It takes serious reflexive analysis on the part of a human to rearrange the natural order (with humans at the top) and animals and "non-animal" humans as equivalents. The poster presentations on invasive species and animal testing both examined the ways humans view their (biblical) power over the beasts and their responsibility to exert, or not, exert it.

The invasive species presentation showed the "state of fear" that accompanies the apparently out-of-place species and perhaps a human responsibility to return nature to its "natural" state. Maybe I missed this in the plenary discussion or the presentation, but I would have liked to have heard a little more about the "killer bee" scare. These killer bees were also known as "Africanized bees", although they did not come from Africa, and spoke volumes about the inherent volatility often attributed all things/people African by scientific authorities and popular media. Analysis of the characterization and perceived origin of other invasive species would further nuance the way some humans see themselves as rulers of all the beasts, which may in fact include other humans. On the other hand, the presentation sobre Animal Testing further placed humans at the top of the chain, this time responsible for protecting them, rather than keeping nature's order.

Invasive Enhancement

Invasive Species and Enhancement in the Sports Industry

I would first like to thank those who have already presented because somehow we all ended up presenting cultural objects that share many common qualities. It made incest not feel so awkward.

So, given the “2 X 2” assignment guidelines, two presentations lie in my crosshairs. First off, Invasive Species.

I felt that there was a particular viewing device the group presenting about Invasive Species wanted us to view their object through. Aside from their anecdotes about snakes competing with alligators for territory in the everglades, the majority of their justification for why invasive species is an “under appreciated state of fear” is the threat posed to humanity, and humanity alone.

This anthropocentric justification exposes the viewing device, namely viewing invasive species in a way that ignores our own actions as pollutant spewing, species ending, geography altering human beings that fit the title “invasive species”.

This isn’t to say that human concerns should be ignored, but rather that we humans are but one different example of an invasive species that has waged war on the biosphere, and if we are to better understand the problems associated with Invasive Species.

That being said, what a wonderful hybrid.

Concerning the enhancement project, I felt that their identification of the semantic contagion effect (given the blurring distinction between self-enhancement and “roiding” out) was spot-on. I have been tempted many times throughout my “career” as a college student to drink a beer or take a shot before I give a presentation. I like public speaking, I like forensics/debate, etc. but I get massive anxiety even if I have everything memorized.

Would this be an unfair academic enhancement?

Does it have to be legal?

Mark McGuire wasn’t breaking the law when he was taking his steroids – but under today’s law, he would be – thus he has now retroactively broken the law and has spent time testifying before congressional panels. So what does the legality matter if the law can be changed and retroactively used to punish?

Should we just use a visceral ethics litmus test? If my “gut” feels sick about what I might be about to do, should I then not do it?

Anyways, enough asking questions without answers. The power’s in the politics of it all. :)

On Beauty

Cosmetic surgery and designer babies are, as it first seems, products of our over-indulged, hyper-active 20th century ideals. But what these poster projects reminded us was that these two practices have been around for much much longer. They have existed since the early ages of modern science. What then makes them such hot topics today? Clearly what we have now is the technology to make these two accessible to much more people. The potential for a middle class person to have cosmetic surgery or a designer baby is growing, and so is the desirability. When these surgeries and test tube babies are becoming less of a freakish thing, of course more people are going to consider it worth their money.

But all of the identity issues and ethics aside, I think these two projects bring up a provocative question, one that focuses around beauty in a different way. I'm not talking about whether blonde or brown hair is more beautiful, or whether a guy looks better in a polo. Rather, I'm interested in what seems like a morphing understanding of beauty as a whole, and how the element of "natural" has been displaced by "intentional". Beauty used to exist in the natural world as precious, almost as if it were luck. Some might even say a gift of god. Today it is extremely obvious that our culture has our eyes stuck on the skinny models and the digitally altered pictures. But we know it is fake by now, we get that barbies aren't real. Yet, we have more and more people feeding into that artificial aesthetic. Perhaps our society IS fighting for a new definition of what is beautiful, and that unrealistic air-brushed figure is something to attain. Now what do we do, when what we think is beautiful doesn't fall on luck any more? Something has to play out for an answer, but I don't believe we can go on forever "perfecting" ourselves.

Criminals and Addiction

I think it was really ironic that the poster on addiction came right before the prison poster. There are so many overlapping components that fall into both categories, and they are extremely correlated with one another. Addiction is argued as being genetic as well as being brought about by environmental components; The same is proposed regarding how criminals come to be.

