Chapter 10: The Sexual Revolution

This chapter was very interesting. The writer posed a theory that seems extremely credible and believable. However, I did not see any of the methodology that the writer himself said are essential to any theory. Has he decided to go lax on the rules of scientific methodology? Does he expect us to just simply believe his theory?

This chapter is a great example of why scientific methodology is important in trying to create theories. And honestly, I think the writer should take his own advice.

Handmaids Tale 2

So what should a woman's role be? Are women nothing more than tools to serve the needs of men, or are they more? Where do women fit in our society? Those are the questions the book seems to ask.

After reading the book I still don't have a good indication of the writer's bias. Ms. Atwood describes pre-Gilead society as one where women were abused, tortured, and murdered. However, Ms. Atwood describes Gileadean society as one where women are servants, prostitutes, and hanged. Ms. Atwood describes pre-Gilead society as one where women couldn't lift their heads up, couldn't be proud, and could only live in fear. However she describes Gileadean society as one where Asian women, who are stereotypically known for being meek and submissive, tour the city and marvel at the meekness and submissiveness of the women of Gilead.

So I don't really understand the point she is trying to make. Is she trying to say that women are screwed in all situations? Is she saying the plight of women is an unenviable one?

I have a slightly different take on it. Although the book has a feminist bend to it, I still believe this book is more concerned with preserving liberties, than promoting feminist propaganda.

Handmaids Tale 1

One of the more interesting points of The Handmaids Tale was the shift in mindsets. How can American women, who are known for being independent, driven, and motivated, allow themselves to become glorified prostitutes? What event can justify this course of action? Well there isn't one event that can be cited to justify this change, but rather a series of events. This is what I call the "slippery-slope" or "foot-in-the-door" phenomenon, where a series of "justifiable" actions can lead a person to a place they never imagined, intended, or wanted. A good example of this is predatory religious organizations or cults. They lure people in with something that everyone can identify with. For example, "Do you want to become a better person?" or "Isn't there something more to life than this daily grind?" and using that to lead you down a path that you never really wanted to go.

This story should definitely be a warning to those who wish to give up liberties, that have helped define this nation, for the "good" of us all. Thomas Jefferson once said, "I'd rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

Two Truths and a Lie

1. I entered Clemson as a freshman in 1999.

2. I am a millionaire.

3. I'm writing this blog post from a cabin in the Smoky Mountains that my wife and I rented for our honeymoon. (I married my wife this past Friday.)

Question for Dr. Fishman

How do we know whether or not our paper proposals have been approved? I wasn't sure if we should or shouldn't wait to start our paper until we know whether or not our focus/thesis is appropriate. If you could leave me a comment on this I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks :)

The Environment and Ourselves- Discussion 2

Our environment is that which is external to our bodies. Generally, when someone mentions the environment they are referring to natural externalities rather than man made objects such as furniture or carpet. Most people are referring to the atmosphere, grass, water, etc when they speak of the environment. Right now, I am sitting in my bedroom. That is my environment, made up of wood, bricks, carpet, furniture, and air among other things. The commonality between self and environment is the effect that we have on one another. Outside, humans have had many negative effects on the environment. We have created holes in our ozone, depleted natural resources, etc. Our environments effect us to. When the weather is cold and gloomy in the winter, many people experience seasonal depression. However, when the weather is warm and pleasant, people are happier and more active in general.

The primary boundary between self and environment is the effects we have on one another. Technology is the main way in which humans have an effect on the environment. Through inventions such as coolants as evidenced in “Shattered Skies,” we have created lasting damage to our ozone layer. Through creations such as the atom bomb, we have scorched the earth and destroyed life. Technology is the way in which we create effects.

Often, humans are so swept up in our own petty economics and politics that we overlook the big picture when it comes to our environment. After all, we need gasoline for our cars; does it really matter if we are polluting the earth when compared to getting to work on time? Sometimes, our perception is blurred. With science, we learn that this damage does matter, and it will have an effect, if not on us then on our children or grandchildren. With new technologies, we can choose whether to prevent or undo these effects or whether to create new ones.

Discussion Question #2

The difference between the environment and ourselves is the corruption aspect. The environment is always pure and harmless until humans play a part. That is not to say that all humans or human activities are corrupt. However, it is my belief that everything “natural” comes in pure and untouched until a human puts his spin on what it should be. A volcano is a perfect example. Though a volcano may be a very dangerous and scary thing, would it be dangerous if humans had not built communities so close to its original place in the world.

Though there are often dangerous forces of the environment that can destroy places on Earth in a matter of days (volcanoes, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, etc.), the actual environment itself has no agenda. It does not mean to make anything harmful, bad, good, or beneficial. It just is what it is.

Technology plays perhaps the biggest part in this boundary of anything else on Earth. If not for technology, many of the good and bad things that happen to our environment by humans would be non-existent. For example, without technology, humans would not be able to cut down trees in a beautiful rainforest environment for personal gain (even hacksaws can be considered technology). But on the other hand, without technology, there would be no way for humans to save the beaches that are washing away due to increased tides and such. Technology can both corrupt and save the environment. It is humankind’s ability to use technology that separates us from the environment. A tree can not use a bulldozer to tear down a house being built on its roots. Nature does things at its own course using its natural strength and majesty.

Science can always change a boundary between the environment and humans. However, whether or not it can erase this line between our environment and ourselves is another matter in itself. As long as science and technology exists (it will never go away) this line will exist. In my opinion, the environment will never be able to compete with technology even when the technology is used to improve it. It is due to science and technology that we will never be at one with our environment. We will always have “one up” on it. Do not misunderstand me for ungrateful. I love technology and most that comes with it. I think that without technology, our world with be a much less productive place. However, it if fact that there will always be a vast line between humans and the world that surrounds us.

The Sexual Evolution

I enjoyed this chapter. It was fun to read of course. Say anything sexual and most every one's ears perk up. I think the point of this chapter though was that sometimes human nature outruns science. In this case, the Neandertals eventually became extinct because they weren't compatible with human nature. They mostly had sex for reproduction and couldn't relate to humans who had sex for pleasure.

When human nature outruns science, I think it shows the world is turning away from science. Science generally is created to benefit the world and humans, but when humans see something they way, they are going to get it. When a humans selfish nature comes in mind, science is out ruled. This can benefit us because I think it keeps the world fresh. It allows people to have their own wants and needs. It also makes the creations of science more of a benefit for other people because it is something that is done for good.

Chapter 10: Sexual Evolution

This chapter was hilarious, yet informative. I have seen several television specials on Neandertal and knew that our species had never crossbred (that we knew of) with this species of man. I had never heard any conjectures as to why that was. I think Sumner presents several good theories in this chapter as to why it never happened. I personally believe that Sumner's theory on anatomical equipment being insufficient for fertilization is the most likely.

I think if Neandertals had a breeding pattern similar to chimpanzees that this would not have stopped the birth of hybrids. It might lesson the number, but it would not have been unheard of. I suppose it is possible that there were a small number of hybrid births but that these hybrids died out relatively quickly (perhaps due to infertility like in mules) and simply weren't recorded by the fossil record.

Here is hoping that Sumner gets that call about Neandertal pelvic bones.

Chapter 10 Post

This article was quite humerous but also pretty confusing for me. A lot of the terms and explanations went right over my head. However, one thing from the article was clear: a good theory requires sufficient evidence and this theory was actually quite believable. The fact that there is so much evidence supporting the notion that Neanderthals and humans did not reproduce together makes it quite convincing.

The science in this article is quite overwhelming. I actually found a lot of it to be quite interesting. The fact that Neanderthals were so ugly and more “chimp-like” in their reproductive process makes them seem a fairy tale. It seems like they were just giants with no sense roaming the earth for a few million years and then eventually disappeared. However, the fact that they had such large brains begs the question of whether or not this theory is actually correct.

I am sure, in his years of experience and education, that the author knows a LOT more about this subject than I ever will. However, despite the vast references and justifications as to why his theory was justified, it seems he left out much detail pertaining to why. With his “proof,” he cited simple sentences with no real scientific evidence but more of “if-then” questions related to digging up their bones. If he has not actually seen said guesses, than why does it make his a decent theory?

It could be that he just didn’t want to bore us with the endless scientific drabble that would surely accompany a real, solid, detailed investigation on the subject. And, for the most part, his theory seems relevant. However, based on past readings in this very same text, it would seem that more proof and scientific justification/facts are needed before making this a theory to depend on.

