On the "Big Red Journey" front, the coming week is the last week of classes. My first semester is, astonishingly, almost over! I'll compose a review of it at some point in the near future, but right now, as happens frequently, I find myself contemplating the bigger picture.
Life is so fragile and so tenacious. It's almost ridiculously easy to destroy any single organism, or any given population, but life continues to survive and evolve and find new ways to keep going. Life is an overwhelming force.
Human nature has an amazing capacity for the beautiful and good, and yet so often we make mistakes, our efforts fall short, we're overcome by fear, or we're hurt by someone else. Accidents and malicious acts alike cause grief. I go back and forth about whether or not I think evil actually exists as such, or whether evil behavior has roots in fear and pain.
I'm getting closer to being able to do work every single day that will help change the world for the better. I'm confident that I can and will make a difference, and that my efforts will combine with those made by others to make human life more sustainable.
But I know that I'll make mistakes and suffer failures, too. Today my sense of my human foibles is intense, and I realize that I can try my very best and sometimes, that won't be enough. I'll go looking for love in the wrong places, I'll attach myself to a solution that turns out to be impractical, I'll inadvertently do or say something that will cause pain to somebody else, I'll misunderstand, I'll become afraid and forget that courage is the belief that there are things more important than fear. On some days, my best efforts will slip through my fingers like water. I will mess up, and there is nothing I can do about that except try to clean up the mess as best as I can.
The pain of limitations is something we all have to deal with, and I can't help but wonder if, on a metaphysical level, we're infinite beings who have been molded in finite shells and placed in a finite world. I have no idea what end would be served by this, but it makes sense to me when I consider that most of what we humans want is good - food, clothing, shelter, community, freedom, love - and that our greatest mistakes are often made in pursuit of these desires.
The only conclusion I can come to is that I have to try in good faith and accept that some of my attempts will fail. There's a sort of poignant beauty in that realization that somehow lets me believe that things will be ok - we will still have love and compassion even if the world is crashing down around our heads.
26 April 2008
18 April 2008
Right to Smoke? Not in My Air!
Ok folks, I have a proposal: ban smoking in public.
I've mentioned this to a few people, most of whom have professed to think my idea silly at best, un-American at worst. "But people have a right to smoke, a right to do whatever they want to their bodies," they tell me.
I agree completely. It's none of my business if people want to kill themselves slowly with their cancer sticks. We all know that smoking is horrible for your health and disgusting besides, but if that's not enough of a deterrent for some people, so be it. (Just don't try to get me to pay for the long-term health care costs... but that's a different story.)
I don't object to the smoke that winds up in a smoker's lungs. What I object to is the smoke from a smoker's cigarette or exhalation that winds up in my lungs. I have made the choice to not smoke, but any smoker I encounter is negating my right to make that choice.
It's commonly said that "your right to throw a punch ends at my nose", meaning that the rights of an individual extend up to but not beyond the point where exercising those rights would infringe upon the rights of another individual. Let me phrase this another way: your right to smoke a cigarette ends at my air supply. It's just plain rude to force nonsmokers to breathe your smoke.
I'm not the only one to come up with this idea. As the Ithaca Journal article (see post title for link) reports, the Common Council of Ithaca is considering a ban on smoking for the Commons and other public places around the city. As Annie Tegen, of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, is quoted as saying, "the right to breathe trumps the right to smoke."
In another article, an Ithaca College sophomore who is a smoker said that she would find going downtown to be annoying if the ban were enacted, because she wouldn't be able to smoke wherever she wanted. How's that for irony? I already find going downtown annoying because I'm not able to breathe wherever I go!
It's this simple: breathing is a need; smoking is a choice. Nobody can control where cigarette smoke drifts. Most people don't want to breathe it, and they shouldn't be forced to against their will. Smoke-free laws are going into effect all over the nation - let's hope Ithaca gets on that bandwagon!
EDIT: One more link: Tobacco Free Tompkins.
I've mentioned this to a few people, most of whom have professed to think my idea silly at best, un-American at worst. "But people have a right to smoke, a right to do whatever they want to their bodies," they tell me.
I agree completely. It's none of my business if people want to kill themselves slowly with their cancer sticks. We all know that smoking is horrible for your health and disgusting besides, but if that's not enough of a deterrent for some people, so be it. (Just don't try to get me to pay for the long-term health care costs... but that's a different story.)
I don't object to the smoke that winds up in a smoker's lungs. What I object to is the smoke from a smoker's cigarette or exhalation that winds up in my lungs. I have made the choice to not smoke, but any smoker I encounter is negating my right to make that choice.
