Just read Stuart West's review of Robert Trivers' recently published book, Deceit and Self-Deception. Trivers explores his new theory that self-deception is favored on all levels, from genes, to individuals, to groups. From religion to nationalism, mate selection to war, Trivers finds self-deception in practically everything we do.
A more critical review of Robert Trivers' new book on the evolutionary underpinnings of deception and self-deception:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/oct/10/deceit-self-deception-robert-trivers-review
Should be an interesting read even if the theory of kin selection is now being challenged by another expert on evolution (Read the latest Atlantic).
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Demanding More from Wall Street
I am no expert on Economics, Sociology, or History, but I am an American citizen (albeit one who is often treated as a second class citizen), and I do think that I, as well as every other American citizen, have an obligation to voice my opinion on the state of affairs in my country no matter how small or misdirected it may be. I just hope that it isn't as misdirected as the many other voices out there. I think it's actually pretty great how many people are fed up with the way things are in America, because really, no one, not even all the billionaires, are happy with the economy, unemployment rate, or the way the government is handling these issues. And it's great that we finally, collectively realize it. Cue Occupy Wall Street Protests. However, it's pretty scary how we as average American citizens cannot pinpoint how to fix the issue. In a way, Egypt had it easier. "Overthrow the Government!" would have been a decent and specific enough demand. It seems like everyone's got a general idea (indeed, a nebulous and rage-fueled idea: not a good mix). This is a start, but what I and many other observers have been puzzling our heads about is what exactly we are fighting for. We want to end huge wealth inequalities, we want banks to stop playing and profiting with our hard-earned money, but how does a protest about that turn into positive change for society?
It's really not ordinary peoples' fault at all that they converge on the richest street in the world angry and ready for change, but without a clear cut demand, because the financial mess we are in isn't clear cut itself. The U.S. went into recession for many reasons. (On a side note, apparently we are heading into another recession? I confess that I double dip as much as the next guy, but frankly this kind of dip makes me lose my appetite faster than Lehman Bros. declared bankruptcy). What little my 22 year old brain has soaked in about the financial crisis from NPR talk shows and CNN news clips throughout the last four years has left me with the impression that many times as experts were trying to analyze the crisis, they were often pretty confused themselves and were definitely not getting the complete story. Indeed, much of how we got into this mess happened behind closed doors, both private and public sector doors. What average citizens see is their homes being foreclosed, their jobs taken away, their savings dry up. And so we come to Wall Street with these demands that do not get to the heart of the problem, because the problems we see (the lost job, the outrageous mortgage payments) are only the effects of the real problems!
I am glad I came across Nicholas D. Kristof's multimedia article on his take of the Wall Street Protests. He has trotted the world covering revolution after revolution in the Middle East and Africa. I trust he knows a thing or two about successful uprisings, although to compare the Cairo uprising to Wall Street protests would be a bit of a leap. I think it is much easier to attack a government rather than a multitude of multibillion dollar corporations. The guns and tanks of a totalitarian regime are easy to see and fight against, and while closed door deals may not have physical, destructive fire power, they are more insidious in that they are just as destructive but are harder to stop. But to continue with Kristof's article, after interviewing protesters about their grievances, his conclusion is that the protesters do indeed need some concrete demand that will effect action. The four demands he recommends are to 1) Institute a Financial Transaction Tax 2) Eliminate Carried Interest Loopholes 3) Eliminate Tax Breaks for Capital Gains and 4) Increase Financial Regulations, because in his own words "we are currently privatizing profit and socializing risk." Hear, hear! One sees that these demands are specific, targeted, and clear-cut. Now imagine these entreaties on protest signs across America: "What about my break? Tax Capital Gains now!" or "If you tax me, tax my bank!" or "Loopholes are just plain loopy."
