"Another Ten Years Go By" --Queen Parody

Tom walks warily down the street,
With the brim pulled way down low.
Aint no sound but the sound of his pod,
Lap tops ready to go.
Are you ready, are you ready for this?
Are you ready for the robots, yet?

Out of the sky line the robots come,
Taking over the world. YEAHHH.

Another 10 years go by, Another 10 years,
And another 10 years, and another 10 years, another 10 years go by!
“HEY! I’M GUNNA GET YOU TOO!”
Another 10 years go by.

How do you think I’m gunna learn to live,
without my brain turned on?
You took me for everything that I had,
And hooked me up like a phone!

Are you happy? Are you satisfied?
The world is pretty much a machine.
Out of the sky line the robots come,
Taking over the streets.

Another 10 years go by, Another 10 years go by,
And the humans are gone, yeah the humans are gone,
Cause another 10 years went by.
“HEY! I’M GUNNA GET YOU, TOO!”
Another 10 years go by.

There are plenty of ways
you can save the world,
like walk instead of drive.
You can hike it
You can bike it
You can go outside and make them robots mad.
There is still time, yes it’s not too late
We’re waiting on the world to change

Out of the skyline the robots see
The humans aren’t gunna retreat.

The humans are back again! And the humans are back and the humans are back, the humans are back again!

In 2012 it is being said by scientists that without major change in the next 3 years the climate will have reached a point where it will be "too late." 

Barely half the US public thinks carbon pollution could warm Earth. That’s 20 percent less than in 2007, and lower than at any point in the last 12 years. In a Pew Research Center poll, Americans ranked climate dead last out of 20 top issues, behind immigration and trade policy.

Rational Change

Becoming far more than light dinner table conversation, the topic of global climate change is seen commonly in our everyday lives. Our culture over the past decade or so has been barraged with information concerning climate change. Some have chosen to accept this information that our planet is getting warmer due to our behavior, while others have chosen to deny this information as being fact. People have speculated reasons as to why so many people cannot believe this scientific information as being accurate. In the Wired article Kari Norgaard states that "Climate change is disturbing, It's something we don't want to think about. So what we do in our everyday lives is create a world where it's not there, and keep it distant." Norgaard informs us that certain companies even back the denial of climate effects and changes, one of those companies heading that is Exxon Mobile.  Going on he states that since we do not see the effects of climate changes in our everyday lives it then becomes less serious of an issue, despite the fact that all over the world that effects are being clearly seen. Greenhouse gasses were rising rapidly as a result of our burning of fossil fuels. It is being proclaimed now, by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) chairmen, that without change by 2012 that there is no turning back.

So since it can be so widely accepted as a truth and confirmed by scientists, why do a growing number of americans have such a difficulty believing it? Norgaard again states that "Our response to disturbing information is very complex. We negotiate it. We don't just take it in and respond in a rational way." Qualifying the facts on climate change as "disturbing information" seems a very accurate definition and it seems strange to think that which determines so much about our future is just being dismissed by people its level of disturbance. The journalist from Wired summed the interview up nicely at the end by saying "So we don’t want to believe climate change is happening, feel guilty that it is, and don’t know what to do about it? So we pretend it’s not a problem?" And it was these questions that boiled the content of Norgaard's interview. 

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/12/climate-psychology/

http://climatedenial.org/

Kris Kuksi

Kris Kuksi is one of the most interesting artists i have ever come across in my life. Kris spent his youth in rural seclusion and isolation along with a blue-collar, working mother, two much-older brothers and an absent father. Open country, sparse trees, and alcoholic stepfather, perhaps paved the way for an individual saturated in imagination and introversion. The grotesque to him, as it seemed, was beautiful.

Reaching adulthood, his art blossomed and created a breakthrough of personal freedom from the negative environment experienced during his youth. He soon discovered his distaste for the typical American life and pop culture, feeling that he has always belonged to the ‘Old World’. Yet, Kris’ work is about a new wilderness, refined and elevated, visualized as a cultivation emerging from the corrupt and demoralized fall of modern-day society. A place where new beginnings, new wars, new philosophies, and new endings exist. In personal reflection, he feels that in the world today much of mankind is oftentimes frivolous and fragile, being driven primarily by greed and materialism. He hopes that his art exposes the fallacies of Man, unveiling a new level of awareness to the viewer.

The complexity of Kris' art usually comes into question during interviews or gallery inquiries. When asked about his art, Kris' responds:

"The overall layout is always planned ahead of time, but the small intricate things are improvised as I go. The ideas mostly are there before I begin but sometimes the subject comes together after a lot of work has already taken place. In the sculptures, there are certain rules. There has to be an axis in which all things follow, meaning if there are organic items (the objects representative of living things), they follow their own free form axis. Meaning they can be titled or reclining. But any structural effects such as building or trusses must be parallel and level. A good example of this is "The Decision", the figure follows it's own free form, reclining in a half circular fashion. But the objects seen in the torso area are all upright and level. Any smaller organic figures are also free of this axis."

His works definitely share his thoughts on psychological issues, religious ideology, and aesthetics. He never strays from the honesty within himself though he has had to shed many masks in order to do so. He finds the materialistic world of popular culture as the food for self-indulgence, self-escapism, and shallow-heartedness. Kuksi is a true artist, obsessed with exposing the illusions we created as a result of fear in our minds and greed in our hearts and eyes. Looking deep into his art, we can find lessons structured to guide our culture back to individualism and sanity... the irony of Kris Kuksi. I find the works of Kris Kuksi to be both mimetic and emotionalist art.

