Mark Smith-"Animalcules and Other Little Subjects"

Smith has a serious love for the microscopic world . He is fascinated with animalcules and finds pleasure in devoting his time to observe them. His pleasure, sadly, is not shared by his wife or family. As far as Smith is concerned his interest is not even shared with others outside of his family (264). Not even scientists are as interested in this real life wonder. Although Smith's article is very passive he is hurt because of this lack of interest that people in general have for real life.

I fall into this category of people. I admired his affection towards his work, but I do not share the same passion. I would have to say that I am with Smith's niece. What he is describing is interesting, but only for the moment.

Benjamin Phelan-"How We Evolve"

Phelan worries about human beings' "Self-inflicted extinction" by quoting Paul Ehrlich. Ehrlich states that human beings will be responsible for their own extinction. Of course the first problem Ehrlich uses as an example is climate change (202). However, what he is essentially saying is that the bad choices we make will ultimately effect the lifespan of the human race. Do I agree? Yes, but I do not look at it as a dreadful thing either. Like Phelan has already stated; "there is no question that the day will come when humans are no longer on earth" (202).

This is not said to send anyone into a depression but it is the truth. Are we at fault? In a way it is because we could not have avoided this. Once humans learn how to use the gifts we possess, our minds, we will always be on the look out for the next best thing. We will continue to evolve in that aspect. Eventually we will get to the point of over development and say "maybe we should have..." at that point there will be no turning back. Change is possible but that will be not be easy. In the end all good things must come to an end.

George Carlin - "Plastic"

As funny as the clip was a lot of what Carlin said makes sense. He may not have as much support as the authors we have read, but he doesn't need to. Everyone knows that the earth has been around for billions of years. We are the ones who just got here! So why should we be taken up in such a frenzy about pollution, extinction and global warming? The earth has survived much worst. As a matter of fact, these same natural disasters cause the death of the very trees, animals and plants we are trying to "save" and, the chemicals put into the air by disasters such as volcanoes contaminate the enviroment with poisonous gases. As Carlin put it, we do not want to mess up the area in which we inhabitat because we would lose some of the conveniences we possess today. Another interesting fact that Carlin brought up was that many of the things we use today, such as plastic, are derived from the earth!

I say none of this to sound like an extreme "anti-green" radical or a person who doesn't care. I believe that we should take care of the earth just as we take care of our houses, apartments, bedrooms etc. Living in a house or an apartment is just a physicality of our real home, the earth. That is why it is still important that we show some gratitude and respect for our home.

John Broome

As far as John Broome is concerned the discount rate concluded by Nicholas Stern is crap. The discount rate is the discount placed on the future by economists; the value of future goods is less than the value placed on present-day goods (p.13). As far as Broome is concerned we should take responsibility today to ensure a better tomorrow. Instead of making decisions that will benefit us in the now, we need to recognize that our decisions will effect us and those we are connected too. There are three ideas that arise when discussing people’s ethical judgments about the value of future well-being. They are prioritarianism, utilitarianism, pure discounting and the ide of being temporarily impartial. Prioritarianism is a condition in which less value is placed on future goods. Under utilitarianism conditions equality in the value of goods in both the present and the future is established. Pure discounting says that we should care more about people in the present rather than those in the future because the future is so far away. To be temporarily impartial is to insist that the date in which harm is inflicted does not make a difference to its value (p.14-16).

The money market simply reveals that people's ethical judgements stretch as far as the present. People take on the idea that "we will cross that bridge when we get there, so let's concentrate on the now." The danger in this is that every decision made has a consequence. All of the decisions made have consequences that may effect people now and definitely will affect people in the future. Yes these consequences can be good or bad, but consequences such as global warming should not be passed onto people in the future, nor should people in the present have to suffer.

What is a writer? Are you a writer? Why or why not?

A writer I feel is simply someone who enjoys writing. Whether he or she enjoys academic writing or expressive creative writing, they qualify as a writer. Am I a writer? Yes, absolutely! I love to write. Not so much academic writing that involves research, but more so opinionated papers in which I can express my thoughts. However, my real love is creative writing, which I am only able to do in my spare time. I write poetry and I have dabbled in short stories, and what I believe they call prose. I haven't been able to write how I used to because I am caught up in my school work but I am itching to get back to my writing, and drawing.

