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?