We are a country built on grand ideals, but specific laws must be put in place to uphold these ideals. It is wonderful to see a full-fledged protest that is built upon the ideas of democracy, equality, and liberty. Further, everyone who was so quick to criticize these protesters as a bunch of disorganized hippies should be eating their words. At least these citizens are trying to do something, and even if this specific protest never gets beyond an expression of deep, roiling anger, it will mark a passage in U.S. history that should make every billionaire wary (I'm talking to you Koch Bros.). The average citizen may not currently be able to articulate their demands fully, but they now have an awareness of inequity in this country that is never going to go away.
It's really not ordinary peoples' fault at all that they converge on the richest street in the world angry and ready for change, but without a clear cut demand, because the financial mess we are in isn't clear cut itself. The U.S. went into recession for many reasons. (On a side note, apparently we are heading into another recession? I confess that I double dip as much as the next guy, but frankly this kind of dip makes me lose my appetite faster than Lehman Bros. declared bankruptcy). What little my 22 year old brain has soaked in about the financial crisis from NPR talk shows and CNN news clips throughout the last four years has left me with the impression that many times as experts were trying to analyze the crisis, they were often pretty confused themselves and were definitely not getting the complete story. Indeed, much of how we got into this mess happened behind closed doors, both private and public sector doors. What average citizens see is their homes being foreclosed, their jobs taken away, their savings dry up. And so we come to Wall Street with these demands that do not get to the heart of the problem, because the problems we see (the lost job, the outrageous mortgage payments) are only the effects of the real problems!
I am glad I came across Nicholas D. Kristof's multimedia article on his take of the Wall Street Protests. He has trotted the world covering revolution after revolution in the Middle East and Africa. I trust he knows a thing or two about successful uprisings, although to compare the Cairo uprising to Wall Street protests would be a bit of a leap. I think it is much easier to attack a government rather than a multitude of multibillion dollar corporations. The guns and tanks of a totalitarian regime are easy to see and fight against, and while closed door deals may not have physical, destructive fire power, they are more insidious in that they are just as destructive but are harder to stop. But to continue with Kristof's article, after interviewing protesters about their grievances, his conclusion is that the protesters do indeed need some concrete demand that will effect action. The four demands he recommends are to 1) Institute a Financial Transaction Tax 2) Eliminate Carried Interest Loopholes 3) Eliminate Tax Breaks for Capital Gains and 4) Increase Financial Regulations, because in his own words "we are currently privatizing profit and socializing risk." Hear, hear! One sees that these demands are specific, targeted, and clear-cut. Now imagine these entreaties on protest signs across America: "What about my break? Tax Capital Gains now!" or "If you tax me, tax my bank!" or "Loopholes are just plain loopy."
We are a country built on grand ideals, but specific laws must be put in place to uphold these ideals. It is wonderful to see a full-fledged protest that is built upon the ideas of democracy, equality, and liberty. Further, everyone who was so quick to criticize these protesters as a bunch of disorganized hippies should be eating their words. At least these citizens are trying to do something, and even if this specific protest never gets beyond an expression of deep, roiling anger, it will mark a passage in U.S. history that should make every billionaire wary (I'm talking to you Koch Bros.). The average citizen may not currently be able to articulate their demands fully, but they now have an awareness of inequity in this country that is never going to go away.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
"Too much doubt": Justice Denied to American Citizen
11:00pm, Wednesday, September 21 marks the death of Troy Davis. Davis was executed by the state of Georgia. He was found guilty of murdering an off-duty officer 22 years ago. He was convicted at 22 years of age. Yet, in the two decades since his conviction, the evidence of his guilt has become weaker and weaker. The Constitution has once more failed to protect a citizen of the United States from what seems to be systemic racism and ignorance. Whether or not Davis was truly a murderer, the evidence was just not there to justify his conviction.
The murder weapon was never found. Seven of the nine eyewitnesses recanted their testimony convicting Davis. Another eyewitness who upholds his testimony was also a suspect. No physical/DNA evidence was found.
These are the facts.