Handmaid's Tale 2

On another note, I think The Handmaid's Tale can relate to science and technology by proving that humans too can be a part of our evolving technology. In this book I see the woman being more of a tool than a person. The technology in this case has not improved but just become more usable. The woman in The Handmaid's Tale are being used to bear children during a world that is valued on child bearing abilities. Today, we would never look at a person as a tool. People today are valued more for the skills that they hold, but shouldn't be forced to do things that can benefit other people.

In some cases, using a person as a tool could be seen as a decline in our science and technology. Today we have a lot of information that could one day allow us to physically create a person without the actual process of sex. We also have technology today that allows many processes to go on without the use of a person. These improvements are evolving our society. In The Handmaid's Tale we see a decline in this technology because they do not use these new improvements.

Handmaid's Tale Response 2

I think science and technology correlate with this book in several ways: the weaponry and methodology used to create Gilead and to oppress women and (as Megan said) the use of women as possessions.

In order to overtake Gilead, one can assume that technological weaponry was used. However, the more important weapon used was the psychology of terrorism. The people of Gilead remain under rule because of the government's time honored strategies. The military and intelligence seem to be omnipresent but more importantly the people actually BELIEVE they are omnipresent. For example, Offred refuses sex with the doctor because she is too afraid that someone will find out. Likewise, those who do rebel are cruelly murdered through archaic methods such as hangings or are punished, such as the Handmaids are with electric cattle prods. People are too afraid to simply act in the open.

Because women are treated like property, they become a sort of technology. The Marthas clean and do household work and are controlled by their “operators.” Meanwhile the Handmaid's are used purely for their fertility in society. They are like giant incubators for the men in charge. Just like a machine, they are disposable. If they are not fertile, they have no use.

Handmaid's Tale 1

The Handmaid's Tale has definitely been a interesting read. The main point I got from the book would be the vast changes that are possible in the world and how things can turn out to be. I think with the way our world has vastly changed over the last decade, every thing is possible. This book could very well be foreshadowing the way our world could be in 50 years. Hopefully not, but everything is possible. Science and technology so often change that any new type of creations could be made. On a different note, our evolving science could soon discover the harm that many of our new found technologies could actually be doing.

Trying to relate this book to today's science and technology is difficult, but being able to have an imagination and looking into the vast future could help. There could be science created that could maybe determine the most fertile females and males. If this were to be created, our world could totally change and become more of a company than a society. Everyone would have different jobs, some being child bearers and some being other necessities. I think all of these things are extremely possible considering the way our science and technology have been improving.

Chapter 10: Sexual Evolution

The main thing I thought about while reading this article was that even though this theory has a lot of merit and does make a lot of sense, it is almost impossible to prove without a shred of doubt. It amazed me the things that science and technology allows us to do, like using pelvic bones to see the birthing patterns of an extinct species, but that alone is not enough to give this theory the evidence it needs to be accepted.

While science and technology can do incredible things to help us understand the past and the nature of the world, there is so much that it cannot do. We cannot, for example, reconstruct the physical appearance of the Neandertal so that we can prove that the males’ penises were smaller than that of modern male humans or the females’ breasts only enlarged when pregnant and nursing. That is, we cannot do it at this point in time. Maybe one day, science and technology will progress so far that we will be able to prove for certain, without any doubt that this theory of sexual evolution, or any kind of evolution, is a fact. Until then, this remains a nice theory that brings up a lot of good points but cannot be proved.

The Handmaid's Tale Post 2

The main focus of The Handmaid’s Tale is obviously the misuse of women and their bodies for reproductive gain. Again, I had trouble correlating this book with some use of technology or science. However, after much thought, it seems as though you could almost classify the handmaids and prostitutes in the book as forms of technology themselves.

The way in which the men of Giliad treated the women classifies them as a scientific tool used for political gain. They used the scientific makeup of the women for their own problems. The whole purpose behind the new “policy” of handmaids was a result of the reproductive dry spell that the republic was experiencing after exposure to chemicals and such used to overrun the country. The government knows that, without this new policy, their new republic may have some severe problems sooner than expected. Therefore, the women in this book may as well be referred to as machines. Offred, the main character, even refers to herself as nothing more than a mound of skin used for her ovaries and womb.

This concept of using technology and machines (the women) for political gain is nothing foreign to our current society. What do governments use when they want to overturn a government? Machines (weapons, planes, computers, etc.) How did people get ahead in the time of the Industrial Revolution? Technology. Which governments have the most power over trade and other forms of income for their countries? Those with endless access to new technology and science. Therefore, this concept of political gain through technology or science is nothing new. It is, in fact, a foreign concept that is drilled into the reader throughout the book.

Handmaid's Tale Response 1

The most surprising thing I learned as a read the The Handmaid's Tale was that few things in the book shocked me or seemed foreign. While this book had a bit of a 1984 feel, the theme was something very familiar: the oppression of women by a patriarchal society. All through history, women have been oppressed by men on both a governmental level and an individual level. Governments rarely had women leaders and the role of women in society was generally in the home. In many countries, women are still considered property or objects; they still suffer from few rights. Even in the United States today, women still struggle to be fully equal to men.

Another familiar historical motif was a country's response to crisis. When a country is in economic and political distress, it is not uncommon for a coup to occur. Generally, the new group in charge must find a way to assert their power to prevent further unrest. In the past, many groups have been persecuted as a part of this assertion. For instance, when Nazism rose to power in Germany, the Jews were oppressed, tortured, and murdered. This same pattern was followed in the Republic of Gilead in the book. Likewise, with their lives in turmoil due to the political shift, people often look for a way to seize some sort of control. I think that the men find this control through the women in Gilead.

It is depressing that women and men in the book allow such a social regression to occur. One of the excuses for taking rights from women is that it is for their protection. This is particularly disturbing considering the rights Americans recently surrendered during the War on Terror (Patriot Act, etc.) Ironically, the women in Gilead are supposedly being protected from rapists, yet the sex that the Handmaids are expected to have is nothing short of rape.

I think the most important thing that can be taken away from this book is the fact that nothing here is unheard of. This book represents the trials and sufferings that women are still undergoing in parts of the world through arranged marriages, restrictive clothing, and many worse customs. This also shows us what fear leads to when people allow themselves to be controlled for “protection.”

Two Truths and a Lie

1. I am an only child.

2. I am an English literature major.

3. I love animals! I have two cats, 1 dog, a rabbit, and some fish.

The Handmaid's Tale Post 1

The Handmaid’s Tale was a book that I found to be very good while also extremely depressing. The fact is that it seems as though this sort of thing could actually happen. Perhaps not in today’s America and perhaps not to the extent that it happened in the book. However, it is quite possible for a society to be overtaken by an opposing government and women forced to act as common slaves.

This book centers on Offred, a woman with a previously content life. She is forced to serve as a form of sex/reproductive slave for a Commander and his wife after the fall of United States turns it into the Republic of Gilead. Offred was separated from husband and child after attempting escape to Canada. She is forced to have sex with the commander at least once a month in the attempt to give he and his wife a child in a time of reproductive crisis.

Overall, the most significant part of the novel focuses on the technology, or lack thereof, represented by the women. Here you have extremely strong women, such as Offred, her best friend, and mother, who have never been run over in their lives. They always controlled their own destinies and desires prior to the fall of their country. However, at the time of this Republic of Gilead, they are completely and absolutely powerless. The point I am trying to get to, I suppose, without going into too much further detail is the idea in the novel that technology is what gives authority in the republic.

This may not be seen clearly at first glance. In fact, right after completing the novel, I sat and thought “What does this have to do with technology and science?” After re-reading some key passages and thinking for a day, I came up with the technology and power correlation. The book displays a lack of power to those with little or no access to resources or technology. For example, the women in Gilead- namely those serving as handmaids- have absolutely nothing. They have no access to any forms of technology (guns, cars, etc.) or even to anything that will make them more educated or resourceful (books, magazines, government). They don’t even have glass in their rooms or places to hang a rope to prevent suicide. In fact, in retrospect they are actually used as a form of technology themselves. Their bodies are used as machines- a form of science used to do nothing more than please men and provide offspring.

Those with power, however, have unending access to technology. They have guns, cars, and even cattleprongs to keep the women “in line.” It is these people who have word in how Giliad is run and in defining who matters in the republic and who does not. What is quite ironic is the strength of the women in the book despite their severe hardships. They are still having affairs, conspiring against the government, and taking their own lives.