The two combine to create a single circulating reference, which is kept sustained by the effects of the other, and the cycle never ends. People with addictions live for the sole purpose that satisfies whatever it is that they have come to solely depend upon, and they start turning to desperate measures such as criminal activity just to get their fix.

It would be inaccurate to rule out nature completely, but environment seems to be the leading contributor. For example, a poverty-stricken environment promotes crime in order to survive and a lot of people turn to drugs to get through their hard lives. A trend of addiction often arises. While it would be interesting to locate the various interacting genes (if any were to exist) that increase criminal behavior, it would be very hard to eliminate criminals based on this factor alone, since there is always going to be negative impacting surroundings that foster crime and addiction.

Cosmetic Surgery & Designer Babies

I found two closely related presentations to be that of cosmetic surgery and designer babies. Not only are these two topics related in the fact that they are costly, but I have come to realize that they also are alike in the fact that societies' opinion has a large effect on the decisions that are made. Whether it is a face lift or picking the right egg, in both of these instances the decision made is so that either the person or the person's child will look/be/act how society finds as normal, trendy, or even good looking. With that said, I think the idea of human nature arises. Are we programmed to impress people? Is it in our genes? environment?

Another question that is raise is the idea of ethics. Is it right to be able to "pick" your child, or decide for yourself that you need some kind of cosmetic surgery because you aren't satisfied with how you or your child will look. The history of each subject shows us that they were first used as fixing scars for war vets. or so that the baby wouldn't be born with some kind of gene defect. Now these subjects are used for trying to meet unrealistic expectations and picking children with specific features found in their genes.

Black Holes and Animal Testing

I think the group that talked about black holes was extremely interesting. It's frightening to be playing with this black box of a machine, possibly being predicted to even destroy the world someday!? I thought said a lot about our society and the world that we live in- so much money put into technology that would either potentially save our world because it could be a controlled and its energy could be harvested OR it could be turned to complete power and possibly such our world into its own black hole in one second. I believe this black box needs to be better explored before they continue to play around with it.
I also thought the group who did the animal testing was really interesting... Descartes- "I think therefore I am"... therefore we are human and we exist. And it is cruel to test on humans for harmful experimentations. What really made me curious about this project was how do we know animals aren't thinking? where do we draw the lines at thinking vs. being able to communicate? The idea of existing and being part of reality instead of just living as a plant or animal are really tricky lines that are in need of being drawn.

Birth Control, Incest and Designer Babies

As quick as we are to dismiss eugenics as a pseudoscience or an unmoral discipline, it has shown up in multiple projects - birth control, incest and designer babies. Although eugenics is no longer a respected science, the "improvement" of humankind still underlies modern decisions. But in almost every case, the practice of trying to influence human heredity is mostly a black box. In the case of birth control, there are three explained ways in which the drug works to prevent pregnancy. Furthermore, the results of incest are even more unclear. What level of gene overlap causes unusual health problems?

Along with being black boxes, the three topics also relate to Anne Fausto-Sterling's chapter about sex hormones. They all involve, "a struggle between scientists and political activists to secure one another's help while holding on to their specific goals." (Sexing the Body, 173) And in the realm of reproduction there is an elevated sense of moral obligation. These scientists consider themselves experts in social matters and hope to cure social ills with their programs. For me, it is easy to imagine the near future in which the three disciplines intersect - a pill that prevents incest or allows for specific embryos with chosen genes.

The Consequences of Choice

I feel that out of all of the poster projects the two that were most closely related, with the possible exception of Addiction and Prison, were Cosmetic Surgery and Drug Enhancement in Sports and Industry. Both involved people's decisions to use external means in an attempt to better themselves. The main difference is that one is generally done by women, and the other men. I feel that this fact says much about gender roles and stereotypes that very much continue to influence society.

First, are the women. Since the 1980s, there has been a sort of paradox regarding how women are expected to behave and look. In the business place we are expected to be unemotional and driven, as men have been molded to behave for ages. If not, we are deemed soft and unfit for any sort of position of power. At the same time, however, it is assumed that we will look flawless and will be the emotional foundations of our families and, often, our work places. No woman could live up to all of the pressures put upon us, largely due to the dichotomous nature of all that is expected. The goal only becomes more and more unattainable, yet society never allows us to stop reaching for it. With this, it is no surprise just how many women seek cosmetic surgery today. Society expects us to be perfect, both in form and action. The sad fact of the matter is that a woman who is considered unattractive will have to work much harder than a pretty one, only because her outward appearance is used as an indicator on how good of a worker she is.