In light of these facts, 1 million signatures requesting clemency were collected and more than a few world leaders expressed their support to grant Davis clemency. Even then, Davis was shown no mercy at the hands of his state and country.
In 2010 Davis was granted a hearing at which many of the eyewitness testified that police coercion played a role in their prior testimony and that they lied under oath for identifying Davis as the killer.
The Federal Judge who overheard the hearing had some discouraging comments to make:
For Judge Moore to write that "A federal court simply cannot interpose itself and set aside a jury verdict in this case absent a truly persuasive showing of innocence," (my italics), seems to oppose the idea that it is the prosecution who must show guilt. It is generally held in the justice system that the prosecution has the burden of evidence, not the defense. If Moore had seen through the eyes of justice he would have t. It is the funniest thing (as in clearly illogical) for a judge to deny justice in order that it doesn't "wreak complete havoc on the criminal justice system," which I'm guessing really means that he/she doesn't want to undermine the status quo, a status quo that is biased against blacks and the poor. Clearly the criminal justice system NEEDS to change, Many Americans want to change it, and Davis' case would have been the perfect opportunity to change it.
Here I go off on a tangent, but it is one that continues to bug me enough to warrant its inclusion in this post: I just don't understand why the family of Officer MacPhail is so adamant that Davis is the killer. Is there some psychological process where people become quick to blame the first suspect? Their grief is real and their anger is real, yet it is interesting that people are so quick to condemn when the evidence is incredibly weak simply to avenge a death. Clearly there seems to be no consideration of the evidence or reason behind their decision to condemn Davis. Here we would have a good example of what goes on cognitively to the survivors of a murder victim. It would be interesting to see what psychological studies have been done, and even to compare such quick blaming with how we form other convictions (as in a firmly held beliefs) and how much these convictions are based on fact or emotion.
One also cannot brush off the idea that because the victim is a policeman there is more of a sense of urgency to find the killer, whether or not it is the right person. Yet with such a biased interest that the police force has in the case, is their participation in the case truly fair to Davis? Is there special protocol for when a police officer is the victim, in order that the case and its evidence is not vulnerable to being tampered with?
Please let me know what you know on these subjects. In my brief research I have already come across an article written by Rachel King. In her work on the effects of the death penalty on both the victims' families and murderers' families, she has found that the decision to give the death penalty is not based on the heinousness of the crime, but seems to be linked to one's race and economic standing. She also points out that there are no studies that look at whether or not executions provide solace to the victim's family, the prime reason why people support the death penalty.
Additionally, I feel we must ask that if in the absence of capital punishment, the ultimate punishment now being life in prison, whether or not, justice is still being served. Why is there a disproportionate number of blacks and other minorities in prison?
Finally, why is Davis' case so important? 1) It is important because it underscores the dividing lines of this country, especially the division caused by race. Again, why are so many young black men in prison? Why is there a disproportionate number of black men who are executed? 2) It calls into question the legitimacy of a government to take a life (does "an eye for an eye" really have a place in our modern world?). 3) It calls into question the fairness and effectiveness of the U.S. judicial system. 4) It is a call to awareness for all cases of injustice. Americans need to continually challenge the status quo of justice. The idea of justice continually changes with the tide of power. In a society that calls itself democratic, there is a need to apply justice to all. Long gone are the days when justice only applied to white land-owning males.
Judge Moore's quotes from John Rudolf's Huffington Post article.
Carol King's article The Impact of Capital Punishment on Families of the Defendants and Murder Victims' Family Members is also available online.
The murder weapon was never found. Seven of the nine eyewitnesses recanted their testimony convicting Davis. Another eyewitness who upholds his testimony was also a suspect. No physical/DNA evidence was found.
These are the facts.
In light of these facts, 1 million signatures requesting clemency were collected and more than a few world leaders expressed their support to grant Davis clemency. Even then, Davis was shown no mercy at the hands of his state and country.