It's commonly said that "your right to throw a punch ends at my nose", meaning that the rights of an individual extend up to but not beyond the point where exercising those rights would infringe upon the rights of another individual. Let me phrase this another way: your right to smoke a cigarette ends at my air supply. It's just plain rude to force nonsmokers to breathe your smoke.
I'm not the only one to come up with this idea. As the Ithaca Journal article (see post title for link) reports, the Common Council of Ithaca is considering a ban on smoking for the Commons and other public places around the city. As Annie Tegen, of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, is quoted as saying, "the right to breathe trumps the right to smoke."
In another article, an Ithaca College sophomore who is a smoker said that she would find going downtown to be annoying if the ban were enacted, because she wouldn't be able to smoke wherever she wanted. How's that for irony? I already find going downtown annoying because I'm not able to breathe wherever I go!
It's this simple: breathing is a need; smoking is a choice. Nobody can control where cigarette smoke drifts. Most people don't want to breathe it, and they shouldn't be forced to against their will. Smoke-free laws are going into effect all over the nation - let's hope Ithaca gets on that bandwagon!
EDIT: One more link: Tobacco Free Tompkins.
15 April 2008
Mike Huckabee Comes to Cornell
Former Arkansas governor and US Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee spoke to the Cornell community tonight; his talk was entitled "In God We Trust: The Role of Faith in Politics".
I rarely pay much attention to politics. The obsession with power, electability, and the party line is a real-turn off, and I often bemoan the dearth of statesmen, as opposed to politicians. I went into this lecture knowing next to nothing about Mr. Huckabee, and came out feeling refreshed and encouraged.
Mr. Huckabee's opinions are based on sound, carefully considered logic and independent thought. I don't agree with him on every little detail, but it's clear that he has made every effort to educate himself and refuses to take the party line (or any other line) out of convenience. I found this not only eminently respectable but also a great example of true conservatism.
What do I mean by true conservatism? There's a lot of confusion over that word. Supposedly, conservatives are proponents of small government and personal responsibility (though it's true that many people who use the conservative label don't actually promote that view). Mr. Huckabee made a very important point, one which I hadn't come to as of yet on my own: our willingness as individuals to take responsibility for our lives is intimately related to the degree of government we must have. Cutting back government and slashing taxes may not be the best choice if more chaos is the result. I'm going to take that concept one step further and suggest that our success as a nation, a society, and a culture depends on how we treat each other. Laws, lawsuits, and even the Constitution can never do as much to protect us as patience, respect, and open communication.
An important caveat is that personal responsibility requires a great deal more in the way of initial effort by each individual. It takes a strong mind to constantly challenge oneself with new ideas and opinions, to try to make sound decisions about all aspects of life, and to try to contribute positively to the world. I firmly believe, however, that everyone is capable of this effort. There are any number of reasons why people might not take responsibility for themselves, but it's largely not because they lack the capacity. I'm not sure what the best way to encourage personal responsibility is, though. Maybe it's as simple as trying to live up to that ideal myself.
I rarely pay much attention to politics. The obsession with power, electability, and the party line is a real-turn off, and I often bemoan the dearth of statesmen, as opposed to politicians. I went into this lecture knowing next to nothing about Mr. Huckabee, and came out feeling refreshed and encouraged.
Mr. Huckabee's opinions are based on sound, carefully considered logic and independent thought. I don't agree with him on every little detail, but it's clear that he has made every effort to educate himself and refuses to take the party line (or any other line) out of convenience. I found this not only eminently respectable but also a great example of true conservatism.
What do I mean by true conservatism? There's a lot of confusion over that word. Supposedly, conservatives are proponents of small government and personal responsibility (though it's true that many people who use the conservative label don't actually promote that view). Mr. Huckabee made a very important point, one which I hadn't come to as of yet on my own: our willingness as individuals to take responsibility for our lives is intimately related to the degree of government we must have. Cutting back government and slashing taxes may not be the best choice if more chaos is the result. I'm going to take that concept one step further and suggest that our success as a nation, a society, and a culture depends on how we treat each other. Laws, lawsuits, and even the Constitution can never do as much to protect us as patience, respect, and open communication.
An important caveat is that personal responsibility requires a great deal more in the way of initial effort by each individual. It takes a strong mind to constantly challenge oneself with new ideas and opinions, to try to make sound decisions about all aspects of life, and to try to contribute positively to the world. I firmly believe, however, that everyone is capable of this effort. There are any number of reasons why people might not take responsibility for themselves, but it's largely not because they lack the capacity. I'm not sure what the best way to encourage personal responsibility is, though. Maybe it's as simple as trying to live up to that ideal myself.