What I found to be so significant about this point is the fact that it definitely correlates to today’s society. We live in a time when technology is everything. Those without technology in America are basically powerless. They have less money, respect, and resources than those with computers, Blackberries, weapons, etc. This republic is not much different than our society today in that respect.

Handmaid's Tale 2

In The Handmaid’s Tale, Serena Joy stood out to me as an interesting character that greatly exemplified the role of women in Gilead. She was an advocate of “traditional” values where a woman stays in the home and she also played a key role in the establishment of Gilead and its government. She, however, seems bitter at the achievement of these goals. Now, instead of traveling across the country speaking on her beliefs, she is now forced to stay in the home. The reader almost feels sympathy for her situation because not only has she lost her power in society and has been reduced to an unimportant housewife, but she also has to watch her husband try to impregnate another woman. She, not her husband, has to bear the embarrassment of being unable to produce children and as a result a strange woman has to come into her house and have sex with her husband in hopes of reproducing. She is bored and seen as useless in the eyes of the law. It is a sympathetic situation, but at the same time, the reader is acutely aware that it is because of her own firm beliefs that she is in this position. Nonetheless, there was a moment where I felt a flicker of pity for this woman.

However, Serena Joy loses all sympathy from the reader when she takes out her anger and frustration on Offred. She becomes one of the crueler characters in the novel when she arranges for Offred to have sex with Nick in order for her to have a baby. She tempts Offred into the arrangement by offering to show her a picture of Offred’s daughter. She shows that she has known the whereabouts of Offred’s child all along, and has concealed this knowledge from the other woman. Yet, she cruelly used this information to exploit and manipulate Offred. She wanted Offred to have a child so that she could raise it as her own, and she used the fact that Offred was suffering from the loss of her own child to get what she wanted.

The social order of Gilead worked because women like Serena Joy were willing to control and manipulate other women like Offred. Serena Joy, and other women in her position, see the cruel way that their own lives have turned out, yet they do not see that the other women are suffering just as much, if not more than, they are. The government of Gilead counts on this behavior in order to control women. Even though she is not fertile and cannot be used as a tool to reproduce, her pitiless and selfish behavior allows her to be used as a tool to hold together this totalitarian government. The character of Serena Joy shows how women willingly allowed themselves to be treated as subhuman means of achieving goals in Gilead society.

Sexual Evolution

This article made me laugh, a lot. From the breezy, non-scholarly approach of the author to the description of how humans will have sex with anything, this article was fun to read. It also had some good points to make.

For starters, us men can feel better about our...ahem, you-know-what, in relation to chimps and Neandertals. Secondly, the regulations on chimp sex (only whenever the female signals that she's fertile) recall the set-up of "The Handmaid's Tale." It's simply unnatural for humans to wait until the female is ready to concieve before they have sex. No matter how little we get to have sex anyways (well, some of us have better luck than others).

Try as they might, religious conservatives will never really win the battle over sexuality because it's just too plain appealing to humans to have it given out in such small doses, solely for procreation. That's what distinguishes us from our relatives in the natural world. Such movements to curb sexuality are like trying to put the genie back in the box; it ain't gonna happen.

In a weird way, I think that science might actually help the anti-sexuality forces, thanks to sperm banks and other non-sexual ways to concieve children. Then again, that will never replace the thrill of another person's body intermingling with your own. So I feel like human sex, in all its derivations, is too fun to get rid of (and the "moralistic" men in charge of the Gilead society know this all too well, as evidenced by the interlude at Jezebel's)

Handmaid's Tale 1

While reading this novel I was shocked at just how complacent the women of Gilead had become with their situation. They had little to no power, no individuality, no freedom, yet it seems as if they did not even notice the injustice with which they were being treated. Offred, for one, has become so complacent in her situation that she doesn’t bother to gather information for Mayday. Her husband and daughter were taken away from her and she remembers her life before Gilead when she had so much freedom, yet she has come to accept this new order as normal, however unhappy she may be. Serena Joy enjoyed a certain amount of power in the world before Gilead, and the only power she is free to exercise is in her own home. In the world of men, she is nothing. Women in this novel are reduced to means of reproduction, with no other role in society than to have children. In this way, they lose their humanity, they become mere tools in the eyes of men.

I had to wonder to myself why the women of Gilead would allow this to happen. Why would they accept a government and willingly participate in it when its entire doctrine revolves around stripping them of their dignity and power? The only answer I came up with is that those in power in Gilead put out a very good campaign of words. They made women believe that their job as baby-making machines was the most important and most sacred job. The women didn’t even realize their rights were being demolished. They gave the most loyal, such as Aunt Lydia, enough power to control other women and to convince them that the government was protecting and honoring them and their fertile bodies. They made women believe that they were sacred vessels that carried the future of the country in their wombs. Unless they were unable to get pregnant, at which point they were no longer useful and were sent away.

The government also controlled women by striking fear into their hearts. They told them that outside of Gilead, they would be raped and beaten. In Gilead, they are safe from violence. In order to protect themselves, women willingly gave up their rights and their freedom. The government used fear to make its people support their crazy beliefs. To me, that is the most important message of this novel. We should be wary of any government that uses fear to scare its people into giving them the power to do things that would under normal circumstances seem wrong.

Class Discussion Question 5.26.08

A person's environment will inevitably shape and mold the inner being; as a person comes across values that leave an impression they may adopt those values into their world view. That information becomes part of the filter through which they strain other data coming in. (Intro to Ethics Course Notes)

Although our environment, to lesser and greater degrees, influence ourselves we are not merely the products of our environments. In my opinion, people are more like catalysts than products. They react and interact with their environment; different personalities influence how environmental factors will be approached. Being a 'product' of one's environment implies that human beings are the predictable outcome in a manufacturing line: Throw in some religious dogma, conservative parents, well-to-do upbringing and you end up with a Southern-Baptist Republican. That's just not how people work. Human beings can change their environment, just as their environment can change them.

The same is true with technology. Human beings influence new technology, just as new technology influences them. Similarly, just as some people do adopt the values they were brought up with and live out those teachings in their lives, other people rebel against everything they were brought up to believe in and set out to find their own way. Their environment still influences them, it just doesn't create who they will become. In this way, the boundary between ourselves and our technology is similar to the boundary between ourselves and our environment. I argue this point because not everyone adopts the true purpose for certain technologies. On the contrary, some people rebel against the true use for certain technologies and manipulate them to meet their own agendas (be their agendas good or bad).

I, accordingly, don't feel as though science or technology changes that boundary or our perception of the boundary, rather I believe that science and technology reinforces the perceptions of the boundary that already exists.

The Handmaid's Tale Part 2

For my second post on this book, I will focus on the characters. It is very ironic how the novel is narrated by a person who is the symbol of the new polygamist order of Handmaids whose mother was in the forefront of feminist activism. Her mom stood for everything that the new Gilead order abhored and shunned from. I think this contrast was intentionally done to show how despite a person's upbringing or history they all adapted to the new lifestyle under fear. Offred is constantly reminded of her husband Luke and her daughter and how much better her life used to be. This is ironic in the fact the Gilead society changed everything to the new system because they believed society used to be corrupt, Godless, and dangerous for women due to the high rate of crimes against females. However, their from of liberation for women is no more than slavery.

This book clearly shows the danger of a religious sect coming to power. Our forefathers came to America to create a country of tolerance to prevent the persecutions of difference in religions that had ravaged Europe for so long. Another reason for Offred's continual resistance to the new order was the fact she was surrounded by people who broke the rules. Here best friend Moira was a rebel who represented everything that used to be: free spirited women, different clothes, and self-empowerment. Even a high ranking officer, the Commander, frequently went against protocol and even allowed her to play Scrabble with him. Nick, the Guardian, kissed her and eventually began a passionate relationship with her. All of these characters continually reminded her of an existence outside of Gilead, an existence where she had choices.

The Handmaid's Tale Part 1

While reading this book I could not help but find it to be a mix of 1984, the HBO series Big Brother, and the Polygamist sect that was recently broken up. In the Gilead society, reading and certain words have become forbidden in much the same way 1984 had its own Newspeak language. Women have become subjected to being a mix between nuns (although nuns were ironically celebit) and a second wife. This book seems to imply a form of Mormon fanatics tooks over the United States. I say Mormons because of the use of polygamy and focus on the Old Testament. The Gilead society uses the Bible frequently and justifies its actions through it but only passages from the Old Testament are used. Any other Christian society would know to focus more on the New Testament because Jesus came to change the old to the new.