In 2010 Davis was granted a hearing at which many of the eyewitness testified that police coercion played a role in their prior testimony and that they lied under oath for identifying Davis as the killer.
The Federal Judge who overheard the hearing had some discouraging comments to make:
For Judge Moore to write that "A federal court simply cannot interpose itself and set aside a jury verdict in this case absent a truly persuasive showing of innocence," (my italics), seems to oppose the idea that it is the prosecution who must show guilt. It is generally held in the justice system that the prosecution has the burden of evidence, not the defense. If Moore had seen through the eyes of justice he would have t. It is the funniest thing (as in clearly illogical) for a judge to deny justice in order that it doesn't "wreak complete havoc on the criminal justice system," which I'm guessing really means that he/she doesn't want to undermine the status quo, a status quo that is biased against blacks and the poor. Clearly the criminal justice system NEEDS to change, Many Americans want to change it, and Davis' case would have been the perfect opportunity to change it.
Here I go off on a tangent, but it is one that continues to bug me enough to warrant its inclusion in this post: I just don't understand why the family of Officer MacPhail is so adamant that Davis is the killer. Is there some psychological process where people become quick to blame the first suspect? Their grief is real and their anger is real, yet it is interesting that people are so quick to condemn when the evidence is incredibly weak simply to avenge a death. Clearly there seems to be no consideration of the evidence or reason behind their decision to condemn Davis. Here we would have a good example of what goes on cognitively to the survivors of a murder victim. It would be interesting to see what psychological studies have been done, and even to compare such quick blaming with how we form other convictions (as in a firmly held beliefs) and how much these convictions are based on fact or emotion.
One also cannot brush off the idea that because the victim is a policeman there is more of a sense of urgency to find the killer, whether or not it is the right person. Yet with such a biased interest that the police force has in the case, is their participation in the case truly fair to Davis? Is there special protocol for when a police officer is the victim, in order that the case and its evidence is not vulnerable to being tampered with?
Please let me know what you know on these subjects. In my brief research I have already come across an article written by Rachel King. In her work on the effects of the death penalty on both the victims' families and murderers' families, she has found that the decision to give the death penalty is not based on the heinousness of the crime, but seems to be linked to one's race and economic standing. She also points out that there are no studies that look at whether or not executions provide solace to the victim's family, the prime reason why people support the death penalty.
Additionally, I feel we must ask that if in the absence of capital punishment, the ultimate punishment now being life in prison, whether or not, justice is still being served. Why is there a disproportionate number of blacks and other minorities in prison?
Finally, why is Davis' case so important? 1) It is important because it underscores the dividing lines of this country, especially the division caused by race. Again, why are so many young black men in prison? Why is there a disproportionate number of black men who are executed? 2) It calls into question the legitimacy of a government to take a life (does "an eye for an eye" really have a place in our modern world?). 3) It calls into question the fairness and effectiveness of the U.S. judicial system. 4) It is a call to awareness for all cases of injustice. Americans need to continually challenge the status quo of justice. The idea of justice continually changes with the tide of power. In a society that calls itself democratic, there is a need to apply justice to all. Long gone are the days when justice only applied to white land-owning males.
Judge Moore's quotes from John Rudolf's Huffington Post article.
Carol King's article The Impact of Capital Punishment on Families of the Defendants and Murder Victims' Family Members is also available online.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Why my life is richer without a God: Reading The God Delusion
My mind just expanded 100 fold. How you say? I just finished reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins takes God and the belief in God and destroys it completely. Before I read this book, I knew there was no such thing as God. I also knew that I lacked an adequate understanding of why I didn't believe in God. Was my nonbelief in God based purely on strong emotions and my parent's own convictions? Was I in fact committing the same error in reasoning as believers do? Heaven forbid!