The challenge that faces men in today's society is quite different, though no less formidable. Rather than the flawless perfection expected in women, men are taught that they must be the best. And if they are the best, to do better than they did before. No one cared how Mark McGwire looked when he was playing baseball. Nor was he expected to be particularly personable on or off the field. What was expected of him was that he never stopped pushing himself to be the best player of the game, and after he broke the record for the most single-season homeruns he was expected to do even better the next year. In sports, as well as in other areas, the line for men has been pushed past the realm of possibility, at least without some sort of external aid. And any man who does not strive to push that line just a bit further is considered weak, lazy or uncaring about what he does. Much of masculinity is decided by how determined the man is to exceeding those who've come before him and by whether or not he is successful.

The choice of women to seek cosmetic surgery and of men to use steroids or other performance enhancers are the consequences of today's society. Not only because of the impossible expectations put on both genders, but also because, as Americans, when we want something, we want it now, nevermind the consequences later. We want the quick fix despite how we look when we're older or the legal trouble we may get into down the road. Our culture tells that we be perfect or push ourselves further than anyone else now, and that is something that can be very difficult to ignore.

Posters

I thought the food brought by the prison presentation group was a crucial symbol of how important this issue is in our country. It sure looked worse than hospital food which I have eaten a lot of when I was in the hospital for so long. I also noted how important it was that the group mentioned how expensive it was to house these prisoners.

I kept asking myself, isn't there better things that felons can make than license plates? The psychology that the architects have to use is the most fascinating to me because my friends Dad designed a prison and when I asked him if he would get blamed if someone escaped, he laughed.

I wish the team that did the addiction poster provided information that was new or cutting edge, because all I really came away from that was that addiction is part genetics and part surroundings. I knew that, I watched my brother go through an expensive treatment program nine years ago and he is still using to this day. I would have wanted to seen more about relapse because that is crucial.

It seemed like there were a few people in the class that had struggled with addiction maybe more than would want to share. I felt this presentation would have been a lot stronger if a member of the group shared a story about themselves or someone they knew and the road to recovery. That is really what this poster project and class are about, the way science and humanities shape our every day lives.

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.

My Bad, I can't add the hyperlink for some reason

http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2010/04/dna-day-is-this-sunday-have-you-had-your-genetic-work-up-done/

DNA Day

Hi everyone, I found this today on my RSS feed and I really liked it. It is long for a youtube video, but it is worth it. The question I keep asking myself is: when is DNA testing going to be part of the new health care reform?

Slate article on vaccine-autism link

http://www.slate.com/id/2243424/

Slate Magazine
recycled
True Believers
Why there's no dispelling the myth that vaccines cause autism.
By Arthur Allen
Posted Tuesday, Feb. 2, 2010, at 1:56 PM ET

On Tuesday, the medical journal the Lancet retracted a 1998 paper that linked the MMR vaccine to autism. The controversial paper was challenged and debunked by the scientific community, but it nevertheless sparked a panic among many parents. In 2007, Arthur Allen explained why scientists are unlikely to convince the parents of autistic children that vaccines are not to blame. The original article is reprinted below.

At the recent 12-day hearing into theories that vaccines cause autism, the link between the disorder and the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine came across as shaky at best. As for the mercury-containing preservative thimerosal, which was used in other vaccines, witnesses showed that in all known cases of actual mercury poisoning (none of which caused autism), the dose was hundreds or thousands of times higher than what kids got during the 1990s. Powerful population studies showed no link to either MMR or thimerosal-containing shots.

None of that moves Mary Wildman, 47, whose son's case is before the court and who drove from her home near Pittsburgh to watch the hearing, which ended this week. "I know what happened to my son after he got his MMR shot," she told me. "I have no doubt. There's no way they'll convince me that all these kids were not damaged by vaccines."

It is difficult to challenge a mother's knowledge of her own child. And also to fight off the staying power of the vaccines-cause-autism theory and other such notions that verge on the irrational.

People who study irrational beliefs have a variety of ways of explaining why we cling to them. In rational choice theory, what appear to be crazy choices are actually rational, in that they maximize an individual's benefit—or at least make him or her feel good.

Blaming vaccines can promise benefits. Victory in a lawsuit is an obvious one, especially for middle-class parents struggling to care for and educate their unruly and unresponsive kids. Another apparent benefit is the notion, espoused by a network of alternative-medical practitioners and supplement pushers, that if vaccines are the cause, the damage can be repaired, the child made whole. In the homes of autistic children it is not unusual to find cabinets filled with 40 different vitamins and supplements, along with casein-free, gluten-free foods, antibiotics, and other drugs and potions. Each is designed to fix an aspect of the "damage" that vaccines or other "toxins" caused.

