T.O.E.: Final Reading Place Blog

What does it mean to be human?

In the beginning of this class I would have immediately answered being human means to be human. The DNA, mitochondria, the atoms all define us as human, simple as that. As I mentioned before, the 1.5% DNA difference from bonobos makes us human. Though I still believe that fundamentally DNA and atoms make us human, I think I now understand another layer of that question. Rather than asking, "what does it mean to be human" I think the question really means "what does it mean to be a person"? In the end, humans are humans, but what makes that human a person? A nice simple, clean, answer such as consciousness, or empathy is like a card pyramid, it seems sufficient and stable but with an easy blow, it falls down. More and more research shows animals actually capable of consciousnesses. Elephants show signs of grief, dolphins can laugh, and quokkas are always happy. Many may argue those do not actually prove animals have sentience but nonetheless, animals may not be so different from people. And then what about humans who can't feel empathy? That would mean sociopaths would not qualify as people. Perhaps to fully answer this question, one needs to look at how other animals are defined. But that goes back to biological DNA differences. It seems nearly all paths lead to circles, complicating any hope of finding an answer. And maybe, there exists more than one right answer.

A few months ago, I wrote a little bit about a physics idea, called the Mediocrity principle (also known as the Cosmological principle). David Quinn, implies this theory throughout his book Ishmael, in regards to the way the Leavers live. According to the principle, humans are no more special than anything else. They are mediocre and as Quinn would put it, succumb to the same laws of nature as the rest of the world. Even Jared Diamond paid tribute to this theory stating "to science we owe dramatic changes in our smug self-image[...]From biology we learned that we weren't specially created by God but evolved along with millions of other species." If humans are nothing special and since everything is made from the same atoms as everything else, maybe we cannot properly define what is human or even what a person is without defining everything else. In that nothing specifically separates anything from each other, it just all falls under a Theory of Everything (T.O.E.). Interestingly, science is currently trying to discover this T.O.E. and once again, support the Mediocrity principle, or as Diamond puts it, humble our "smug self-image." But that would be an extremely meta approach and frankly, makes me feel a bit uncomfortable and confused.

In order to simplify the question, lets look at the Takers and how we can define them as people or not. As supposed "creators" and "rulers" of the world, many people may attribute the ability to destroy and create to be a defining characteristic of person-hood. In an address, Quinn himself stated "It's important for them to understand that it's not being HUMAN that is destroying the world. It's living THIS WAY that is destroying the world." So being a destroyer or savior doesn't define us. What about our ability to create a culture? It's fair to say other animals do not posses as complex of a culture as we do if any at all. Animals don't paint or sculpt, write fancy poems no one understands or even think about deep philosophical ideas (that we know of). So if we create culture and our culture defines us as people. Quinn defines a culture as people enacting a story, so human's invent culture and culture creates people and we all play a part in enacting that story. After all, as Rueyser wrote, "The universe is made of stories, not atoms." So if the universe is made of stories, and culture means people enacting a story, and culture defines person-hood, then maybe the T.O.E. is one big story the whole universe is enacting.

Reflection:
Within my own group of three, I selected all four readings and I read and annotated all of them. I also provided questions to the final script and wrote most of the "Ishmael group" answers on the script as well as the final question. As for the whole group, I tried to make sure everyone got their work in. The idea and themes themselves were really a group effort though and most people contributed to it. In the beginning I thought a whole class group project would fail but in the end it turned out a lot better than I expected. The idea of having a whole class project with smaller groups of three or four worked really well in that it was easy to assign each group work to contribute to the final project. Honestly, I do not think this project would have work as well or as easily as it did without Google drive. Overall, I would say things worked out smoothly for the amount of time and the amount of people. More time could have been spent on developing a larger theme and making sure the questions flowed together, rather than separately themed questions. I think we had a good group of seniors that luckily worked well together. For any group project, it really just comes down to the people and some help from Google.