This book focuses a lot upon the change of sex from an act of pleasure and procreation to merely a chore of reproduction in much the same way it had become in 1984. In fact this book is so familiar to George Orwell's novel that I frequently got them mixed up. The only major difference is that in 1984 the new socialist society embraced technological advancements but the Gilead society seemed to shun away from technology as maybe an immoral symbol of the old "savage" age.

Kosmos ~ Chapter 10

I think that the author’s point about cross-breeding resulting in a sterile offspring (horse + donkey = mule) is an intriguing point. However, I know that the reason for the mule being sterile is because the horse and donkey have a different number of chromosomes. So the real question then, is how many pairs of chromosomes did the Neanderthals have? Without preserved tissue, science nor technology cannot tell us for sure how many pairs of chromosomes Neanderthals had.

If in fact, however, humans and Neanderthals had the same number of chromosome pairs, then his assumption that the offspring of a homosapien and Neanderthal would be sterile holds no water. We know that modern humans and chimpanzees share somewhere on the order of 98% of their DNA makeup. However, the real question is how many chromosome pairs. All living modern apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans) all have 24 pairs of chromosomes while humans have just 23 pairs.

I *think* the branch for Neanderthals is much closer to present day, which would give Neanderthals a greater probability of having 23 pairs like modern man, which would largely debunk the authors argument about sterile offspring being the reason there is no evidence for cross-breeding.

Offred (Handmaid 2)

The narrator of the book, a woman in her early thirties who is caught off-guard by the sweeping revolution, seems to stand in for women under the Gilead system. She is lowered from her pre-revolution status as a wife and mother and forced to go from master to master with the task of bringing a child into that household which the barren lady of the house will then adopt as her own. She is an object to her fellow humans, a recepticle for sperm and nothing more. Her value goes up when she produces a child, but so far she has been unsuccessful.

The means by which she navigates this totalitarian society are interesting. Always fearful of surveillance, she hesitates at first to entertain the idea that there was a time before this, even though she remembers it in vivid flashbacks. She remembers Luke and her daughter, both lost during a botched escape attempt to Canada. She recalls Moira, her strong-willed friend from college who nearly got away from Gilead's handmaid squads. And when she lies with Nick, the driver, she remembers the physical embrace of sex for love, something that she's lost thanks to the impersonal method proscribed for her nights with the Commander and Serena Joy.

The technology that exists in this future world is crude, seeming to be a reaction against advancements in the previous era (much as the paternalistic society is a reaction against strides made by women previously). There are computers, but everything else seems like relics from an earlier era rather than a new, more advanced one. The Handmaid might not have been privy to the developments of technology in Gilead, but she reports that the society around her reverts to much simpler times. It's an attempt to put technology in its place, as the men feel threatened by all the changes around them.

In the novel, I think the message is one of warning against the society that was emerging at the time that Atwood wrote the novel. Men in America felt threatened by the gains that women earned in the Seventies, and such a reactionary future didn't seem so easy to laugh off if you were a modern woman. Even today, there is a sense that the people who espouse "family values" would like to see women put "in their place" for upsetting the pre-Seventies society. Atwood doesn't preach against this directly, but addresses it as if it has already happened, as if society is now about the propogation of the ruling class via impersonal, desexualized means.

Handmaid's Tale, Part One

When I started this book, I was immediately taken in by the tone of the narrator, Offred. Right away, we're thrust into her strange-yet-oddly familiar world, one which seems rooted in the past but set in the near future. I have to admit that I was confused for a good portion of the novel, but that confusion aided to my enjoyment of the book. We get no prologue that alerts us to the circumstances in which Offred finds herself; we're just there with her, as if she's confiding to us and assumes that we'll know why things are the way that they are.

The establishment of "Gilead" as a place where women are subjugated to men seems like a paranoid nightmare, but it works because we can almost see such an event occuring, even in our present day. The "sexual revolution" was met with an equally committed conservative response, and the rise of Reagan and evangelicals in the Eighties didn't bode well for all the achievements made by feminists in society during the Seventies. On some level, it's tempting to dismiss the whole novel as unrealistic, yet we don't get to distance ourselves from it. We're in Offred's shoes, and we see this world through her eyes.

The whole system of handmaidens seems to relate to the article that we had to read this week, "Sexual Evolution." By taking the fun out of sex (for, as the article shows, it seems that humans get more enjoyment out of it than our closest relatives in the animal kingdom), the new system prides itself on reducing sex to the basic rite of copulation. There's nothing erotic about the threesome scenes, where the handmaid and Serena Joy lay on the bed while the Commander tries to impregnate the former. It's strictly business, and essential for the "survival" of the nation.

In that aspect, as in so many others, the Gilead of the novel recalls Nazi Germany. Not only dedicated to eradicating any "unwanted" peoples (Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, etc.), the Nazi regime also instituted breeding facilities to further the "pure Aryan race" that Hitler and his followers wanted to rule the world. We also get a suggestion of Gilead's similarities to Nazis when the conference at the end discusses the racial policies and efforts to emigrate Jews from the country's shores. That the boats loaded with Jews sink to the bottom of the ocean is simply convenient to the powers that be.

In terms of science fiction, this novel doesn't fall into what I consider some of the genre's more stereotyped hallmarks (no talking robots, no glamorous trips to outer space, no real futuristic dialogue save for a few terms here and there, mostly double speak on the part of those in charge). But it is definitely a dystopic vision that would be in accordance with some of the more fanciful sci-fi visions of the future. Blade Runner is in some ways an easy comparison, because it also deals with a society where members are regulated into less-than-human status even as they're bred (or in BR's case, manufactured) to be productive members of the society.

I'm going to cut short my post on this aspect of the novel so that I can write in my next post about Offred, our mysterious narrator.

Paper topic

I emailed something along these lines to Dr. Fishman yesterday:

A lot of popular media dealing with the future presents it in dystopian terms (Blade Runner, 1984, etc.). I want to look at why that view has been prevalent, especially in regards to technology. Other than the appeal of constructing a future where everything is not as it seems, what are the authors or filmmakers saying about technology and science? Is there a fear that as we become more technologically advanced, we will lose our humanity?

I plan to look at some of the more well-known dystopian technological fantasies (1984, Brazil, Blade Runner, etc) as well as constrast that with a dystopia that functions in the absence of technology (Lord of the Flies). My thesis isn't formed yet, but it will deal with the reasons why a dystopian future necessarily has to rely on technology to get the moral across.

Two Truths and a Lie

1. I was born and raised in Greenville, SC

2. I have a 9 year old nephew who is closer in age to me than my brother is.

3. I was a contestant on the reality show Rock of Love

Facts about me

1. My sister is the number one high school softball pitcher in the state. She also just added a state championship and Post and Courier Player of the Year to her resume.

2. I have thirteen immediate cousins on one side of my family and ten of us grew up on the same street in Charleston.

3. I am just SO great at sports. I am probably the most athletic person EVER.

The Handmaid's Tale ~ Post 2

The correlation between the consequences of technology in Offred’s society and the consequences of technology in our society today is shocking. The very idea of technological advances bettering humanity and protecting our freedoms is challenged in this novel, just as it is challenged today in age of war. In fact, the novel seems to be arguing that technology (for the handmaid’s at least) is the chain that confines them to Gilead’s patriarchal society. For instance, in the beginning of the novel the handmaid’s, like cattle, are branded and kept in line by the use or threatened use of cattle prods. They are constantly aware of the technology around them, refusing to allow the tourists to capture their photographs for fear that the lens’s of the camera are really the “eyes” of their government (think Big Brother).

Another correlation seen between the use of technology in the novel and in our society is the idea of the media gate keeping. Before the ceremony Offred and the other help is allowed to watch the news. Often what is seen on the news is so horrific that they (especially Offred) begins to see their current situation as a blessing from God rather than an earthly version of hell. The enemy is portrayed in such a light that the very government that has robbed them of their freedoms is seen less as an aggressor and more as a savior. The government, after all, is protecting her from what she is seeing on the television set. What the enemy would do to her is far worse than what she is experiencing now. She, indeed, is the lucky one (at least that’s what she is probably telling herself). She needs these restrictions; society could not exist without them.