Dawkins' book provides me with the power to stand strong against believers. By exploring the arguments of believers, he neatly makes a solid case for another theory of how humans got here: natural selection. The theory of Natural Selection is a "crane," to use his term. It is built from the ever-mounting evidence that how we arrived to today was a gradual (as in billions of years) build-up of complexity. "Skyhooks" on the other hand are arguments that are based on the idea of spontaneous complexity. Thomas Aquinas' arguments are "skyhooks" (a term Dawkins borrows from Daniel Dennet). An equally outlandish argument that there can be no beauty with out a God is also a "skyhook." Skyhooks always need more explaining and are therefore not even arguments in themselves.
One of the most important points I learned from this book is that the current debate should not be labeled as religion vs. science. It is an argument of delusion and unthinking emotion vs. reason and logic. A great quote by George Bernard Shaw that Dawkins includes illustrates the fallacy of emotion as argument: "The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."
Equally, the role that the feelings that words like "mysterious" and "mystical" elicit, cloud our ability to reason. Yet science can elicit the same feelings, I think, even more than religion ever can. The feeling of awe I get while thinking about how small an atom is or how big the universe is trumps any made up image.
I understand better the social and evolutionary pressures to believe. Dawkins presents many interesting theories, including the fascinating theory that we believe in God/s because it is a by-product of a child's willingness to believe their elders. It may be the case that it was evolutionarily advantageous to listen to parents and elders. "Don't wander off or the tiger will eat you," may have saved the child from the real threat of a dangerous predator. Yet, how can a child discern real warnings from erroneous ones like "If you don't dance the rain dance and sacrifice the pig, the rain will not come down and we will starve"?
Another type of pressure that is related to the by-product theory (because it take advantage of a child's gullibility) has to do with indoctrination from a young age. Dawkins decries the label of "Christian child" or "Muslim child" because no child really can make the mature, conscious choice to become a Christian or Muslim or Atheist. It is still acceptable in current society for parents to choose the child's beliefs, mostly because religion is still treated as truth to the majority of society. Those who can see the fallacy of religion realize that "religious" children are forced to accept only one view of the world oftentimes without the benefit of being exposed to other worldviews.
I also realized that I don't have to feel guilty or censor my own values just because of "culture" or "tradition." Think about this: If atheists do not share their views just because they are trying to be polite or not cause any arguments, religion will win out by default. We are social beings and ideas are contagious only if we share them. I can have all the knowledge in the world, but what use is it if I never pass it on just because I fear hurting certain individuals' feelings?
When I used to believe in a God, I also had this feeling of being protected. An atheistic view may have no adequate substitute for this feeling that I have now lost. But I think I have gained so much more. I have gained time! I have gained reason! I have gained the ability to logially defend my values! most importantly, I have gained a world of wonder, more wondrous than any religion can try to proffer. It is a world that is amazing exactly because we can figure out why dragonflies are so colorful, why cheetahs can run so fast, why black holes exist, why humans can reason (or not). Dawkins makes it clear that viewing the world in an open-minded and reasoned way can make for a very rich life indeed.
In the end, Dawkins' book is not simply about blasting religion. He wants us to realize there is this veil, or a burka, to use his words, and beyond this burka is a world where rocks are really not solid and smells and sounds can be perceived as colors. It is a world that can be explained, and also marveled at in its complexity and beauty. If we can tear off the restricting view of the burka (or even make the view just a little wider), we can expand our perception of the world beyond the current limited anthropocentric view.
Dawkins' book provides me with the power to stand strong against believers. By exploring the arguments of believers, he neatly makes a solid case for another theory of how humans got here: natural selection. The theory of Natural Selection is a "crane," to use his term. It is built from the ever-mounting evidence that how we arrived to today was a gradual (as in billions of years) build-up of complexity. "Skyhooks" on the other hand are arguments that are based on the idea of spontaneous complexity. Thomas Aquinas' arguments are "skyhooks" (a term Dawkins borrows from Daniel Dennet). An equally outlandish argument that there can be no beauty with out a God is also a "skyhook." Skyhooks always need more explaining and are therefore not even arguments in themselves.