Into the Wild: Civilization vs. Nature

Who was Chris McCandless and what drove him to live his life the way he did? Many accused him of ignorance, arrogance, and stupidity. Krakauer defends Chris, painting him not as a stupid youth but as an idealistic headstrong boy. He wasn't ill-prepared, he made sure to study. He wasn't suicidal, after all he died a long slow death of starvation. Upon examining his life, Chris proves a much more complex person. Growing up Chris was always critical of his parents' lifestyle and wealth. They worked long hours but were they truly happy? Did they accomplish anything for the greater good of society? More importantly, did Chris think they did? Though Chris seemed concerned with the morality of the world, he was ultimate selfish, focusing on his own individuality, going off into the wild for his own need and desire. Chris seemed to avoid anything that required hard work, unless it had higher value and meaning. He wasn't stupid: "Academically he brought home A's with little effort" but he cared about other things (109). Sports that required any high level of skill or form were not for Chris, "Nuance, strategy, and anything beyond the rudimentary of technique were wasted on Chris" (111). The one sport Chris enjoyed was running, because he was able to find a deeper, spiritual connection to the sport. Krakauer depicts Chris as someone who lived extremely, when he raced, he raced to win, anything he did he had to do his way (lab formats), Chris' view on life was the same. He was unable to accept life's inequalities because he was too extreme to accept gray areas. This follows the way Chris lived his own life in an extreme way, he had to immerse himself completely in his spiritual world and he was unable to accept any other life.
Chris' story is one of searching for a deeper meaning in life because he tries to in such an extreme way. Fundamentally, Chris' theory of life suggests that in our civilized world, we are clouded by something that keeps us from being part of the "real world." His parents lived in the civilized world and he shunned them for it.
I argue that one can live in a true way in the civilized world. People like Chris love nature, because they did not have to deal with the inequalities of nature all the time. Even in the end, Chris begged for help. There is great beauty and power everywhere, often times we cannot see it in our lives because we become to use to our environment we miss the little beautiful details. Nature constantly changes, keeps moving forward bringing life and death but we tune out this force of nature and end up feeling disconnected. According to Chris, there is a deeper relationship humans can share with nature. This may exist but we overlook these opportunities. For Chris, he believed the only way to find that deeper connection was to find the "true" nature. But nature depends upon how we view it. We overlook nature, get caught up in the daily humdrum of life but nature is always there and sometimes all it takes is just a few minutes to acknowledge it. I think Chris tried to do that, but true to his extreme nature, Chris did so in an extreme way. We try to think we're above nature, with our technology and philosophy but in the end, we're still part of nature. Civilization and nature do not have to be in conflict, we can be civilized and live with nature, we just need to learn how.

My Friend, Nature

When I was first asked to think about my relationship with nature, I immediately thought about my childhood. Growing up, I had a favorite tree, a maple tree that stood in front of my house that I climbed everyday. My younger self loved the outdoors, playing with mud, running around, biking, climbing fences, but my favorite activity was tree climbing. My childhood memories are filled with climbing that maple tree after school. Up until we moved, my hands were covered in calluses from climbing and some of the branches had smoothed over where I climbed most. The first video plays tribute to those memories. In many ways, nature really was my playmate growing up, even if other children were not around, I could always find things to do outside whether it was collecting flowers and rocks, observing insects and animals, or climbing trees. The first video is meant to convey that sense of playfulness I found with nature. The second video represents a more mature relationship I developed with nature. Throughout my adolescent years I have always found peace in a quiet nook next to the lake. Whenever I felt stressed or got into a fight, I could always take a run down to the lake and just watch the water ripples hit the sand and listen to the birds calling each other. The endless movement of nature always brought a sense of serenity to me. No matter what, I could count on nature to calm me down. The third video reflects a newer relationship I've found with nature. After gazing at the stars for space science, I am still amazed by how vast nature is and how truly small we are all. It's humbling really, to just admire nature. The third video is meant to convey that sense of smallness as well as a sense of belonging. No matter what, we are made of atoms just like the rest of nature (except for black matter) and even though in the grand scheme of things we are unimportant to nature, we are still part of it. All three of the videos reflect a strong connection I feel with nature. They may not be the interactions I have most with nature or the ones that symbolize a greater human being connection, but they are the ones that I think of first and the feelings I cherish most.

The order of the videos reflect a growing relationship with nature: from childhood playfulness, to adolescent peace finding, to "adult" admiration.