"Hope is a powerful drug," says Jim Laidler, a Portland scientist and father of two autistic boys who jumped ship from the vaccine conspiracy a few years ago. In reality, autism has no cure, nor even a clearly defined cause. Science takes its time and often provides no definitive answers. That isn't medicine that's easy to swallow.

Another explanation for the refusal to face facts is what cognitive scientists call confirmation bias. Years ago, when writing an article for the Washington Post Magazine about the Tailwind affair, a screwy piece of journalism about a nonexistent attack on American POWs with sarin gas, I concluded that the story's CNN producers had become wedded to the thesis after interviewing a few unreliable sources. After that, they unconsciously discounted any facts that interfered with their juicy story. They weren't lying—except, perhaps, to themselves. They had brain blindness—confirmation bias.

The same might be said of crusading journalists like David Kirby, author of Evidence of Harm, a book that seemed to corroborate the beliefs of hundreds of parents of autistic children, and UPI reporters Dan Olmsted and Mark Benjamin (the latter now with Salon).

Systems of belief such as religion and even scientific paradigms can lock their adherents into confirmation biases. And then tidbits of fact or gossip appear over the Internet to shore them up. There's a point of no return beyond which it's very hard to change one's views about an important subject.

Then, too, the material in discussion is highly technical and specialized, and most parents aren't truly able to determine which conclusions are reasonable. So they go with their gut, or the zeitgeist message that it makes more sense to trust the "little guy"—the maverick scientist, the alt-med practitioner—than established medicine and public health. "History tells us that a lot of ground-breaking discoveries are made by mavericks who don't follow the mainstream," says Laidler. "What is often left out is that most of the mavericks are just plain wrong. They laughed at Galileo and Edison, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown and Don Knotts."

And to be sure, there was some basis for suspecting vaccines several years ago, before definitive studies had discounted a link. When the first vaccine theory was proposed in 1998, it appeared in the prestigious British medical journal Lancet and was published by an established London gastroenterologist, Andrew Wakefield. Two years later at a congressional hearing, Wakefield and an Irish pathologist and molecular biologist, John O'Leary, announced they had found measles viral RNA in the guts of autistic kids with severe bowel problems.

The air of respectability fell away over the years as we learned that Wakefield had serious conflicts of interest (including a 1997 patent application on a measles vaccine to replace the potentially soon-to-be-avoided MMR shot) and that a subsequent publication on measles RNA was probably an artifact of false positives, a common problem in polymerase chain-reaction technology.

The thimerosal theory emerged in a different context. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, concerned about cumulative mercury exposures in young children, asked manufacturers in 1999 to phase out thimerosal-containing vaccines. In other countries, such as Denmark and Canada, thimerosal was removed because of new vaccine combinations that either didn't require thimerosal or would be damaged by it. Nowhere was thimerosal removed because of evidence of harm.

But the first CDC study of children's exposures to thimerosal-containing vaccines was difficult to interpret. And anti-mercury activists jumped on the transcript of a 2000 meeting at which the study was scrutinized to argue that something improper was going on. The transcript shows no such thing. But the activists unleashed a public-relations campaign alleging a government and "big pharma" coverup.

That, in turn, proved to be eye candy for environmental groups already enraged by the Bush administration's enlistment of former industry officials in the squashing of environmental regulations. Anti-pollution lawyer Robert F. Kennedy zealously jumped on the thimerosal bandwagon in an "expose" published in Salon and Rolling Stone.

No surprise there. What editor or writer doesn't want to "reveal" that drugmakers and the government conspired to poison a generation of innocent kids. (Kirby's book won a 2005 Investigative Reporters and Editors award.) Where's the passion in the story that some public-health bureaucrats quietly moved to blunt a danger that turned out to be nonexistent?

In the pre-Internet days, the parents of an autistic child living in a small city might have found a handful of other parents in their predicament. Now, they instantly find thousands online. The denominator—healthy children—has disappeared. This is a good thing if you're looking for answers. But the answers may not be good ones. Joined together on the Internet, these actors create a climate of opinion that functions as an echo chamber for conspiracy dittoheads. Even the women's division of the Methodist Church has gotten in on the act, presumably on the grounds that it is fighting for social justice by decrying mercury poisoning, although there was no mercury poisoning, and social justice would be better met by promoting confidence in vaccines.