One of the most important points I learned from this book is that the current debate should not be labeled as religion vs. science. It is an argument of delusion and unthinking emotion vs. reason and logic. A great quote by George Bernard Shaw that Dawkins includes illustrates the fallacy of emotion as argument: "The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."
Equally, the role that the feelings that words like "mysterious" and "mystical" elicit, cloud our ability to reason. Yet science can elicit the same feelings, I think, even more than religion ever can. The feeling of awe I get while thinking about how small an atom is or how big the universe is trumps any made up image.
I understand better the social and evolutionary pressures to believe. Dawkins presents many interesting theories, including the fascinating theory that we believe in God/s because it is a by-product of a child's willingness to believe their elders. It may be the case that it was evolutionarily advantageous to listen to parents and elders. "Don't wander off or the tiger will eat you," may have saved the child from the real threat of a dangerous predator. Yet, how can a child discern real warnings from erroneous ones like "If you don't dance the rain dance and sacrifice the pig, the rain will not come down and we will starve"?
Another type of pressure that is related to the by-product theory (because it take advantage of a child's gullibility) has to do with indoctrination from a young age. Dawkins decries the label of "Christian child" or "Muslim child" because no child really can make the mature, conscious choice to become a Christian or Muslim or Atheist. It is still acceptable in current society for parents to choose the child's beliefs, mostly because religion is still treated as truth to the majority of society. Those who can see the fallacy of religion realize that "religious" children are forced to accept only one view of the world oftentimes without the benefit of being exposed to other worldviews.
I also realized that I don't have to feel guilty or censor my own values just because of "culture" or "tradition." Think about this: If atheists do not share their views just because they are trying to be polite or not cause any arguments, religion will win out by default. We are social beings and ideas are contagious only if we share them. I can have all the knowledge in the world, but what use is it if I never pass it on just because I fear hurting certain individuals' feelings?
When I used to believe in a God, I also had this feeling of being protected. An atheistic view may have no adequate substitute for this feeling that I have now lost. But I think I have gained so much more. I have gained time! I have gained reason! I have gained the ability to logially defend my values! most importantly, I have gained a world of wonder, more wondrous than any religion can try to proffer. It is a world that is amazing exactly because we can figure out why dragonflies are so colorful, why cheetahs can run so fast, why black holes exist, why humans can reason (or not). Dawkins makes it clear that viewing the world in an open-minded and reasoned way can make for a very rich life indeed.
In the end, Dawkins' book is not simply about blasting religion. He wants us to realize there is this veil, or a burka, to use his words, and beyond this burka is a world where rocks are really not solid and smells and sounds can be perceived as colors. It is a world that can be explained, and also marveled at in its complexity and beauty. If we can tear off the restricting view of the burka (or even make the view just a little wider), we can expand our perception of the world beyond the current limited anthropocentric view.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
The Writing of Science: Silent Spring and The Naturalist
I meant to write my thoughts on E. O. Wilson's autobiography The Naturalist some time ago. I am glad to finally be putting some nebulous ideas into concrete words. For a while I have been feeling that I was constricting myself with the types of works I chose. Literary fiction is a worthy pursuit, but as my interests swerve into the field of science, my world has unfolded considerably, and I cannot seriously assert that anyone who prides themselves in attaining a well-rounded education can ignore the vast and important field of literary non-fiction, especially works written by people who have dedicated themselves to a scientific field. So today, I am excited to be able to write about two biologists who kept in mind the interest of the general reader who may or may not have formal training in science.
E. O. Wilson's autobiography is an earnest, humbling memoir of one of the most eminent biologists of the twentieth and twenty first century. Wilson is adept at creating for the reader that same wonder and love for the natural world as he has. His vivid accounts of childhood encounters with wildlife include the almost mystical telling of his yearning to observe the elusive sting ray. This recounting prompts the reader to meander back in time (as it did me) to their own special and mystifying encounters with nature. I must say that I felt some regret for not feeling as much an intense wonder at nature as Wilson had at such a young age. There is something to be mourned for the child who never feels the wonder of the universe, whether it is from gazing at the twinkling stars or running around catching sulfur butterflies. To label science as an unfeeling, exclusively rational field is to fall into an utter fallacy.