Words said in videos:
First: "Nature is my childhood friend
Second: "Who is always there to calm me down"
Third: "And who is always there to keep me humble"

https://vine.co/v/MJJtLJ9raI2
https://vine.co/v/MJJ9WMliZZm
https://vine.co/v/MJvZYeU5xzY

Mediocre Agriculture ?

Human. Civilization. Modernization. We hear these words all the time yet I think most of us do not know what they really mean. Scientists have been piecing together how tiny little organisms eventually evolved into humans. Anthropologists and historians define civilizations, but much mystery surrounds the rise and fall of civilizations. And modernization, a word that carries both excitement and fear, remains nebulous. But how do these three words relate to each other? Ishmael captures the relationship between these three ideas in a way that forces us to re-examine how humans should view their civilization and how they should move forward with their modernization. I personally bought into Ishmael's argument about Taker culture. Humans believe they are special which came about because of agriculture gave humans the ability to build civilizations and  expand their control, to modernize. I think is what made me believe Ishmael's viewpoint are two big ideas that I had previously been exposed to that Ishmael uses as fundamental pillars that uphold his whole message.

Two summers ago, I read the book Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond which explains how the modern world came to be, in other words, how civilizations arose. Ishmael reminded me a lot of Diamond's book but I think the most important argument they shared was the importance of the birth of agriculture. Both Diamond and Quinn emphasize how agriculture is in a way the "knowledge" from the tree of knowledge in that agriculture allowed humans to go against the peacekeeping laws. Diamond specifically cited agriculture as one of the reasons why certain groups of people were able to expand and conquer other groups (though other factors influenced that as well). Agriculture completely changed human culture though. With greater food productions, societies were able to sustain larger population (which Ishmael addressed too) but Diamond also provides other impacts of food production. Agriculture forced societies to centralize, people could specialize in different tasks which increased productivity and allowed societies to perform more complex tasks. As Diamond explains "Complex centralized societies are uniquely capable of organizing public works, long-distance trade, and activities of different groups of economic specialists." Diamond also brings up three other results of food production. First, food production brought seasonal labor which means the central government could use agriculture labor after the harvest. This allowed the government to use cheap labor to build large projects such as roads or buildings and create armies with the extra labor. Second, societies could now store food which meant that everyone could eat. You didn't have to be a hunter or farmer to eat, you could be a scribe, a performer, or a government official and still eat everyday. This allowed individuals to do things other than find food such as invent technology or make advances in weaponry, science, or math which in turn propelled the society as a whole forward. Third, agriculture forced societies to settle down. People became tied down to the land which allowed them to "own" more things. Societies that moved around a lot did not carry many things and thus, had little possessions but sedentary societies could and did develop materialism. As Diamond shows, it's easy to see how agriculture gave power or even birth to the Takers. Ishmael takes Diamond's explanation a bit further by saying that all this population expansion, this materialism, this drive to conquer and expand actually destroys the world and even goes against the laws of nature. Agriculture allows humans to act as mini gods by controlling the food supply, deciding where food should grow, limiting competition's food source and habitats, and sustaining an unnaturally large human population.

The markings represent centers of origin of food production. (Diamond)

Human migrations, interesting to look at in relation to food production origins (Diamond).

The second idea that helped me relate to Ishmael was a physics/astronomy theory called the Mediocrity principle, also known as the Cosmological principle. The Mediocrity principle basically states that nothing is anymore special than anything else. It arose because people kept mistakenly thinking they were special (such as thinking the Earth was the center of the solar system, or that the solar system was the center of the galaxy, or that the galaxy was the center of the universe). Besides the cosmological implications of the Mediocrity principle, the idea behind it reflects how egocentric humans are. We think we are special, unique, exceptional, anything but mediocre. This idea appears in Ishmael in the way Takers believe they are at the level of the gods, above all other animals, above the natural law. I fully bought into that argument which made it easy for me to believe the rest of what Ishmael was saying. Humans have a hard time accepting mediocrity. We love the idea of being special, that each of us is a princess or prince who can do whatever she or he wishes. But according to the laws of nature, we are not special and we cannot do whatever we wish. Our idea of exceptional-ism makes it all too easy for us not to do something or not to follow the rules because we are special. It makes us blind to what we do to the world. We are not mini gods, even with agriculture power. We are just human.

p.s. I understand that people who did not like Ishmael may dislike it for many reasons but I hope these two ideas provide some more support to Ishmael's message.