Kennedy, who wrote blithely in the Huffington Post during the trial that "overwhelming science" had confirmed the link, continues to believe it. So does Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., whose circuslike hearing room aired many such claims. Neither cites any solid studies, because they do not exist.

If and when the vaccine court rules against Michelle Cedillo, the 12-year-old autistic girl at the center of these first hearings, it won't change their minds. Long ago, the famous Dr. David Livingstone interviewed a rain doctor in Botswana. When Livingstone accused the rain doctor of being irrational or a cheat, the rain doctor replied, "Well, then there is a pair of us." If it rains, I take the credit, he said, and if your patient gets better, you take the credit. In neither case do we lose faith in our professions. You see, the rain doctor said, "what we believe is always more important than what actually happens.

Food, Inc. on Channel 2, Wednesday, April 21, 8 PM

Twin Cities Public Television, Channel 2, will present Food, Inc. on Wednesday, April 21, at 8 PM, as part of the documentary series POV (Point of View). This controversial film is a homage to Michael Pollan's perspective of the American food industry.

Synopsis

In Food, Inc., filmmaker Robert Kenner lifts the veil on our nation's food industry, exposing the highly mechanized underbelly that's been hidden from the American consumer with the consent of our government's regulatory agencies, USDA and FDA. Our nation's food supply is now controlled by a handful of corporations that often put profit ahead of consumer health, the livelihood of the American farmer, the safety of workers and our own environment. We have bigger-breasted chickens, the perfect pork chop, insecticide-resistant soybean seeds, even tomatoes that won't go bad, but we also have new strains of E. coli — the harmful bacteria that causes illness for an estimated 73,000 Americans annually. We are riddled with widespread obesity, particularly among children, and an epidemic level of diabetes among adults.

Featuring interviews with such experts as Eric Schlosser ("Fast Food Nation"), Michael Pollan ("The Omnivore's Dilemma") along with forward thinking social entrepreneurs like Stonyfield Farms' Gary Hirschberg and Polyface Farms' Joel Salatin, Food, Inc.reveals surprising — and often shocking truths — about what we eat, how it's produced, who we have become as a nation and where we are going from here.

NASA and climate change

I chose to examine the section of NASA’s website on what they label as global climate change. As with others that have been posted so far, the URL provides an immediate opportunity for reaction: climate.nasa.gov. Whether or not one has preconceived ideas about whether or not government entities would be a reliable source of information on climate change will certainly impact perceptions of the information presented. Either way, they certainly do their best to establish themselves as a legitimate source and authority. The angle they choose to take in doing so is to present a large volume of facts and data—sometimes in the form of graphs and diagrams, other times as statistics accompanied by numerous citations. There are videos, pictures, maps—certainly no shortage of evidence to support their side of the argument, carefully presented in short clips and statements that are accessible to a casual website viewer. There is, however, a sense of focused urgency about the site: the home page, for example, has a banner tracking earth’s “vital signs,” such as sea level, global temperature, and CO2 levels, as if the earth were a hospital patient whose heartbeat was being monitored. In this way the site anthropomorphizes the earth, putting it in a state of emergency, and is better able to engage our fears and emotions as well.

The goal overall seems to be to establish NASA as a rational, unbiased presenter of straight facts. They even state under their “Solutions” page that: “It is not NASA's role to develop solutions or public policies related to global climate change. Instead, the agency's mission is to provide the scientific data needed to understand climate change and to evaluate the impact of efforts to control it.” Their stake in the issue, however, becomes clearer as they discuss their role in climate science. They have a huge amount of government backing and funding and, and it seems that they must maintain themselves as the most reliable and up-to-date source of climate change information in order to justify the amount of money they receive. According to a chart on their own website, NASA receives almost 60% of federal investments in climate change science. This alone is revealing as to how much influence politics is going to have on their information since the government is putting a huge stock into their research.

Ice Age shouldn't have had a sequel anyway

Depending on one's perspective of "rich", I found another blog, aptly named "An Honest Climate Debate", concerned with (you guessed it!) a so-called "honest" climate debate.

I'm gonna go Glenn Beck on anybody foolish enough to read my post and simply assert that there is no such thing as an honest climate debate. Global Warming is a vast hybrid - so vast that there's always something at stake with Global Warming.

Given that, I don't believe that it is possible anymore to remain purely scientific concerning global warming, if it ever was at all. Why? GW is now a definitive boundary in American domestic politics. It is a cornerstone of an ideology among many. So much so that it, like many other aspects of ideology, can necessarily reproduce our conceptions of reality in a way that doesn't seem obvious. Everyone's drinking a different flavor of the same kool-aid.