This, at least in my opinion, is very similar to all of the war propaganda that floods our nightly news here in the United States. We are constantly shown images from the war that portrays anyone who is not American as the “other” and the “other” as inferior. We are shown images, I feel deliberately, to evoke fear in us of the unknown. American soldiers are often depicted as heroes defending our freedoms so that we don’t end up like “them” (those living behind the veils in chaos). Eventually, even those who do not believe in the war find themselves slowly accepting the place of our troops in their society.

*note I’m not arguing either for or against the war. I’m merely trying to find a possible correlation between the society of Gilead in the text and our society*

The Handmaid's Tale ~ Post 1

When discussing The Handmaid’s Tale with Dr. Fishman there was one thing that was really bothering me. Why couldn’t the wives of the commanders bear children themselves? Why was it that all of these women had become infertile due to pollution and new strains of diseases? Why was it that these environmental factors spared the fertility of the men and poisoned the fertility of the women?

In this day in age we have all heard of fertility specialists whose jobs are to diagnose infertility in instances where a male and female are trying to conceive a child but to no avail. This diagnosis could indicate infertility in the man only, the woman only, or both the man and woman. After such a diagnosis medical interventions such as invitro fertilization can be implemented. This scenario, however, was not the one played out in The Handmaid’s Tale. Rather than determine where the infertility lies it seems as though this handicap was automatically bestowed upon the women by their government, their spouses, and their society. In fact, to even speculate that it was the men who were infertile was a forbidden act for the women in the novel. If there were no fruits being produced from the “labor” of their marriage it was always and only the fault of the women.

That being said, how desperate these women must have been to have children that they would welcome, or at the very least tolerate, another woman’s body between their thighs and holding the woman’s hands while her own husband (the one she had a vow of forever with) penetrated and attempted to impregnate the woman. I can’t imagine. You’d think this isn’t something that you would welcome into your life habitually, even if you were desperate for a child. So, why not take advantage of scientific and technological advances? Why not see a fertility specialist? Why not turn to science rather than ceremony alone? Nevertheless, I can understand how some things are so painful and beyond understanding that the only place one feels they can turn is to the word of God. For this reason, I’m not saying that they must/should get rid of the religious ceremony all together but I am saying to exist solely on ceremony and to reject science is probably what got them in the predicament where they needed handmaids in the first place.

Proposal 1

Proposed topic/focus

Michael Crichton has written several novels that addressed controversial issues such as genetic research and global warming.

Proposed Thesis / Central Point

Michael Crichton is able to counter scientific research and sway public opinion about these controversial issues.

Outline of Argument

1. Michael Crichton uses facts and statistics to corroborate his opinion.

2. Michael Crichton delves into the issues that surround each of those controversial topis.

Revised Proposal 1

Topic/Focus

Issues of HIV/AIDS epidemic in literature (websites, articles, reports).

Proposed Thesis/Central Point

The internet has played a substantial role in combating the HIV/AIDS epidemic because knowledge is power. The fact that the internet has made it possible for HIV/AIDS literature (websites, articles, reports) to reach the masses with relative ease has provided millions with the knowledge that change is possible and the knowledge that the power for change lies in their being informed.

Outline of Argument

According to the agenda setting theory, due to constant exposure, people begin to prioritize the same issues and therefore, although they aren’t being told exactly what to think, they are inspired to think about the pandemic and the impact it is having on the rest of the world.

The media is helping with the awareness and prevention of HIV/AIDS because although it may not be giving all the facts that go along with the effort, it is still making people start to ponder the ‘what if?’

There are more and more campaigns on the rise each year to promote the health of those affected by HIV/AIDS, infected by HIV/AIDS, or possible candidates for infection by HIV/AIDS.

Sources

Children on the brink. (2002). June 5, 2008, from .

You can help (2002). June 5, 2008, from <>.

Brewer, M. and McCombs, M. (1996). Setting the community agenda. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 73, 7-16.

Holbrook, T.M. (2002). Presidential campaigns and the knowledge gap. Political Communication, 19, 437-454.

Shaw, D., Martin, S. (1992). The function of mass media agenda setting. Journalism Quarterly, 69, 902-920.

Tichenor, P.J., Donohue, G.A. and Olien, C.N. (1970). Mass media flow and differential growth in knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34, 159-170.

Paper One topic

My topic is still under research... so don't be surprised if I update this post a couple times.

Proposed topic: Music + Technology

On the side of music, I want to focus in on the piano. I am really interested in how technology has affected the development of the actual instrument itself as well as the music. On another note, I want to discuss how technology has changed modern music. I'm sure some types of music are affected more than others. I am going to explode techno and turn tables. I'm open to feedback of any kind.. especially if you think this is really silly! :P

I am an AMAZING tennis player.
Once I graduate I'll be in the U.S. Army.
I don't eat any fruits.

Picture

I decided to post an image that I took while traveling abroad rather than an image of myself. This image was taken as a study of the architecture of Amsterdam and the photography of Bill Brandt. I feel like it represents me well because of the odd shapes and stark contrasts. (Odd shapes in character... people often refer to me as being very random.) The photograph that I was trying to mimic with this one was Bill's Famous Nude. The contrast is so high that proportions are detail are almost completely lost, yet she (the nude in the photograph) is beautiful and interesting. I feel very connected to this picture.

I grew up home schooled by my loving parents along side my two awesome brothers. I was born in MD, but moved to Charleston when my dad's job changed. Homeschooling is a great way to learn and grow in religion, especially when my family is Jewish.

I posted more about the image on my Euro blog.

Paper 1 Topic Proposal

Proposed Topic: Did literature written by Arthur C. Clarke influence future technology for space exploration?

Proposed Sources: 2001: A Space Odyssey by Arthur C. Clarke (1968)

The Exploration of Space by Arthur C. Clarke (1951)

The Promise of Space by Arthur C. Clarke (1968)

Extra-Terrestrial Relays- Can Rocket Stations Give Worldwide
Radio Coverage? by Arthur C. Clarke published in Wireless World
(1945)

Proposed Thesis: Literature written by Arthur C. Clarke had at least some significant
impact on geostationary satellites, as well as other forms of future
technology used for space exploration.

Outlined Argument:

I. Geostationary Satellite
a. Concept of telecommunication through geostationary satellites described in article published in 1945.
b. The future geostationary orbit device now nicknamed Clarke Orbit.
c. John R. Pierce “developed” the geostationary-like “Echo Satellite” nine years after Clarke’s published article on the subject.
1. Claimed his idea came “out of the air” (Wikipedia)
2. Clarke’s description was so thorough and precise that many deny Pierce’s patents on the satellite.
II. Space Exploration Technology
a. Wrote the novel when space exploration programs in the United States and Russia were still in the early stages.
b. Gave a brief implication of what the future of space travel/exploration could hold.
c. Described numerous forms of technology used in space exploration today that had not yet been exposed to the general public.
1. Detailed a space ship with inner and outer airlock doors to protect against the atmosphere and vacuum of space.
2. Detailed moon travels, as well as craters found on the various moons in space.
3. Detailed a protective suit needed to survive the perils of space travel.
4. Included small details of a future working space shuttle such as the launch and the adhesive glue for the food.
d. His work is so respected by even the most advanced of scientists that Apollo 13 was nicknamed Odyssey in honor of the novel.

The Sexual Evolution

This chapter had a very interesting spin on the Darwinistic Survival of the Fittest. The author would seem to propose that the fittest may have been the "sexier". As much of a stretch as his argument is, it actually makes a lot of sense. The example of the similarity between humans and chimps was a good one. Yes they are 97% the same but unless you are a perverted beasiality craving psycho, humans and chimps will never mate. Don't get me wrong they are cute in their own way but I prefer a girl with not as much hair on their body.

I thought it was hilarious when the author pointed out that humans will have sex no matter how ugly the partner. How many times have you made jokes about the skinny guy with the obese girl or how the girl keeps getting hotter with the more drinks you consume? (and yes I have even been guilty of the second) So the fact that not every species is like that very well could result in the extinction of the Neandertals. You cannot help the preferences or sexual habits of different species no matter how closely related they are, so I say let the chimps slap each other around and wait for that swollen butt and let me keep watching Baywatch.

Two Truths and a Lie

I was raised all my life in Evans, Georgia right outside of Augusta and I have never been north of the Mason-Dixon Line.

When I was 17 I had a real bad car accident and the doctors didn't think I would be able to use my left arm again. However after intense physical therapy and determination, I now have full use.

If I could do it all over again I would major in Turf Grass Management and I would design, play, and live on luxury golf courses for the rest of my life.

