Sunday, April 20, 2014
Week 14
I found the article on magicians especially interesting, not only as it relates to magicians, but rather how it examines the way we perceive and understand our surroundings. Knowing that we only actually see a small part of the world in detail, it seems incredible that we can, for example, walk down a street and not run into anything, have a conversation, watch a movie, or play sports. It makes me wonder how many things I do not see in my day to day life, and, thus, have no awareness of at all. It is sort of a vulnerable realization, but also incredible one, to appreciate the power of the mind as well as the body in the daily experience. I also wonder how much of the ability to fill in the blanks in what we do not see is based on experiencing similar situations and learning what to expect. For example, if I were able to re-experience my infancy, would I "see" less of my surroundings because I had not yet experienced enough to be able to fill in the blanks? I suppose one could figure that out by seeing if children or adults are more easily fooled by the sorts of magic tricks discussed in the article...
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
Week 13
1. "...the human species is living as if it had more than one planet to occupy..."
a. This quote is interesting in a few ways. For this discussion, I am assuming that the limitations of our planet are based on ideas of threshold quantities of pollution and consumption of resources. First of all, it needs mentioning that this quote does not, in fact, apply to all members of the human species - although many of us do live without regard to the planet's capacity, there are also many who make much less of an impact in terms of waste and consumption. It is also worth considering how much volition many people have to maintain a lifestyle that fits within the parameters of our planet. For example, in this country, at least, the ability to transport oneself by bicycle or public transportation (lower consumption and pollution transportation options) is very much a privilege, relying on proper infrastructure, the ability to find work and basic necessities such as a grocery store close to home, access to childcare, good health and healthcare, etc etc. It seems easy to imagine that a number of people, ironically, cannot afford to live within the planet's means while participating in financial systems as they exist today. Nevertheless, the opinion persists that, as long as we continue to live our lives as we have been for the past century, our planet will not be able to support human life for an indefinite amount of time. So... shouldn't we all be doing something about it? Together?
b. I was particularly fascinated by the article relating to "improvements" being made on plants, '"Nanobiotics" aims to give plants superpowers'. Even the first line, "[p]lants are an engineering marvel of nature" leaves much to be discussed. According to Google (which should know, as it is in fact a product of engineers), engineering is "the branch of science and technology concerned with the design, building, and use of engines, machines, and structures". By the first page, it seems, two concepts, that of nature (which I would consider to be something that occurs without human input) and engineering, have been confused in this article, not just by the author but by the scientists involved in this project. The article does not mention whether or not any research is being done to consider the effects of introducing nonnative aspects to plants within the global ecosystem, nor how these materials could effect our own food and water supply, but rather briefly asserts that such concerns "[do] not seem to be a problem here". Though we have introduced many things into our own environment that have later proven toxic, such as cigarette smoke, radioactive materials, or asbestos, it seems we are still willing to trust science to give us an accurate assessment of dangers posed by new technologies. Also, very little reason is given as to the motivation behind this project. One idea is to "turn plants into communications antennae", another to use features inherent to plant life to build devices with similar functions, and, of course, by "rational design", to improve upon the "inefficient" plant. None of these reasons are particularly inspiring to me. We already have plenty of communication antennas, mimicking a plants' function would surely be better if the plant were functioning normally, and plants don't seem very upset about "inefficiently" converting sunlight into ATP. Perhaps the reason is to simply prove we can, to exert some power on our surroundings and pursue knowledge for the sake of knowledge. But, if that is the case, or even part of the inspiration for this project, I must ask, aren't there more pressing things to do with these brains and money?!