12 April 2008
Summer Internship! etc.
I accepted an offer to be part of an innovative program called the Recycling Ag Plastics Project (RAPP) this summer! The internship is sponsored by Cornell Cooperative Extension and is based in Ithaca. There are several initiatives going on, including research to determine just how much agricultural plastic is out there and how it's disposed of, working with producers and Extension educators to get the word out, demonstrating plastic baling equipment, and all sorts of supporting activities like publishing a newsletter and website upkeep. I'll get to be part of all of it!
I'm really excited by this project for many reasons: the variety of tasks, the collaborative aspect, and the problem-solving nature of the project. Most exciting, however, is that this project is about the intersection of agriculture and the environment - one of my greatest concerns, and the aspect of agriculture that is most interesting to me currently. I'm looking forward to a very busy, very exciting summer!
---
On a completely different note, I joined an online knitting-and-crocheting community called Ravelry. I'm still learning my way around, but it seems like a really neat way to organize projects, patterns, and supplies, and to find out what other knitters/crocheters are up to. The only drawback so far is that project pictures have to be posted from online hosting, and only Flickr is free for the purpose so far. The content might not be too interesting to some of you, but it's worth taking a look around for the organization of the site, which is intuitive and well-done. Sweet deal!
I'm really excited by this project for many reasons: the variety of tasks, the collaborative aspect, and the problem-solving nature of the project. Most exciting, however, is that this project is about the intersection of agriculture and the environment - one of my greatest concerns, and the aspect of agriculture that is most interesting to me currently. I'm looking forward to a very busy, very exciting summer!
---
On a completely different note, I joined an online knitting-and-crocheting community called Ravelry. I'm still learning my way around, but it seems like a really neat way to organize projects, patterns, and supplies, and to find out what other knitters/crocheters are up to. The only drawback so far is that project pictures have to be posted from online hosting, and only Flickr is free for the purpose so far. The content might not be too interesting to some of you, but it's worth taking a look around for the organization of the site, which is intuitive and well-done. Sweet deal!
10 April 2008
Science v. Religion
There's a very interesting discussion going on in the science blogosphere about, on the one hand, a concept called "framing", and the centuries-old science versus religion debate. It begins with posts by Matt Nisbet, Sheril Kirshenbaum, and Chris Mooney, and goes on from there. Mr. Mooney launched into a discussion of framing, which is definitely a worthwhile read. For my part, I'm going to try to integrate the two issues at hand, although the "science v. religion" concept is the angle to which I've given much more thought.
Because I don't encounter it much in my daily life, I have to admit that I'm a bit shocked to see direct evidence that many people consider "science v. religion" to be an all-out war. I'm not at all surprised that there is a plethora of opinions and views, but the level of sheer vitriol gave me pause. Aside from encouraging people to consider their own emotions and logic with the same overdose of scrutiny they apply to others' positions, I don't suppose there's much to be done about that. I'll skip the usual admonishments about how venting, personal attacks, flame wars, and even old-fashioned hard-headedness add nothing to reasonable dialogue, and the platitudes about how a lack of reasonable dialogue makes me sad. To the first, we all know that for truth. To the second, who cares?
The more pertinent question is, given that some portion of the population will always be prone to the wanton expression of whatever happens to be in their heads, and given that most of us would like to maintain respectful dialogue regardless, how do those of us in the latter group respond to the former group? I can't add to what has already been written about picking your battles, being the "better man" and "taking the high road", and knowing when enough is enough; those lessons have been elucidated for generations and only remain to be learned by each individual. What I do want to consider is that the way in which one advances his argument makes a terrific difference in the way it is understood and received.
PZ Myers, in an interview he gave to the University Register at UMM, uses language and references that seem more designed to amuse than anything else. I have to admit, I totally missed the Batman references, as those of you who know me will absolutely understand. On the other hand, his use of internet/gaming jargon ("EPIC fail. Evolution FTW!") made me giggle. I speak internet; I don't speak comic books. In that light, the Batman references made me confused, and I initially read that as Mr. Myers demonstrating himself to be your usual too-smart-for-his-own-good-asshole(-scientist). The internet jargon was probably just as alienating to those who aren't familiar with it. I'm the last person on earth to advocate communicating without a sense of humor (Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal is one of my all-time favorites), and Mr. Myers's interview is a rather tame example of science communication gone awry (in fact, his language was entirely appropriate for the university newspaper context; removing it from that context and posting it on his blog did the original a disservice), but I think the point that contexts, likely v. intended reception of one's message, and allusions should be considered before publishing stands. At its heart, no matter what shades or nuances anyone attempts to add, I think this is what is meant by "framing" a message. It's a simple concept: Present what you have to say as honestly as you can in the best possible (and most accessible) light, and you'll save yourself from having to backtrack, as Mr. Mooney had to do.