Wilson's passion for nature eventually led to a professorship at Harvard. He makes it clear, however, that scholarship at the Harvard level is as cutthroat as trying to survive in the African wilds. Genius and a taste for competition are practically essential for any scientist who wants to make it at the top of any academic field. His encounters with Francis Crick were especially enlightening. By mid century, biology seemed to be on its way out, pushed to the sidelines by chemistry, physics and genetics. These fields theorized that all life, including behavior of animals, could be explained at the molecular level. However, Wilson and other colleagues pioneered the field of ecology and proved the relevance of biology, and even old fashioned naturalists, to new, cutting edge theories. Wilson is one of the most prolific scholars, but he is, just as importantly, a writer who is accessible to the less scientifically minded general public. His consciousness of the environmental issues the human race faces gives him relevance to the next generation of environmentalists and scientists who are concerned with ecology. I can't wait to pick-up another one of his books.
Another author who is just as relevant to our day as she was almost 60 years ago, is Rachel Carson. Her seminal work entitled Silent Spring brings to light a danger of the most insidious kind, that of synthetic chemicals civilization has released into the environment. Her main concern is the use of pesticides and herbicides in both the government and private sector. Originally published as installments in The New Yorker, Silent Spring brought important knowledge of many dangerous, yet ubiquitous chemicals to the general public.
A reader may ask, why should I read Silent Spring? Isn't the science 60 year old science? Isn't the danger of chemicals known already? Without missing a beat I will tell them that Carson's work is just as relevant today. She provides the reader an exercise in expanding one's consciousness. I mean that the same points she made in the 1960s can still be used today in many other areas of one's life. These are just a few reasons why you should read Silent Spring:
1) Never have blind faith in anything. Another subtle lesson from her book is the wariness we must take on with special interests. Many times, harmful sprayings of towns and forests came about because chemical businesses lobbied for the spraying. Many times spraying policies followed money and profit rather than science and reason.
2) Respect nature. Humans are connected to the environment whether we like it or not.
Like E.O. Wilson's environmental philosophy, Rachel Carson's is one of ecology. We are all connected. The smallest bacteria living in soil is just as important to the environment as the 1,000 year old red wood. Without tiny bacteria living in the soil, humans would not be able to survive and grow food. Another scary thought she makes is that nature will go on and survive even with the chemicals, but it is our choice whether or not we want to survive with it.
3) We are still living in a chemically polluted world, with new chemicals being created and used every day. Just because there are now government regulations against pollution doesn't mean we are safe (Watch Homo Toxicus, a documentary that explores the current dangers society faces from synthetic chemicals).
In a final tying together of these two important books I found a delightful surprise in the afterword of Silent Spring. None other than E. O. Wilson himself penned the concluding thoughts of the book. His additional musings on the plague of chemical pollutants adds more fuel to the argument against releasing chemicals that mess with the sanctity of life.
E. O. Wilson's autobiography is an earnest, humbling memoir of one of the most eminent biologists of the twentieth and twenty first century. Wilson is adept at creating for the reader that same wonder and love for the natural world as he has. His vivid accounts of childhood encounters with wildlife include the almost mystical telling of his yearning to observe the elusive sting ray. This recounting prompts the reader to meander back in time (as it did me) to their own special and mystifying encounters with nature. I must say that I felt some regret for not feeling as much an intense wonder at nature as Wilson had at such a young age. There is something to be mourned for the child who never feels the wonder of the universe, whether it is from gazing at the twinkling stars or running around catching sulfur butterflies. To label science as an unfeeling, exclusively rational field is to fall into an utter fallacy.