a. This quote is interesting in a few ways. For this discussion, I am assuming that the limitations of our planet are based on ideas of threshold quantities of pollution and consumption of resources. First of all, it needs mentioning that this quote does not, in fact, apply to all members of the human species - although many of us do live without regard to the planet's capacity, there are also many who make much less of an impact in terms of waste and consumption. It is also worth considering how much volition many people have to maintain a lifestyle that fits within the parameters of our planet. For example, in this country, at least, the ability to transport oneself by bicycle or public transportation (lower consumption and pollution transportation options) is very much a privilege, relying on proper infrastructure, the ability to find work and basic necessities such as a grocery store close to home, access to childcare, good health and healthcare, etc etc. It seems easy to imagine that a number of people, ironically, cannot afford to live within the planet's means while participating in financial systems as they exist today. Nevertheless, the opinion persists that, as long as we continue to live our lives as we have been for the past century, our planet will not be able to support human life for an indefinite amount of time. So... shouldn't we all be doing something about it? Together?
b. I was particularly fascinated by the article relating to "improvements" being made on plants, '"Nanobiotics" aims to give plants superpowers'. Even the first line, "[p]lants are an engineering marvel of nature" leaves much to be discussed. According to Google (which should know, as it is in fact a product of engineers), engineering is "the branch of science and technology concerned with the design, building, and use of engines, machines, and structures". By the first page, it seems, two concepts, that of nature (which I would consider to be something that occurs without human input) and engineering, have been confused in this article, not just by the author but by the scientists involved in this project. The article does not mention whether or not any research is being done to consider the effects of introducing nonnative aspects to plants within the global ecosystem, nor how these materials could effect our own food and water supply, but rather briefly asserts that such concerns "[do] not seem to be a problem here". Though we have introduced many things into our own environment that have later proven toxic, such as cigarette smoke, radioactive materials, or asbestos, it seems we are still willing to trust science to give us an accurate assessment of dangers posed by new technologies. Also, very little reason is given as to the motivation behind this project. One idea is to "turn plants into communications antennae", another to use features inherent to plant life to build devices with similar functions, and, of course, by "rational design", to improve upon the "inefficient" plant. None of these reasons are particularly inspiring to me. We already have plenty of communication antennas, mimicking a plants' function would surely be better if the plant were functioning normally, and plants don't seem very upset about "inefficiently" converting sunlight into ATP. Perhaps the reason is to simply prove we can, to exert some power on our surroundings and pursue knowledge for the sake of knowledge. But, if that is the case, or even part of the inspiration for this project, I must ask, aren't there more pressing things to do with these brains and money?!
Monday, April 7, 2014
Week 12
1. Radiation contamination has been on my mind since reading articles and talking about the potential fall out from the Fukushima meltdown, bringing up such questions as: When will they stop the leak? What if something similar happened closer to home? and, of course: Do I really NEED this banana? (eek!). All of these questions are unanswerable and stressful, and highlight something that, in my opinion, is even more worrying than the questions themselves. What really worries me is that, even if I did know the timeline for clean up at Fukushima, or the potential for nuclear contamination on the West coast, would I really understand what it meant? Acknowledging that I'm no expert, it seems to me that not a whole lot of people really understand the implications of what is going on, or even fully understand the long term effects of living with radiation on the human body and its surroundings. A man posting a video of a Geiger counter going off in Half Moon Bay causes a stir that is just as easily quelled by the release of statements that there is nothing to worry about. Even learning more about the units of radiation measurement does not make me feel confident in determining danger from acceptable, and I can't imagine I'm the only one. The inability to understand is very disempowering, and could be preventing necessary action from being taken on this issue.
2. Wow, cells! How cool and beautiful. I've always found the structure of viruses especially fascinating when compared to its cellular counterparts, their geometry and single-"minded"ness in function. In fact, when you look at an animal cell and a virus together, the virus seems much more relatable, cleaner, like something you'd find in a kitchen. Isn't it surprising that we, living in boxes (houses) on grids (streets) within well defined lines (cities), are made up of these amorphous, cluttered blobs instead of nice polyhedrons?
2. Wow, cells! How cool and beautiful. I've always found the structure of viruses especially fascinating when compared to its cellular counterparts, their geometry and single-"minded"ness in function. In fact, when you look at an animal cell and a virus together, the virus seems much more relatable, cleaner, like something you'd find in a kitchen. Isn't it surprising that we, living in boxes (houses) on grids (streets) within well defined lines (cities), are made up of these amorphous, cluttered blobs instead of nice polyhedrons?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)