Weblog pic

In high school, I fell off the back of my friend's car (he wasn't going fast, but I dismounted onto the asphalt instead of the nearby grassy knoll). I went to the principal's office to get a Band-Aid for my scraped elbow, unaware that the back of my head was pretty bloody.

I worked almost ten years in the grocery store industry, where I realized that I didn't want to work in the grocery store industry another ten years. I quit last April and have two jobs now (one at the library, one for the Seneca Daily Journal).

I was drafted by the New York Giants to play starting quarterback, but I injured my left deltoid and had to be scrubbed before the '04 season. My replacement? A little guy called Eli.

True or False

I have 2 adopted sisters and 1 adopted brother (my adopted brother is actually a kid I was babysitting whose mom never picked him up).

When I was younger I had a pet duck that drowned in mud after an afternoon of heavy rain (I never quite got over it).

I've made cameos in 5 music videos.

weblog responses

After posting my first weblog responses I found myself still questioning whether or not I fulfilled the requirements of the assignment successfully. For this reason, I stopped by Dr. Fishman's office to gain further insight on what she is looking for in our individual posts. I found the information to be very useful (so much so that I think I'm going to further revise my initial posts) and thought I'd share the specifics of our conversation with all of you (I hope it helps!).

That being said, Dr. Fishman stressed the importance of engaging the text (this is not to be mistaken with summarizing the main points of the text). We can do this, for instance, by stating whether or not we agree with the author, pulling points from the text that support our argument, and then comparing and contrasting examples used in the text to examples that are pulled from our personal lives. For instance, in my post for Chapter 1 I discussed drinking and driving on college campuses. While my argument was solid it would have more fully met the demands of the assignment if I would have compared and contrasted the argument from my example to that of the taxi driver anecdote found in Chapter 1.

In short, we should always focus on the discussion found in the text, make an argument stemming from the text, support our argument with information from both inside the text and outside the text (i.e. other websites, personal insight, etc.), and finally compare and contrast our evidence with that of the authors.

This is just my interpretation of what I gathered from my meeting with Dr. Fishman. One thing that she also stressed is that she doesn't want any of us to feel like there is only one right way to do this. This is just one approach to writing a response.

*Note*
She also said that we could all make revisions on our responses if there is something we'd like to change in hindsight.

Technology- Positive or Negative?

To me, science represents the epitome of human knowledge, knowledge that can be proven through experimentation and data to be true. They say knowledge is power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So, it is with science. Humans take their knowledge and use it in a practical sense, ideally to improve their lives, creating new technology. However, because humans have the capacity for evil, so do many of our creations.

Technology has enabled humans to enjoy longer and more fulfilling lives. Today, the average human lives longer than ever because of advances in food production, health and medicine, law enforcement, and hygiene. For instance, food is no longer as scarce as it once was due to our ability to effectively irrigate and genetically modify and grow foods. Healthcare has also come a long way. Not only can we cure many diseases but we can often detect them in their early stages. Childbirth has also been eased by modern medicine. A distressed baby can now be delivered through a cesarean section, possibly saving the life of both it and the mother. All of these things lead to an increase in the human life span. There are other technologies that have increased the quality of life. For example, humans no longer have to toil in the sun all day, watering and taking care of crops. Today, we have wells and city water, sprinklers, tractors, and many other innovations to help us with these tasks. Technologies, such as the telephone or computer, help to keep us in touch with other people, no matter how far away they may be. We can even visit friends and family that are far away by using a car, train, plane, or boat.

However, all technology does not exert a positive influence in our lives. With the good can come negative consequences. For instances, the car seems like a good invention. It's convenient and allows us to go places we could have never gone before. Unfortunately, it has also led humans to exercise less and less, leading to obesity and disease. Another negative consequence can be seen through the telephone and email. While these things can be used to connect people, they can also prevent us from simply speaking to someone in person. For instance, if this class was not offered online, would I not be sitting in a classroom right now? Then, there are some technologies that just seem innately bad, such as the machine gun, a weapon that can kill people more people, with greater ease than before. How can this be a good invention? A basic gun could be used for hunting. Why would a gun with the ability to keep firing in rapid succession be necessary if not to take human lives?

In my life, technology has been a boon. If it were not for technology, I would likely be dead or at least crippled. I have had 24 stitches in my hand that may have prevented me from bleeding to death or dying from infection. I have had a tumor removed from my thyroid that may have continued growing to unknown sizes, blocking my airway. I have had a knee surgery which allowed me to maintain full motion and the ability to walk and run. (I'm slightly accident prone.) On a lesser scale, technology such as the computer and the Internet have allowed me access to information that has allowed me to be knowledgeable and improved the effectiveness of my education. I also find it quite enjoyable to watch movies or television or to have the time to read a good book.

The negatives of technology for me lie in my own laziness. It is so easy to stay inside on a pretty day and watch tv, rather than go outside and get some exercise and sun. Laziness leads to boredom, weight gain, and possibly depression, all of which take away from my quality of life.

Thus, technology is what humans make of it. It can be life saving or life taking. It is all in how we opt to use it.

Question for today

I'm sorry that our discussion didn't lead so neatly to the weblog question this week. It was a great discussion and I didn't want to derail it, but as a way to tie up the past week's readings and connect them to this weeks', I'd like you to consider these questions:

1. What is the difference between our environment and ourselves?

2. How does technology relate to the boundary?

3. Does or can science/technology change that boundary, or change our perception of it?


I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Remember to post here if you have questions.

T. F.

Image Hosting :-)

Here are some places you can host your images.

http://imageshack.us/

http://photobucket.com/

http://tinypic.com/

http://www.imagecross.com/

http://www.blinkyou.com/

Of these, I've only used photobucket for my own pictures, but I've viewed pictures from the others. After you upload your image, right click on it (where it is hosted) and select "properties" and then image location. Use that url to put your picture in, using the picture button above.

Hope that helps :-)

T. F.

Chapter 2 Response- Shattered Skies

Having taken several history courses in college already, this article truly enlightened me on much of the missing technological history that fueled so many changes. It enabled me to fill in the blanks. For instance, it is several of the technological advances that Darksyde mentions (especially James Watt's steam engine) that led to the growing popularity and even necessity of cities and the subsequent end of the feudal system. These changes began the industrial era. I was also interested in what Darksyde had to say about the Clear Skies Act of 2003, having heard of the bill in passing on the news. I never realized the bill was a step backward rather than forward.

I also must admit that at the beginning of the article, while amused, I had no idea what connection the writer was attempting to convey about soda and canon balls. It is impressive how the article came full circle after covering such a wealth of material.

Chapter 1 Response- The Gift that Keeps on Giving

Chapter One of Kosmos: You are Here was a great introduction to science and its roles and limitations in society. I felt that this article gave me a good background on the definition of science. After reading, I would define science as knowledge gained based on experimentation and data, rather than unproven guesswork. I thought the most important information conveyed by this chapter was, however, on the limitations of science and technology. Limitations on science can be as simple as constraints on time and money necessary to acquire background information on subjects or as complex as interference in experimentation by religion or government. Science is often subject to human corruption and sometimes mere incorrect conclusions.

The only point on which I disagree with Steven Darksyde is his view on Intelligent Design. While Intelligent Design is clearly not a part of science as it involves the supernatural and can't be proven, I do not believe that its proponents are always in opposition with science. In fact, many scientists are Christians as well and do not all disbelieve the theory of Evolution. Likewise, I think he is clearly biased against this point of view and allows himself to get on a bit of a soap box, talking for approximately a page about one specific company when there are many organizations, movements, and indeed governments that are standing in the way of science in a much greater way.

Technologic

The positives and negatives of technology to society. Hmm.. The positives include better living, easier tasks, longer lives, and better communication. The negative to that is the decrease in human contact. Why make new friends when W.O.W. has live players? The best way that anyone has tried to describe technology, I believe, is Daft Punk. Their music video of "Technologic" is not only really cool, but shows how technology is affecting our culture. A lot of people can not function with out a cell phone or internet.

Personally, I can not function with out technology. As an architecture student, I realize that most all architects rely heavily on computer programs for drawings and models and less and less on what they can produce by hand. This is good because of the really interesting architecture that is being produced around the world which would have been impossible to imagine without this technology. For example Daniel Libeskind. On the other hand, when they network and computer crashes, time and money is waisted because the project can not move forward without that darn thing.