Anyway - the blog post (http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/global-warming-may-prevent-approaching-ice-age/) I found was a re-posting of a news article that that references a scientific claim that our pollution will stave off the next probable ice age in a couple thousand years. They're quick to point out that this isn't an argument attempting to prove that the release of C02 into the atmosphere is a good thing - however, I've already seen this argument get re-appropriated for the exact opposite.

During the fall semester, I coach debate for a local high school. The topics can range from a number of different areas, but global warming often rears its ugly head. A number of times, teams in response to arguments that global warming is bad, will say the exact opposite, that global warming is good - one of the reasons being that it will prevent the next coming ice age.

My point is that information goes through a number of processes that construct, amplify, dampen, and misconstrue the true essence of the information. But even beyond that, the way in which ideology shapes our realities also shapes our reception to these arguments. Clearly my ideology affects the way in which I judge and resolve high school global warming debates at the end of the round. Impartiality is a myth, but it doesn't mean that a partisan belief has to birth a schism.

Does anyone really think that we'll be around for the next ice age even if it was to happen?

Celebrities in a new kind of movie

I stumbled across a warming-in-pop-culture gem while prowling through websites on a simple “global warming” google search. The “title” of the link was just “global warming” so I was surprised when I got the site loaded and a video started playing, narrated by non other than Leonardo DeCaprio (I recognized his voice from Titanic and confirmed with the url). The video was pretty long for an intro to a website and filled with plenty of arguments, so I’m going to focus on just that instead of attempting to tackle the whole website.

Argument number one is made simply by the name attached to the site. From the very beginning of the video (or viewing the url or actually visiting the website), it’s pretty apparent that Leo is behind it. So, we get a celebrity endorsement of global warming. All the glamour, power, wealth, general coolness that we link with celebrities is then linked to the issue of climate change. Now, caring about the climate is not only “conscientious” but “cool” and “glamourous”.

The video starts off with a series of beautiful photographs of the earth and Leo’s narration. As he describes the earth, the “key words” flash on the screen–the planet is “ours” and “one of a kind”, etc. Leo is, essentially, making an advertisement for the planet. He tells us it belongs to us while showing us how beautiful it is, that there’s nothing that can replace it. Planet→product.

Suddenly, menacing music starts. Leo starts to describe our “oil addiction” and how it’s destroying the planet. Images change from lovely pictures of the earth to hoards of people, smokestacks, and oil drops. I noticed a couple things here. First, the music let’s us know how we’re supposed to feel about the issue. Even if someone knew literally nothing about global warming, they know now it’s BAD. Second, the language Leo uses is meant to simultaneously draw the viewer in and repulse them. His description of the process of events that lead to our current oil dependence is told almost like a story. There is no presentation of data or citations of facts. This (clever) tactic is used to appeal to the people who are interested in learning about Leonardo Decaprio. NOTE. I do NOT mean to suggest that people can’t be interested in pop culture and also be interested in science, or that people interested in pop culture are dumb, or anything like that (clearly, I am one of those people). What I do mean is that when someone goes to a website for Leonardo Decaprio, they are generally not looking for scientific information, but narratives about people’s lives. So, Leo gives us a narrative. END OF NOTE. The words that flash on the screen are “addiction” “consumption” “sewer” (among others)–words meant to disgust us and provoke fear. In the same way Crichton describes villans in his novel (meaning environmentalists) and the evil events they are planning, Leo uses powerful language to hook the viewer. This happens really intensely later, when he talks about the affects of global warming. “Freak weather” and “giant ice chunks” and other terrifying Day After Tomorrow-esque descriptions of the state of the world in 20 years. Clearly, Crichton and Leo both understand the value of scare-tactics.

After talking about oil for a bit (how it’s formed, why we use a lot of it), he gets to the issue of global warming–and barely says anything! He talks plenty about the consequences, but says maybe one sentence on the link between oil use and global warming. He does not even touch on how we know it’s occurring (apart from stating “many scientists agree” or something like that–more on that below), any of the science, or even why oil use would cause global warming. I think this is a wise choice by Leo and company. They try to (1) keep people’s interest, (2) avoid discussing something they probably are less than experts in (but then, what is an expert? See below), but most importantly (3) paint global warming as an incontrovertible fact. Not discussing the internal links between our practices and the climate crisis sends the message that there is no need, because it’s just fact. This is reinforced later, when Leo mentions skeptics (not their theories, just the fact that they exist, so as to not immerse himself in science) and says “don’t be fooled!” (the phrase also flashes on the screen). You’re a complete idiot if you don’t believe in warming! Listen to the movie star everyone, not the skeptics!