Do I feel responsible for global warming....GOOD question!

Do I feel as a consumer that I am personally responsible for global warming?

I grew up ignorant of all the information distributed today concerning global warming. Even if I did decide to walk the few blocks instead of driving or taking the bus it was because I didn't feel like driving, didn't have a ride or I didn't feel like spending close to $5 for the bus. It was either a waste of gas and or a waste of money so I would just walk or ride my bike. I still abide by this philosophy, sometimes, today. I honestly believe that going green not only benefits the environment but it also benefits me. A common example is the purchasing of an "Eco-friendly" bag for a store that I frequent. The bag is cute and I get a discount every time I use my "Eco-friendly" bag instead of the plastic bag! So I believe it is safe for me to say that no, I do not really feel responsible for global warming. I do however feel responsible for doing whatever I am capable of doing in an effort "Go Green" not because it is the "in thing to do" but because I have been blessed to live 19 years on this earth and I should return the blessing. Every little bit counts for something and because I am not mass producing products and constantly emitting harmful green house gases, I have to do my little bit.

"We are in an era of Creative Destruction" -Elkington-

This quote can be found on page 292 in Michael Specter's article "Big Foot." My immediate reaction was to interpret this statement made by John Elkington. What I believe Elkington was saying is that we are in an era in which we are bringing destruction on the environment and ultimately ourselves in a very creative manner. A manner so creative that we either do not recognize the destruction or we recognize it but we are so transfixed on the creativity of the destruction that all we can do is stare. In both instances the creativity of the destruction is so overwhelming that not much real action is taking place to avoid such destruction. In reality, we are so taken back by the immense advancements of technology and how "pretty it looks" that we do not recognize the destruction left behind on the path technology took to get to the advanced state it is in. Besides technology, is the notion of what Wendell Berry would say is the idea that people believe everything is limitless. If people die then what makes us think that every thing is limitless and our way of living is indestructible? Being so caught up in the creativity we can lose sight of the destruction and hopefully we can turn our eyes away from the fireworks and concentrate in reducing any further destruction. I know that this is hard to do, for myself included.

I don't mind blogging...for WSC 002-06 at least.

Fo rme blogging is a writing experience that I feel is....


A nice way to express what you really feel, to an extent of course. Some things are more interesting to blog about that on other topics. I had to do a blog last semester for another class and I hated it. I have to admit that when I found out we had to create a blog for this class I rolled my eyes a little, BUT it has not been so bad after all. I kind of enjoy blogging for this class. However, I do prefer to blog about my opinion on a topic or discussion so that I can express myself even if it is an "I don't even like this article and this is why" expression. So I quess it is safe to say that I actually like blogging = )

Blogging might be less of a task if ALL of our blogs were just expressing what we feel/think about what was read or discussed in class.

"Big Foot" By: Michael Specter

Without reading the entire article, which I did read, I knew exactly what I was about to engage in. At the end of the first paragraph Specter wrote; “This is a monumental challenge. It requires a revolution in technology and a revolution in thinking. We are going to have to rethink the way we live and work.” Immediately all I could think about was Wendell Berry's article "Faustian Economic." Specter went on to discuss how food corporations promote “going green” on their products in an effort to try and push consumers to do their part. He discusses “food miles” but doesn’t explain what that really means until four pages into the article which bothered me a little. After talking about "food miles" he then switched gears and began to discuss the concept of “cap and trade.” He also included the argument of whether or not you can trade something, such as the environment, without direct ownership. If trade is allowed the worry is that the environment has thus come under ownership which can be a bad thing. While the article’s main focus was on the negative effects of greenhouse gas emissions, global warming, I do not believe the article tied all topics together very well. However, the article most definitely reflected Berry’s article (that we need to change or way of living) except that Specter took the expected scientific approach which didn’t really capture my attention very much. For me, Specter’s article was a scientific reading that did not have any appeal to me because it is a continuous, monotonous discussion. It is NOT that I do not care for the environment. On the contrary, I believe in helping preserve the environment that continues to sustain life even when its very own inhabitants do not have the same respect. However, Berry approached the issue in a way that really made myself and others take a look at ourselves, others and the environment and REALLY THINK!

Just Add Water?!