Check out Daft Punk's music video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtdWHFwmd2o
More about Daniel Libeskind: http://www.daniel-libeskind.com/

Sorry this is late, I was having internet problems... haha 5.26.08

Science and Technology

Technology is wonderful in so many ways.  Science makes life's inconveniences a little easier, but doesn't necessarily make the quality of our lives better.  Take for example the information super highway, commonly referred to as the internet.

The internet was probably the greatest invention of the 20th century.  Life has changed dramatically because of the invention of the internet.  Because of the internet, communication with people across the world is easy with a few clicks of a mouse button.  The wealth of information on the internet makes finding information on just about any subject simple.  The internet  has even helped people find their soul mate (i.e. - my advisor here at Clemson).  Even grocery shopping can be done onlilne, and delivered to your door the next day.  However, despite all of these advantages, there are disadvantages.

Although the internet has so many advantages, many important life skills have been lost.  For example, understanding how to do research is a lost art.  Or because of the ability to meet people online, socialization skills are dwindling.  For many adolescents, family time has morphed from movie night with everyone in the living room, to everyone in their own room surfing the net.  

I must say that I enjoy technology immensely.  My life would be completely different without it.  But "I" wouldn't be different.  And I think THAT is the question; does technology hinder us from developing fully?

Chapter 12 - Shattered Skies

This chapter was extremely interesting to me.  It was extremely interesting to see how necessity, money, and survival instincts all contributed to amazing innovations and inventions throughout our history.  But what was even more interesting was to see how each innovation and invention spawned the need for more and more innovations and inventions.  But with each new invention and innovation comes a responsibility to the environment.  I must agree with the writer that we need to educate ourselves about the effects that new technology has on our environment, and actively pursue solutions as needed.

That said, I must admit that I don't feel the "sky is falling" urgency that the writer does.  And maybe that's because I'm not informed enough to have a legitimate opinion on the subject.  But he is absolutely right in surmising that we need to be more environmentally conscience.

Chapter 1 - The Gift that Keeps on Giving

This chapter was extremely conflicting for me.  As a former engineering major, the methodology described in the early parts of chapter 1 was both familiar and refreshing.  However, as a Christian I was angered by Darksyde's sentiments towards anyone who accepts or believes anything by faith.  A good portion of the latter half of chapter 1 was devoted to devaluing any form of information that is gained by "unscientific" means, especially religion sources.

As an analytical person, I understand the logic of methodology.  However, as a Christian I understand the power of faith.  I understand that science cannot explain everything.  However, because I've seen so many instances where science was proven wrong.  I cannot accept methodology as the only means of finding truth. 

Chapter 12: Shattered Skies

The most interesting thing about this chapter is learning the history and development of science and technology as we know it today. I thought it was incredibly interesting how much everything depends on something else. Cannons and cannonballs were created as a result of realizing black powder could be ignited and used to fire objects. And in continuing to develop and improve this technology, we have fizzy sodas and environmentally harmful CFCs.

It was really eye opening to see the truly negative effects that the development of technology can create for our world. There is so much that was done to the environment in the name of scientific progression before anyone even realized that harm was being done. While it is depressing, it is important to realize that this is happening so that we can understand the harm that we are doing to the environment. Maybe if we realize this, we can work to overcome it.

Chapter 1: The Gift that Keeps on Giving

What struck me most about this chapter was realizing how flexible science really is. Anyone can use science, whether or not they are qualified, to come to conclusions about the world around them. The way that one uses science is what makes it good or bad. When science is paired with ignorance, close-mindedness, and greed it can be a very dangerous thing. However, science has allowed people to do truly wonderful things, including creating vaccinations, discovering the intricacies of the natural world, and inventing technologies that make our lives easier. It is important to realize that science itself isn’t bad, it is what people do with it that makes it bad.

Another thing I realized while reading this chapter is that science really is everywhere. We use the scientific method to come to any conclusion and it is so easy to do so. It is only natural to make an observation, create a hypothesis to explain something, and then test it, and come up with a logical conclusion. This article made science seem so available and accessible for everyone, not just scientists who study constantly and work on equations that no one else can even begin to fathom. With science so accessible to so many, it is no wonder that there is so much good and bad within science.

Class Discussion 1

Technology has had a significant impact on my life. In fact right now, while I type this on my computer and listen to my iPod with my trusty cell phone beside me and the television on in the background, it seems impossible to ignore just how much we rely on technology. Technology has made its mark in almost every area of life. From entertainment to the medical field the development of technology has seemingly made life easier.

One of the most significant impacts that technology has made on my life is that it has allowed me to stay in touch with my family and friends. For example, one of my best friends has spent the last six months in Spain. Without technology, I doubt I would have ever had the chance to talk to her, however, we have been able to communicate everyday through instant messenger, cell phone calls, emails and even through Skype, a program that allows people to call each other and have conversations over the internet. Even though we have been thousands of miles and a whole ocean apart, using all of this technology has given us the ability to stay in close touch with each other and to inform each other about everything going on in our lives that we might have missed otherwise.

Unfortunately, this technology was not always reliable or easy to use. My friend and I wasted many minutes, sometimes even hours trying to make an unreliable internet connection work. More often than not I couldn’t hear her when we talked using Skype and there were many times when she would just randomly lose connection and not be able to reconnect for hours. Cell phone calls were easier and more reliable, but much more expensive. Being a poor college student, making international phone calls was not something I could do often. The most reliable and cost effective way for us to communicate was through emails. The only problem with this is that it was not as instant as we were used to. We had been spoiled by technology that has made everything instant; instant communication, instant entertainment, instant food. The slightest hiccups in technology made us extremely frustrated and wasted so much of our time. And time in this technologically advanced world has become precious.

Class Discussion Question #1

Science is a very complicated thing that even a lifetime of work could not fully grasp. With this amazing form of art comes technology. Technology is a branch of science that will also never be fully understood. Why will neither of these things ever be fully understood? Because they are constantly changing. It seems as though every time you wake up and turn on the TV, there is another discovery being made or each time you turn on the computer, there is another update to be made. Due to these ever changing fields, we experience both extreme negative and positive effects on our society.

From a positive perspective on society, we are able to be in constant communication with one another as a result of technology. Twenty years ago it would take either a wad of money for a phone call or the price of a postage stamp and a few days to come into contact with someone half way around the world. Today, we turn on the computer and can chat (AIM, Skype, E-mail, Web Cam) with anyone in the world at the drop of a hat. Bringing us closer together as a society is a definite positive. It almost makes everyone seem to be in a closer relationship. China doesn’t seem so far away and completely alien to us when we can see what they’re doing on a web cam at any time of the day. New science is constantly having positive effects on our society as whole. For example, the ability to solve crimes much quicker is keeping criminals off of the streets and speeding up the process which uses many tax dollars each day. With the constant advancement of genetics, police are able to solve crimes from a simple computer program with indisputable evidence. Cases that have been “cold” since the sixties and seventies are now being solved. Also, science is helping members of society to stay alive longer—even those with debilitating diseases. For example, in the eighties, the diagnosis of AIDS was considered an imminent death sentence. Today, drugs being developed are helping AIDS patients to stay alive for years longer than in the past. The same is true for many other diseases today.

As with nearly everything, there are also negative aspects of science and technology in society. Technology is both a gift and a curse. This has been understood for many years. Though constantly evolving technology is helping to protect us and our identities, it in turn is also helping predators to reach us more quickly. The most negative aspect of technology that I can think of involves predators. This includes both sexual and “identity” predators. Children in society are becoming more and more proficient at computers. This is both good and bad. With this increased proficiency comes an increased comfort zone. Many children talk to nearly anyone who contacts them and can easily take off the blocks that parents put on their internet accounts. This increased trust results in many children giving predators posing as children their names, ages, looks, and sometimes even locations. This is resulting in an increased amount of child molesters getting their hands on innocent children at home. Also, this increased technology is making it easier for people to steal identities. With a simple program and in a matter of minutes, identity predators can obtain names, social security numbers, credit card numbers, bank accounts, signatures, etc. from those with even the most protective blocks on their information. This is resulting in an increased amount of credit card fraud, identity theft, and debt among innocent members of society. Science may have negative effects on society as well. War and violence is probably the most common misuse of science in society today. Criminals are able to make weapons easily at home with the advancement of society. Also, newly formed weapons in science can wipe out an entire country in a matter of minutes, no matter if they’ve done anything wrong or not. The majority of these weapons will never reach the general public. It is too dangerous. However, should these forms of science ever fall into the wrong hands, as many forms of weapons in science do, the results could be catastrophic.

