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