For anyone interested, I highly recommend reading Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond.
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/guns-germs-and-steel-jared-diamond/1100290895?ean=9780393317558
help support bookstores

Quiet Moments

        I look around the room during my debate class and I see several students staring at their phones under the desks and one student even taking a “selfie.” The teacher either doesn’t notice or doesn’t care. Other students witness this photogenic moment and laugh in an almost admirable way. After all, he did just pull off something “against the rules” without getting into trouble. 

Example of phone being used during school. Not a selife but still a Kodak moment.

         

















           
        
           This past year, a discussion about drafting new cell phone policy rules started throughout my school. The current cell phone policy allows no cell phones in class; all cell phones must be turned off and in a locker. But many students argue the benefits of using a cell phone during class such as to take videos or pictures of labs, to check Veracross, or to call/text parents during school. I myself have used my phone to take pictures of a chemistry lab set up. But do the benefits of a cell phone in class outweigh the harms? It seems most of the time students use their phones to snapchat or to procrastinate, not to take pictures or videos for a class. Not only that, but besides taking a picture or calling a parent, a laptop can suffice for any “looking up” students need to do in class.

The discussion about a new cell phone policy reflects a greater question of how technology influences students and how education needs to react to that influence. Students face enough distractions in class from doodling to zoning out to talking to classmates. With each student bringing their own laptop to class, students find it hard enough to not surf the web or go on facebook. Cell phones can add a whole another element of distractions to students. Recently, researchers have begun examining the effect of technology on students. Matt Richtel summarizes two studies in the New York Times, the Pew Research Center and the Common Sense Media which both conducted surveys for teachers. The research explored how students have been behaving and doing in classroom while growing up in this high tech world and who better to ask than teachers. Though because the data came from surveys which creates room for bias, generally, most teachers said that students seemed to have shorter attention spans and were less perverse when faced with a difficult problem or challenge. Several teachers mentioned needing to dance around to capture students' attention. The shorter attention span seems expected, with the rise of technology children are a finger tip away from any sort of entertainment. Forget about sitting quietly for long periods of time when we have candy crush to play, notifications to check, and music to jam to. And we can do those all at once. Technology allows us to multitask all the time. Not only does this affect our attention spans, but also our ability to stick to a question. As Richtel explains "teachers described what might be called a 'Wikipedia problem,' in which students have grown so accustomed to getting quick answers with a few keystrokes that they are more likely to give up when an easy answer eludes them." I see this all the time and even succumb to it, when a difficult math or physic problem comes up students often just skip it or look up the answer online after spending a mere 5minutes working on the problem. Not to mention, no one actually reads the reading assignments anymore. I think students have always been distracted in class but the problem affects more and more students and makes it more and more difficult for students to learn. So clearly, there is a problem, or at least a change in the way students learn in class. 

Picture seen on facebook at Wellesley, not SPA but you get the point: mass multitasking

There seem to be two ways to respond to this change: either resist it or find a new way to somehow teach students. But these two come from different assumptions, one assumes that for students to learn they must know how to focus and listen to the teacher while the other assumes that this new technological behavior should be nurtured and cultivated. The question comes down to, what skills students need in order to succeed. Do we need to know how to focus and overcome difficult questions or do we need to know how to find information fast? But the two responses also reflect another problem with this change, whose responsibility is it to learn? In the first response, it is more the students’ responsibility to learn by not being so dependent on technology and instead, learn how to focus and persevere while the second response pushes the responsibility to teachers and parents to find ways to continuously entertain students in order to educate them. In some ways, just changing the cell phone policy rules makes it seem students are not responsible for controlling their technology urges but rather, the rules should just change to accommodate those urges. 