The video then launches into what YOU can do about the issue. I think this is where the issue of authority gets most thoroughly explored. Leo tells us all politicians are “dangerously resistant to change” (word flash) and won’t do anything about climate change because they have profited so much from the oil industry. The use of the word “dangerously” sure makes me not want to trust politicians. Leo ties consumption (identified as a problem in the oil sequence) to politics, which lets the viewer make the connection of all the scary stuff we saw before to politics. This strips politicians of their authority pretty effectively. Who then, are we to trust? After going on for a while about the alternative energy posabilities, Leo tells us to “think for ourselves” and “get educated”. So, read a lot and then form our own conclusions? Read who? Can’t trust politicians, can’t trust the skeptics, science is too complicated…hmmmm. This theme of “think for yourself” is one that is encountered in Crichton’s novel and in the presentation of global warming in class the other day, and it seems like a difficult one to tackle. Leo seems to believe that we can somehow think independently of the culture, that there is some kind of objective fact and we just need to learn enough of the other objective facts floating around to find it. Haha, there is no such thing! I talked a lot about this in my other blog post about Crichton and don’t really wanna go into it again (this is way too long…) but I think it’s funny how people keep suggesting education and reading more and sorting through the BS to find truth as solutions to the problems with the way we receive information about warming information. Clearly, everyone can draw conclusions, but the idea that we can make our “own” conclusions seems a little backward, especially when the way we get to them is education (be it school or reading newspapers or watching Leo videos over and over).

Anyway, interesting stuff on many levels. Post video, we know the planet is our possession (and really really pretty), politicians can’t be trusted, warming is caused by selfish humans using oil (and that is 100% fact agreed on by anyone worth anything), and that people need to think for themselves. The whole thing reminded me a little of the scene in the film Zoolander when Derek is being brainwashed by Mugatu and Katinka. Obviously, the messages are a little different (murder of the Malaysian prime minister for trying to put an end to child labor vs stopping global warming) but I think the tactics are similar (contrasts between “good scenes” and “bad scenes”, use of images, spin on information). Just to note, I am a fan of stopping global warming and not a fan of murder.

Finally, here is the link to the Leo movie, which I am craftily putting at the end so you will watch it after reading my post and then be influenced by what I’ve written before you’ve even viewed the clip (sound familiar anyone?). Aaaand sorry again this is so long.

Glaciers

I looked on worldview of global warming.com and I decided to focus on the glaciers, because I have spent a lot of time in Glacier National Park in Montana. I frequent the National Geographic site almost every day and their estimate of the glaciers disappearing in Glacier is 2030.

My mom told me the other day that it is now projected at 2015 or 2020, but she also told me in December 2009 that "the recession is over." Simply because she heard some turkey say it on the radio. So when she brings up this global warming/climate change stuff I have to go to the sites to get the perspective of the writers and scientists.

The pictures on this site are shocking because they are real.

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html

Before An Inconvenient Truth, a buddy of mine went with his dad to hear Al Gore speak in St. Paul. He came to my house going on and on about the future of the planet and to be honest I didn't take him seriously because I didn't believe the MPLS/St. Paul would have to be evacuated when the ice caps melt.

I know Global Warming is real, but I think that there is so much hype around it that people, scientists or not, make the ice caps melting seem like it is coming faster than it is. This ideology they push for agency to create a global consensus that their needs to be carbon reduction pacts by countries such as the US, China, etc.

I believe the hype is a good thing because it raises awareness through out the world. Many people, not all, are thinking about their carbon footprint. Isn't that the type of world we want to see our children grow up in? A world united in a common cause to save the planet for our grandchildren and so on?

I met and interviewed Will Steger in January and I trust him. He has the most experience at the North Pole. He said the main mission for the rest of his career was to focus on climate change to improve the future of our planet. I subscribe to his belief that so many things need to be done to save our planet.

I know that we have to take this problem our planet faces seriously. We do have to push for a better future.

consensus

The Great Global Warming Swindle is a DVD, but its website can be viewed here. The main page begins with a note on how the DVD will be available soon "... despite the strenuous efforts of those who support the theory of global warming to prevent its release". This wording makes it clear that the DVD is controversial enough that global warming supporters would go out of their way to prevent it from reaching the public.