On the other hand, I've very nearly had it with this "science v. religion" mess. I would love to get up on a soapbox and get everybody to go back to the basics of what science and religion essentially are, but I doubt I'd get a consensus even on that. My blog isn't much of a soapbox, but my take is that science is a tool that we use to explore and understand the physical world (and, increasingly, the metaphysical world), while religion is about our relationships to each other and to "the divine", however we choose to define that. These worldviews aren't mutually exclusive, and often serve to inform each other. Of keen interest right now, for example, is the ethical regulation of genetic testing and genetically modified organisms. Our technical ability to test for genetic defects and disease susceptibility and to modify the DNA of organisms is quite separate from opinions and decisions about whether or not we should actually do those things. The interface between science and religion can be even more complex than the issues I just mentioned, but I really don't think that anybody, no matter what his view, is well-served by the loaded, confusing, and often misleading positions put out by loyal creationists, devout scientific atheists, or anybody in between.
A little bit of critical thinking and respect would go a long way to improve the caliber of this particular discussion. And, this is where the concept of framing comes into play again. Creationists and scientists alike have treated the subject as a dichotomy that can have only one right side, and all they've succeeded at is rabble-rousing on their own side, inciting anger and hatred on the opposing side, and alienating those of us in the middle who didn't sign up for a culture war and, perhaps, don't even recognize grounds for one.
Because I don't encounter it much in my daily life, I have to admit that I'm a bit shocked to see direct evidence that many people consider "science v. religion" to be an all-out war. I'm not at all surprised that there is a plethora of opinions and views, but the level of sheer vitriol gave me pause. Aside from encouraging people to consider their own emotions and logic with the same overdose of scrutiny they apply to others' positions, I don't suppose there's much to be done about that. I'll skip the usual admonishments about how venting, personal attacks, flame wars, and even old-fashioned hard-headedness add nothing to reasonable dialogue, and the platitudes about how a lack of reasonable dialogue makes me sad. To the first, we all know that for truth. To the second, who cares?
The more pertinent question is, given that some portion of the population will always be prone to the wanton expression of whatever happens to be in their heads, and given that most of us would like to maintain respectful dialogue regardless, how do those of us in the latter group respond to the former group? I can't add to what has already been written about picking your battles, being the "better man" and "taking the high road", and knowing when enough is enough; those lessons have been elucidated for generations and only remain to be learned by each individual. What I do want to consider is that the way in which one advances his argument makes a terrific difference in the way it is understood and received.
PZ Myers, in an interview he gave to the University Register at UMM, uses language and references that seem more designed to amuse than anything else. I have to admit, I totally missed the Batman references, as those of you who know me will absolutely understand. On the other hand, his use of internet/gaming jargon ("EPIC fail. Evolution FTW!") made me giggle. I speak internet; I don't speak comic books. In that light, the Batman references made me confused, and I initially read that as Mr. Myers demonstrating himself to be your usual too-smart-for-his-own-good-asshole(-scientist). The internet jargon was probably just as alienating to those who aren't familiar with it. I'm the last person on earth to advocate communicating without a sense of humor (Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal is one of my all-time favorites), and Mr. Myers's interview is a rather tame example of science communication gone awry (in fact, his language was entirely appropriate for the university newspaper context; removing it from that context and posting it on his blog did the original a disservice), but I think the point that contexts, likely v. intended reception of one's message, and allusions should be considered before publishing stands. At its heart, no matter what shades or nuances anyone attempts to add, I think this is what is meant by "framing" a message. It's a simple concept: Present what you have to say as honestly as you can in the best possible (and most accessible) light, and you'll save yourself from having to backtrack, as Mr. Mooney had to do.
On the other hand, I've very nearly had it with this "science v. religion" mess. I would love to get up on a soapbox and get everybody to go back to the basics of what science and religion essentially are, but I doubt I'd get a consensus even on that. My blog isn't much of a soapbox, but my take is that science is a tool that we use to explore and understand the physical world (and, increasingly, the metaphysical world), while religion is about our relationships to each other and to "the divine", however we choose to define that. These worldviews aren't mutually exclusive, and often serve to inform each other. Of keen interest right now, for example, is the ethical regulation of genetic testing and genetically modified organisms. Our technical ability to test for genetic defects and disease susceptibility and to modify the DNA of organisms is quite separate from opinions and decisions about whether or not we should actually do those things. The interface between science and religion can be even more complex than the issues I just mentioned, but I really don't think that anybody, no matter what his view, is well-served by the loaded, confusing, and often misleading positions put out by loyal creationists, devout scientific atheists, or anybody in between.