Wilson's passion for nature eventually led to a professorship at Harvard. He makes it clear, however, that scholarship at the Harvard level is as cutthroat as trying to survive in the African wilds. Genius and a taste for competition are practically essential for any scientist who wants to make it at the top of any academic field. His encounters with Francis Crick were especially enlightening. By mid century, biology seemed to be on its way out, pushed to the sidelines by chemistry, physics and genetics. These fields theorized that all life, including behavior of animals, could be explained at the molecular level. However, Wilson and other colleagues pioneered the field of ecology and proved the relevance of biology, and even old fashioned naturalists, to new, cutting edge theories. Wilson is one of the most prolific scholars, but he is, just as importantly, a writer who is accessible to the less scientifically minded general public. His consciousness of the environmental issues the human race faces gives him relevance to the next generation of environmentalists and scientists who are concerned with ecology. I can't wait to pick-up another one of his books.
Another author who is just as relevant to our day as she was almost 60 years ago, is Rachel Carson. Her seminal work entitled Silent Spring brings to light a danger of the most insidious kind, that of synthetic chemicals civilization has released into the environment. Her main concern is the use of pesticides and herbicides in both the government and private sector. Originally published as installments in The New Yorker, Silent Spring brought important knowledge of many dangerous, yet ubiquitous chemicals to the general public.
A reader may ask, why should I read Silent Spring? Isn't the science 60 year old science? Isn't the danger of chemicals known already? Without missing a beat I will tell them that Carson's work is just as relevant today. She provides the reader an exercise in expanding one's consciousness. I mean that the same points she made in the 1960s can still be used today in many other areas of one's life. These are just a few reasons why you should read Silent Spring:
1) Never have blind faith in anything. Another subtle lesson from her book is the wariness we must take on with special interests. Many times, harmful sprayings of towns and forests came about because chemical businesses lobbied for the spraying. Many times spraying policies followed money and profit rather than science and reason.
2) Respect nature. Humans are connected to the environment whether we like it or not.
Like E.O. Wilson's environmental philosophy, Rachel Carson's is one of ecology. We are all connected. The smallest bacteria living in soil is just as important to the environment as the 1,000 year old red wood. Without tiny bacteria living in the soil, humans would not be able to survive and grow food. Another scary thought she makes is that nature will go on and survive even with the chemicals, but it is our choice whether or not we want to survive with it.
3) We are still living in a chemically polluted world, with new chemicals being created and used every day. Just because there are now government regulations against pollution doesn't mean we are safe (Watch Homo Toxicus, a documentary that explores the current dangers society faces from synthetic chemicals).
In a final tying together of these two important books I found a delightful surprise in the afterword of Silent Spring. None other than E. O. Wilson himself penned the concluding thoughts of the book. His additional musings on the plague of chemical pollutants adds more fuel to the argument against releasing chemicals that mess with the sanctity of life.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Hardy in Tooting
Keeping in theme with famous authors in London, it has come to my attention through Tomalin's enlightening biography on Hardy, that the masterful writer resided in Tooting for a time. Although I think the only people on this entire earth who would be interested to know are myself and my sister (former Tooting residents), and a handful of other Tooting inhabitants. It is too bad we were not aware of the fact before as the house is still there: 1 Arundel Terrace, Trinity Road. According to Tomalin, "There was nothing picturesque about it or its situation, but it was undoubtedly genteel" (174). Today, Tooting is still largely residential, with a main street of unattractive storefronts. However, Tooting is far more greener than the center of London, which is about 40 minutes away by bus and tube. It has been affected by some ugly 60's style buildings (namely Ani's multi-level Furzedown dorm), but the seemingly endless rows of houses are quite charming.
Hardy worked on A Laodicean during his three year residence in Tooting, which I've only just begun, but one is struck with it's immediate idyllic and rural mood.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
conspiracy theories!!
Now this is pretty wacky: Was Jack the Ripper really Jose Rizal?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