Just add water...is that it?! I just have to add water and "PRESTO" I have a cake mix and all I have to do is put it in the oven?! Is this healthy? What happened to the eggs, oils and the other ingredients involved in making a cake?! Is the icing made the same way by just adding water? This must be one of those "new and imroved" ways of making food. I think so at least. I'll go with the pillsbury cake mix and make my own cake with more than just water. However, I will buy the ready made Betty Crocker vanilla icing.

(The reason as to why I wrote what I wrote)
The very statement "just add water" is something that I raise and eyebrow to. It comes across as a command and my natural instinct is to ask why? For what purpose? What if I don't want to "just add water?" "Just add water" makes me feel like I am doing something that is boring, some thing that has no flavor, like water. I want something more that just water, I want some thing with flavor, preferably sweet. I am a somewhat of a rebel I guess you could say.

WOAAHHHHH WRITING CENTER!!!

I found my visit to the writing center EXTREMELY helpful! I went with absolutely nothing written, not because I am a "bad" student but simply because I was not 100% sure of where I was heading with my paper. When I left I would say I was 90% sure, the other 10% was my need to just organize all of my thoughts once I began writing. This is a problem of mine. What she did was to ask me questions specifically related to the essay question. This helped steer me onto the track I needed to be on. The questions were built on top of one another and my mind began to flow. I was able to pick up where she was going with her questions and brought up my own suggestions for what I could discuss in the essay. Within 30 minutes I had a nice list that we were both able to create on what I would discuss in my paper. I have to admit that I was a little excited because I viewed the essay as "easy" now. However, that feeling scared me a little because you never expect work to be easy in college; therefore I did second guess myself a little bit. I have not received my essay back as yet, so we will see. I might just pay another visit to the writing center...no I WILL pay the writing center another visit = )

The Reality Tests?

"Do we create what we observe through the act of our observation? (230)" Joshua Roebke

What we observe can be effected by the act of observation yes and no. To explain I will present a scenario. I decide I want to observe lions in their natural habitat. I position as close as possible to the family of lions. I observe the lions sniffing and pawing at my jeep, one even attempts jumps onto the jeep. Because of this I conclude that lions are curious creatures when a “foreigner" enters into their territory. This is a yes scenario. The “no” would occur if I planted some undetectable observation equipment into their habitat and observed them from somewhere else. Then I would watch a “foreigner” invade the lion’s territory and not come out. In this case I would conclude that lions are extremely territorial. This is VERY different from the conclusion that lions are curious creatures. So yes, the very act of observing can affect our observation in that we are creating what we observe. No, if the observer is aware of this possibility and takes precautions to make sure this does not happen.

The weakness in Roebke’s thesis was that I lost interest. The entire reading was him continuously telling the same situation of scientists trying to test whether or not realism is a part of Quantum Mechanics. This was my understanding of what the entire article was about. The very argument however makes no sense to me because you can’t really separate anything from reality.

"Faustian Economics" By: Wendell Berry

“The problem with us is not only prodigal extravagance but also an assumed limitlessness…..we have founded our present society upon delusional assumptions of limitlessness.” This is Berry’s central argument. Surrounding this argument is the reason as to how we came to this. The answer to this question how is because people believe that the American way of life is indestructible; there is always more. What this has led to, according to Berry, is greed and waste. We must have limits, or else humans will cease to exist. This I can agree with.

Berry did something very interesting that I truly admire. He referred to "Faustus" and artists who work with limits and used them to support his argument. Faustus was a highly intelligent man in his day whose thirst for knowledge turned into greed. His greed was so intense that he sold his soul to the devil, literally, in exchange for ultimate power and all of the knowledge in the world. The power and knowledge that he was given allowed him to be at home in one minute and in less than 30 seconds he was at the Vatican. However, even with all of that power Faustus became bored. In the end Faustus was taken to Hell when his "contract" was up.

Berry’s reference says that such “limitlessness,” does not make people happy and does not lead to any place good. Berry says that artists work with limits such as frames and time limits. Yet still artists manage to produce beautiful work within these limits. Thus, we can do the same because freedom itself comes with restrictions in order to fully experience the peace that comes with freedom.