A little bit of critical thinking and respect would go a long way to improve the caliber of this particular discussion. And, this is where the concept of framing comes into play again. Creationists and scientists alike have treated the subject as a dichotomy that can have only one right side, and all they've succeeded at is rabble-rousing on their own side, inciting anger and hatred on the opposing side, and alienating those of us in the middle who didn't sign up for a culture war and, perhaps, don't even recognize grounds for one.
03 April 2008
Omphaloskepsis
You can thank Merriam-Webster's Word of the Day for that gem of a post title. It simply means "naval-gazing". How cool is that?
Omphaloskepsis, the deed, is really cool too. It's something that I value highly from both a personal and social standpoint, because I think it makes a huge difference in how I treat others and how people interact generally.
Being aware of what I want and need and my gut reactions to all those things life throws at me unexpectedly has made me much more deliberate, careful, and genuine about how I relate to people. Deliberateness and carefulness might not sound like a good thing; passion is a cultural value, after all. But integrating passion with self-awareness has made me much more confident and open in my emotional expression.
I've seen so much hurt happen when people let fear and anger guide their decisions, and that's one of my chief motivations for all this navel-gazing. I really, really don't want to add to the pain and frustration in the world if I can help it.
One of my favorite examples comes from last semester, when a boy on whom I'd been crushing told me about his plans to ask another girl to be his girlfriend. Except that this forthrightness is unusual, it was very nearly a non-incident. I thanked him for his honesty and directness, and set about to get over the crush and develop our friendship. So simple! So much easier said than done!
Omphaloskepsis isn't without its challenges. I've been accused of over-analyzation on multiple occasions, and the accusations are true at least half the time. I often feel discouraged when others demonstrate a decided lack of self-awareness and respect for others, since I put so much effort into it myself. Then too, I'm human and I mess up far more often than I'd like. I try so hard, but that was never a guarantee of success. So, I try to keep a lid on my tendency to over-analyze, hope that by treating people well, I'll inspire some more gracious behavior in others, and apologize promptly when I do make a mistake.
That said, it's scary to approach people about any given bone of contention! So many times I've wished that I could forget about it, or run away... anything at all to not have to deal with the apprehension of having something unpleasant to say, or the fear of hurting someone. What I've found, though, is that the fear is usually worse than the doing, and that direct dealings cause far less pain than avoidance. I'm still practicing, and far from perfect, but it does get easier.
Omphaloskepsis, the deed, is really cool too. It's something that I value highly from both a personal and social standpoint, because I think it makes a huge difference in how I treat others and how people interact generally.
Being aware of what I want and need and my gut reactions to all those things life throws at me unexpectedly has made me much more deliberate, careful, and genuine about how I relate to people. Deliberateness and carefulness might not sound like a good thing; passion is a cultural value, after all. But integrating passion with self-awareness has made me much more confident and open in my emotional expression.
I've seen so much hurt happen when people let fear and anger guide their decisions, and that's one of my chief motivations for all this navel-gazing. I really, really don't want to add to the pain and frustration in the world if I can help it.
One of my favorite examples comes from last semester, when a boy on whom I'd been crushing told me about his plans to ask another girl to be his girlfriend. Except that this forthrightness is unusual, it was very nearly a non-incident. I thanked him for his honesty and directness, and set about to get over the crush and develop our friendship. So simple! So much easier said than done!
Omphaloskepsis isn't without its challenges. I've been accused of over-analyzation on multiple occasions, and the accusations are true at least half the time. I often feel discouraged when others demonstrate a decided lack of self-awareness and respect for others, since I put so much effort into it myself. Then too, I'm human and I mess up far more often than I'd like. I try so hard, but that was never a guarantee of success. So, I try to keep a lid on my tendency to over-analyze, hope that by treating people well, I'll inspire some more gracious behavior in others, and apologize promptly when I do make a mistake.
That said, it's scary to approach people about any given bone of contention! So many times I've wished that I could forget about it, or run away... anything at all to not have to deal with the apprehension of having something unpleasant to say, or the fear of hurting someone. What I've found, though, is that the fear is usually worse than the doing, and that direct dealings cause far less pain than avoidance. I'm still practicing, and far from perfect, but it does get easier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