I, like most college students, am an internet junkie. I love having all of the information in the world at my fingertips with the push of one button. However, I understand that technology and science have both negative and positive effects on my life daily. I have many personal experiences to support these claims. With today’s society and the state of technology and science, it is hard not to feel affected by these tools every day. As far as technology goes, I believe that the good in my life outweighs the bad. Technology helps me daily. I would say that the most positive way it has affected my life is through the quick communication it provides. If I forget what homework I was assigned for the night, I simply turn on the computer and go to Blackboard to find out. Technology is enabling me to get a Clemson class credit this summer while sitting at my home in Charleston, over 200 miles away. Also, this past fall, my best friend of fifteen years and Clemson roommate for two years went to Barcelona, Spain to study abroad. It was the first time we’d been separated for more than a couple of weeks since we met in the first grade. Had it not been for AOL Instant Messenger and Skype (a form of chatting system in which you talk over the computer like you’re taking on the phone-for free!) we would have talked rarely. However, we were able to stay in constant contact and talk regularly because of technology.

Technology also affects me in negative ways. When I was in high school, my father was the victim of identity theft. Someone stole his credit card number, social security number, and name without ever coming into contact with him. The more horrifying thing was that my father had never ordered anything off of the internet—they hacked into a government database (my dad works for the government) and retrieved the information. This crisis caused a lot of hardships for my family. We were getting calls from the IRS claiming that we hadn’t paid certain expenses—this was how we figured it all out since my dad is an accountant. We weren’t able to trust anyone for a while. My dad was told he owed over $100,000 to a New York company. The police would have nothing to do with it since it was unclear who should preside over the case. It was an absolute mess. Everything was eventually worked out but it took a long time for my family to trust any form of technology aside from the bank. My dad wouldn’t even get cable internet (we had dial-up) until last summer because he was convinced it would destroy us. As funny as it all may sound now, it was actually a very serious time in my life that helped me realized how dangerous technology can be.

Science has both negative and positive affects on my life as well. In the positive aspect, science helps to keep me alive. That is always a good thing. I have terrible asthma. I once had an asthma attack as a child and a breathing machine saved my life. The drugs developed by science help keep me alive every day. I take an inhaler every morning, a pill to stifle my allergies which in turn stifles my asthma, and an inhaler as needed. None of these things would be possible without science and I may not be alive or well without these wonderful medicines. From a negative point of view, science once nearly killed my grandfather. He had severe Parkinson’s disease and was required to take many different medicines. The pharmacy once gave him the wrong medicine for the disease. It did not mix well with the other medicines and nearly gave him a coronary. The pharmacist had given him medicine he didn’t even need that could have ended his life. However, in regards to both science and technology, it is my opinion that the good outweighs the bad.

Shattered Skies

To begin with, what a sarcastic chapter! I found it hilarious that he went from the simple question of why cola fizzes more when it is warm to discussions of weaponry and global warming. As in the first chapter, it is shown how science is very subjective in its rationality and benefit. Divine kings are compared to mafia bosses. Black powder becomes cannons and in turn guns just to put holes into the bodies of enemies. Enlightenment comes from laziness and the desire for less stenuous means. Steam takes over as a means of power.

All this discussion leads to is the scenario of global warming. It was discovered that a whole in the ozone layer was forming and action was taken to prevent it. However, political ideology replaced scientific logic and things were done that ultimately undermined the progress that was being made. A very good point was made that personal and political ideology should not take the place of scientific reason. You must always do what is right and what is proven to be the best possible solution. You cannot blindly follow dogma or rules passed onto you by others who have never tested the reasoning behind their rationality.

Chapter 1

The chapter begins with a very simple question. What is science? Different people will say different things using different examples that are too complex for any "non-expert" in their field to understand. But science is simple. It is merely the methodology observe, hypothesize, test, conclude. And after you conclude, prepare for the peer scrutiny because it most certainly will come.

One of the most important aspects of science is its testability. A physicist or other scientist could give you a hypothesis that you can test without necessarily knowing the exact specifics of the topic. Magic does not fall into that category being that excuses and faith are the only answers. Antiscience has been around almost as long as science has. Its goal is to undermine all scientific credibility by making claims based on religious practices or falsifying information to make it impossible to test.

The simple truth is that science is neither good nor bad. It comes down to its subjective use to whether or not it benefits society. This could apply to may things. It seems that much of out technology stemmed from the military to be used in warfare but we find many ways to better our domestic lives. Anything can be used for good and that same thing can be used for harm. It is the simple fact of it.

Technology and My Life

Technology has had a very profound effect upon my life. I think about how in college every day is run by the numerous emails I receive. It is the main source of communication between my teachers, my outside activities, and myself. I do not keep a planner or calendar, but by checking my emails I am able to keep on task with my different commitments. The internet has become my main source of news and current events. My phone has become my main source of contact information between friends. I have not read a book for enjoyment in so long I cannot even remember. I simply wait for the movie to come out.

The negative aspect of technology for me is easy to observe. I struggle to write letters anymore, especially thank you notes. I am scared that the letter may be lost in the mail or something bad might happen if it is not received almost instantaneously. If my phone dies or I lose it how can I contact people? Cell phones make it so convenient to pull up a number that I no longer practice remembering them. If my internet is down I do not know what is going on in the world or even my own life because I cannot access information in less than one minute. I have become too dependent on the convenient technologies around me.

However, technology has not been all bad for me. Without my car I would be riding a bike or walking over 20 miles a day (I won't even get into the gas discussion right now). Without my phone or email I would not be able to communicate as efficiently. As we say in Economics, with perfect information both parties will be able to come up with the most efficient solution. All technology has done is made information easier to access and give people a chance to make the most with what they know.

Chapter 12 Discussion

I found this chapter to be just fascinating. I thought it absolutely amazing that so many key inventions in the world played off of one another. For example, had gun powder never been discovered for cannons, the major machines developed to make life easier may never have been developed. Also, had it not been for gun powder, as well as the “mafia like” competition in the world at that time, the industrial revolution and subsequent end to slavery may never have taken off as it did. This in turn resulted in cheaper means of coolants which resulted in refrigerators, air conditioning, and other inventions that make our lives just so much easier.

Despite the captivating and historical aspect of the chapter, I found a much greater appreciation for the darker side hidden beneath the historical facts or delightful jokes and play on words. It disturbed me that so many of the luxuries we enjoy are subsequently destroying the Earth for our great grandchildren. In fact, the global warming facet set aside, it seemed as though the author was trying to detail the negative effects that all of the major inventions he explained had on the world. For example, the gun powder was a wonderful new invention but killed millions of people. The big machines were great, but resulted in a negative, competitive, and vicious world where people got killed just for having a less effective machine. This brings us to global warming and the negative effects that our luxuries have on our environment. Our refrigerators in the 90’s and before were ripping a hole in the ozone layer, as were our air conditioners and who knows what else. Furthermore, more negative affects are being felt by things we are still doing each day. Negative things that just recently have been brought to the public’s attention. In fact, it seems the government is reversing the progress we’ve already made.

This chapter gave me a lot to think about- not necessarily just about the effects of global warming and what we’re doing to accelerate it. In fact, it’s nearly impossible to be a college student in a science major at a large university and not know the facts of global warming up and down already. No, I am talking in particular about the responsibility that scientists and other educated beings have to the world today. Responsibility for our actions and responsibility for our science. This entire chapter reflected a lack of responsibility on the “scientist’s” part. There were many instances that resulted in the death of many in the chapter because those using the science wanted to advance themselves (both monetarily and politically). There were instances in the chapter, and in the world today, where politicians avoid major issues tearing our world apart so as not to offend their sponsors, parties, or supporters. A perfect example of this happens to be the subject of a research project I have worked on in the past. The issue that no one wants to talk about—unprotected sex and its affect on STDs (namely AIDS). Since we currently live in a more politically conservative society (not to complain—I am about as southern as they come) pre-marital and unprotected sex is considered nearly taboo in Washington. Though AIDS epidemics and STDs are affecting millions, the Bush administration would rather turn a blind eye to the matter than to offend their party and, pardon the expression, “cash cows.” However, to be a politician or a scientist or even just a school teacher, we must take responsibility for what we know. If we know our little brother is going to burn himself by placing his hand on that stove, aren’t we going to warn him or shout at him in a panic? This should be no different with matters of science, politics, and the mercury emissions/ greenhouse gases plaguing our world today.