In the end, Berry concludes that the only way to side step a Faustus ending is to perform like an artist in order to sustain our human existence. We need to “re-program” our way of living to incorporate the fact that resources and the environment we live in are NOT limitless. Real artists paint, write, draw, sing and dance as they please within the limits of time, paper and or a stage. We must stop thinking that freedom means the lack of or absence of restraints and, start thinking like real artists.

Painting Excess Waste

Excess wastes looks like the prissy women sitting in the restaurant. They order one meal and then if it is slightly cold they send it back. They snicker about how there is “no way they could eat that." The waiter brings them a warmer plate. However, they come to the realization that what they ordered has too many carbohydrates and they are on a "low-no carb diet." The stressed waiter returns to their table making sure he doesn’t show the faintest notion of his frustrated state. By the third time around the ladies take a few bites and then push their plates away. I sit across from these ladies and watch their barely eaten food taken up and carried away, to the garbage most likely, because they refused to carry their left-over food home. This is excess waste I see when I go out and it upsets me. What is wrong with getting a doggie bag?

On page 640 in the second paragraph, “To think well….the community value,” Bruffee states that in order to be successful thinkers we must learn to converse in order to generate thought. This can be done in what he calls a community that motivates thinking. I would probably say that these communities are similar to the kind of intellectual communities found on a college campus. However, one must be able to engage in a conversation in order to gain any knowledge to progress ones thinking. Another positive impact associated with engaging in a conversation is that each participant brings a challenge to the conversation. This challenge encourages further movement in thinking.

On page 641 in paragraphs 2-3, “If thought is internalized….in its external social medium,” Bruffee’s main argument is made clear. The argument is: Thought= internalized conversation and writing=thought made public. Thus, writing is the 2cd step in the cycle that encourages conversation which in turn expands thinking. This is a very interesting concept because it is true. Whether you are engaging in a verbal conversation or reading an author’s work, you are involved in a thought process. Once this thought process begins if the individual decides to write, he or she is regurgitating that thought. This then goes into circulation for others to read and converse about thus evoking continuous thought. This simply cannot be argued against because it is what we do everyday within the academic arena; we think about something, read about it, converse with fellow classmates about the reading and then write about what we think.

Derrida: "Fear of Writing"

Derrida sometimes fears his own thoughts because they are unconventional. I believe that this fear Derrida encounters is directly linked to his "thinking outside of the box." However, I believe the best writers and the best thinkers are those who overcome this fear and embrace their unique minds. He has already stated that he does not regret what he writes and therefore, he should not fear his own thoughts.

This fear, however, that Derrida has encounters is the reason why I believe he does entrust the written word with power more than just because words are powerful. It is because his thinking is unconventional. The unconventional nature of his thoughts can be misinterpreted. This goes back to the idea that language is a slippery vehicle and Jones’s description of language as an image. The painter can paint a meaningful picture in a way that sets him apart, but its interpretation varies with each viewer.

I am one of those people who when coming into the world of individualistic thinking and writing was taken back and fearful of the thoughts that entered my mind. However, I embraced these thoughts as my own and no longer cared whether or not they were unconventional. Because of this I do understand where Derrida is coming from. Yet still, I believe thinkers should take delight in their unique minds and take pride in what they think and most importantly understand the fragility of language.

Hass and Jones Poem

Hass believes that there is no accurate way to describe a tree. I found it difficult to extract the meaning behind what Hass was saying because of his use of words. Therefore, I did not get much out of this poem. However, this lack of clarity that I found is direct evidence of how sensitive words can be. They have the power to inspire and the power to confuse. Jones, on the other hand right away states that there is “no image like the image of language.” There is nothing that can compare to language because it is painted with one meaning in mind but can be interpreted in many ways. In the last portion of the poem James concludes that once you have an idea, if you let it go then you have lost it completely. The same notion applies to words; once they have been spoken they cannot be taken back.

Both of these poets perspective on making meaning of words correlate to the fact that language is a slippery vehicle. Language is essential to life because it allows for communication. The essence of language is words. However, words have multiple meanings and therefore can be taken out of context by the reader. Language is like a vehicle. We need to vehicles, or some kind of transportation to get around or else we would be stuck where we are. Or we could walk. Language allows us to communicate with each other just as vehicles give us mobility. If used properly language can help us get where we need to go. Language is a slippery vehicle because words have multiple meanings making language subject to miscommunication.