The website has a few tabs on specific subjects, such as the sun and its role in climate change. With regards to this, the authors of the website call it "curious" that mainstream scientists would not consider the role of the sun in relation to climate, and they go on to explain that they are clearly related, since summer is warmer than winter and so on. Their point is simple: we, normal everyday people, notice the obvious things that mainstream scientists overlook. Each tabbed subject is much the same, followed by a long list of more detailed links that will explain the ideas more thoroughly.

On the page titled "Apocalypse Then", the authors point out that scientists have long foreseen terrible apocalyptic events, assuming that we would all start dying off in the 1970's, which has obviously not come to pass. By comparing those hysterical ideas to our ideas of global warming, the authors suggest that we are being unrealistic.

One of the more interesting pages is the one on "consensus", and how orthodox views often lead to fear mongering amongst scientists (an example being mad cow disease). The website makes it clear that even though 'top scientists' have arrived at a consensus, we don't know who these people are, and there are intelligent scientists who dare to disagree.

The website as a whole appears to speak to the "common" person, the one who doesn't necessarily know much about science but would still be concerned about scientific issues. One of the goals of the website appears to be to make scientists look like silly and reactionary people who don't understand common sense.

a historical approach

The website: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm uses a historical approach to define the events that lead the vast majority of scientists to understand that indeed humans can greatly affect both their local and global environments. It begins with an anecdotal story in which Tyndall hypothesizes about the global ice ages by observation of the landscape. They then go on to concede that the data available at the time was insufficient but the physics suggested that some process had to be occurring in order for the known physics to match observation. It then shows that Tyndall calculates the heat trapping capacity of water vapor and CO2. While working on their theories they come across more and more evidence of how burning coal could lead to a rise in temperature. It is noted that these were always footnotes or speculations in working with the basic science of CO2 infrared absorption. It goes on to show that as technology progresses we then are able to use spectrographic data, but due to the lack of precision of the instruments, they were not able to concretely demonstrate a specific trend. It wasn't until a dynamic layered model of the upper atmosphere was envisioned that scientists could relate all the observations into a theory. It goes on to mention that by the 1930's one naval researcher had developed a decent theory, but was so obscure that his work was not widely read. It goes on to talk about the lack of evidence for global warming at the time until the second world war and the the advent of computers to be able to calculate the intricate effects of the H2O/CO2 layering that work together to create the greenhouse effect. At this time researchers used radiometric analysis to determine that the carbon in the atmosphere was indeed the fossil fuels that were being emitted by human industry. Until the 70's researchers were not as interdisciplinary and so were missing key components of the puzzle. With more crossover between disciplines and the Vostok ice-core samples they clearly showed an increase and that there is a lag time between introduction of CO2 and heat increase. And by 2005 the evidence was unmistakable that humans do indeed impact global climate.

This argument is very well laid out and the hyperlinks leading to more information are well suited for anyone trying to understand more about this.

Through the historical argument they show many of the stumbling blocks that scientists faced as they came to understand this phenomena, also how scientists work together and build upon ideas from their predecessors while also removing faulty ones. This shows that science is a dynamic process that changes as new information becomes available, either through new ideas/ hypotheses or by technological advancement that allows more detailed observations.

Now that science has revealed a potential problem it is up to human society to act.

I doubt that if scientists observed a large asteroid headed for earth, that there would be much denial about it or lack of political will to do something about it. But because of the complexity of the chemistry, physics and biology that are involved in understanding this issue, it makes people weary of accepting the facts, and it makes it easier to politicize this issue.

WE MATTER!

http://kids-vs-global-warming.com/Home.html

This is a website for an organization created by and for youth to become informed and active in all this climate change hoo-ha!

I find this site INCREDIBLY interesting. It creates this whole point of view, with statements and phrases in bold, italics, caps, underlined that youth REALLY have the ability to make a difference. Not that they don't. But this is one of my things that drives me crazy, intellectually. People painting a picture of them doing something, without actually DOING anything.

"This blog uses no paper, therefore, saves trees.


It also doesn’t use fossil fuels, doesn’t waste water, and depletes no natural resources.


It might use a bit of Energy used to power the computer you’re reading this on, but that’s beside the point.


Thanks for reading it!

-Alec"

Although its creator acknowledges "It might use a bit of energy.." but then concludes but that's beside the point. Because really, it is. The important thing here is not ACTUALLY organizing the opportunities for youth to participate in the fight against/dissemination of information about climate change. It is to create a discourse that defines them as important, capable actors. They ARE doing something by putting up posters at school.

There's even an iMatter app for the iPhone. This blog is using technology to create a world in which participation in these websites/apps/organization is actually doing something to save the environment, thus excusing one, filling one's quota, for actual action.