For SPA, the new cell phone policy rules must reflect the skills the school is trying to teach students. If teachers are trying to teach students the power to persevere or to learn how to focus the mind, then cell phones may prove just another obstacle students must overcome. Or perhaps the school wants to teach students how to focus in an over stimulating environment. But without clear punishment, it is easy for students to fall victim to the lure of stimulation and go on facebook during class instead of paying attention to the lecture. With technology already shortening our attention spans and ability to persevere, maybe students should consider using less technology and stop snapchatting, candy crushing, or tweeting during class. Not only that, but another part of education is learning to be healthy and in touch with oneself. Technology allows us to enter a sort of daze where we are constantly entertained and stimulated, we lose the ability to stop and reflect quietly on our self, our community, and our world. There is something beautiful and powerful in sitting quietly, it is in those quiet moments when we can become most thoughtful. The great mathematicians, scientists, and philosophers of history did not become great because they were constantly distracted by notifications or stalking photos of their friends but because they knew how to sit quietly and focus on something for hours, days, even years. Technology is not all bad in education but it does take away our ability to just sit and work. (Yes, we can sit and work on a computer screen for hours, but that gets into a whole other discussions around socializing and we already have laptop screens to stare at.) Perhaps SPA does not think this skill will be needed for students to succeed, but I’m not sure how anything great was ever done without involving lots of long, quiet moments of just sitting and focusing. 

New York Times article on technology and education: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/education/technology-is-changing-how-students-learn-teachers-say.html?pagewanted=all 

1.5 Percent

What makes us human? A question society still searches an answer for. People find ways to come up with philosophical or abstract answers: our souls, our emotions, our creativity. In English class we watched a video of a gorilla supposedly communicating its life story through sign language and a girl who grew up in isolation who couldn't talk, along with an excerpt of Wall-E. People then argued for which one they thought was the most "human." After all, the gorilla conveyed communication, Wall-E showed curiosity and emotion, while the girl was at least born human. But this seems like the completely incorrect path to take to find the answer to what makes us human. This path leads to discussions with no evidence or data but simply people arguing their own opinions. If we really want to know what makes us human, lets turn to science.

Now, before I move on, I will establish a fundamental definition we must accept: that "human" equals "homo sapiens." Let me defend why this equality holds. Everything that defines us as a species, makes us human. If something not biological makes us human, than that implies some otherworldly thing exists in us. Religion builds off that assumption, that within man lives the image of God. Or some other invisible thing lies within only humans that we coincidentally can't see or even understand. I personally find that difficult to believe, especially when all living organisms have the same basic nucleotides that create DNA. Humans are made of atoms, just like everything else in the world except black holes and dark matter. So lets assume homo sapiens do not have some otherworldly thing that magically give us "human only" qualities (whatever qualities those are).

According to science, there is a 1.5% difference in human DNA than chimpanzees, which could mean up to 45 million DNA sequence mutations. It's important to remember that humans are a product of evolution. We did not magically appear and there is probably no one magical explanation for what makes us human. It's the accumulation of those 45 million DNA sequence mutations that make us human, unless that especially special invisible human "thing" exists. So here are some concrete differences. According to scientists, one major mutation is in the MYH16 gene, a distinctly human mutation, which allows the brain to be larger by having weaker jaw muscles. A larger brain may have also been influenced by humans brain to use complex tools such as the Achuelean hand axe. According to scientist Dietrich Stout, learning to use stone tools (a.k.a. learning about nature/exploring environment resources) may have allowed the brain to develop the capacity to create language. Another gene mutation plays a part in language, the FOXP2 gene (this gene underwent a mutation around the time humans are believed to have developed language). This gene mutation may have allowed humans to communicate language better. Scientists are still searching for the complete answer to what makes us human, but clearly we know there are fundamental biological differences that account for any human qualities we see.

Achuelean Hand Axe

The reason it's important to look to science when we discuss humanity is because humans seem to forget that we are biologically part of nature. We are made up of atoms and DNA just like everything else. Nature shapes who we are through DNA mutations that lead to our ability to use tools, create languages, and invent. If we take out the biological differences or dismiss them, then that means something makes us human that is not part of nature. Which would mean we are not part of nature, but science says otherwise. Nature is what created humans, through DNA mutations, natural selection, and different environments. Sure humans can try and manipulate nature through technology but the reasons humans do is because of how nature shaped us. So what makes us human? A 1.5% difference in our DNA sequence.

Further explanation of the gene mutations: http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news8
Interesting Nova episode exploring what makes us human: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/what-makes-us-human-pro.html