I also found an interesting quote on Darkroastedblend.com tying Kuksi to Philip K. Dick.

"Art of Kris Kuksi falls in that category: wildly unpredictable and rich creations, ominous in their very amount of detail, often 'unspeakable' in a very Lovecraft-ian way, pregnant with the idea that perhaps the world is more twisted than most artists care to admit. Something that Philip K. Dick might have conjured in his worst moments of battling the 'demons of the mind', or Medieval Architects would aspire to, if they were given more creative freedom." -Dark Roasted Blend.com

My question to you

Does this art bother you? Or does it touch you on a different level of emotion?


Works Cited
"The Art of the Grotesque." Dark Roasted Blend. Web. 09 Dec. 2009. .
"Kris Kuksi - Sculpture, Drawings, Paintings -." BeinArt Surreal Art Collective. Web. 09 Dec. 2009. .
"Kris Kuksi : Sculpture." Kris Kuksi : Home. Web. 09 Dec. 2009. .

Kinetic Sculptures

For my art blog I wanted to discuss a contemporary work of art that I thought was particularly significant to our discussions in class. One of the major themes we have considered is what constitutes specifics forms/objects as art. Throughout our classes my the opinion was that everything contains characteristics that can be expressed through art. More specifically I believe that art comes in almost every form imaginable, even functional ones, and is not defined by an objects purpose but the aesthetic value expressed from it. One example I previously used was cars, they serve the purpose as a mode of transportation but are also built with artistic intentions to appeal to individuals. It is a functional object that contains unique artistic traits. Using a website called "Stumbleupon.com" I searched the internet for art that would best portray the relationship between functionality and artistic expression. What I I found was Theo Jansen and his kinetic sculptures.

"Stumble Upon" is a website that prompts a toolbar on your internet browser which redirects your webpage to other websites based on what you have selected as your points of interest. I chose art as my point of interest and began stumbling through websites eventually landing on a youtube video of a man in a BMW commercial. This mans name is Theo Jansen, an Artist and Kinetic Sculpture who builds functional forms of art. Theo Jansen was born on March 14th, 1948 in Hague, Netherlands and is a Dutch artist that uses engineering to create skeletons of animals which he lets loose on the beaches of the Netherlands. These sculptures are large spindly creatures that fuse art and science into inanimate forms of life. Theo's works are "wind-powered automatons that exhibit an incredibly lifelike dexterity" which use pipping, wood, and wing like sails to provide kinetic energy bringing his creatures to life (Inhabitat.com).

As Theo Jansen states "The walls between art and engineering exist only in our minds" (Wikipedia.com). Since 1990 Theo has reminded us of this time and time again creating ever inventive forms of artificial life that roam the beaches of the Netherlands. Following the same principals of evolution, each generation of Theo's creatures, called Strandbeests, is subject to the same forces of selection with successful forms moving forwards to create newer improved designs. Theo's menagerie of creatures walk without assistance on beaches, powered by the wind which is captured by gossamer wings that flap pumping air into bottles which create the kinetic energy used to bring the forms to life. Growing ever more creative Theo is developing new Strandbeests that use "primitive logic gates" to sense dangerous situations such as water or loose sand. Using feelers to change direction Theo's beasts are even learning to "hammer themselves into the sand on sensing approaching storms" (Wired, par. 1).

Originally a scientist Jansens roots lie in computer programming where he created a program 17 years ago. This program contains four-legged creatures that race against each other to identify survivors fit enough to reproduce. Wanting to express this idea in its physical form Theo found his own "alternative to the biological cell" in the form of plastic tubes (Wired, par. 2). Noting that animals contain the same mechanics as machines Jansen began to produce artificial life using plastics that he compares to proteins, a material that is flexible and multifunctional in the biological viewpoint of organisms. Despite starting from a computer program Jansen uses cable ties, nylon strings and adhesive tape to make functional free-forms of art that mainly follow evolution by progressing through trial and error. His creatures have even reached the point to where they can move in the absence of wind, storing compressed air in bottles using it later to keep moving. Theo's ultimate goal is to create a herd of these autonomist creatures mimicking life in its simplest form, the transfer of energy.

I chose this article because I thought that it best describe how science and art can be applied to something that is functional yet artistically appealing. I also thought that this article was interesting because of how Jansen imitates life and the basic laws of nature. I feel like it would be a very novel experience to watch one of these creatures walk by and essentially survive in it's environment. With adapted appendages this art speaks the same language that biological forms do yet the are completely inanimate. Sometimes it's important to view different topics from various perspective to fully realize what your focusing on.

Works Cited

Chino, Mike. "Strandbeest: Theo Jansen's Kinetic Sculptures." Inhabitat: Design Will Save The World. Inhabitat, 9 Aug. 2009. Web. 6 Dec. 2009. .

Jansen, Theo. "Strandbeest." Strandbeest. Theo Jansen. Web. 6 Dec. 2009. .

Sandhana, Lakshmi. "Wild Things Are On The Beach." Wired.com. Wired, 24 Jan. 2005. Web. 6 Dec. 2009. .

"Theo Jansen." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Ed. Public. Wikipedia. Web. 6 Dec. 2009. .

New Species of Birds

It is very common to have a bird feeder in your backyard because a lot of people enjoy watching birds up close right from a window, but recently it has been found that this simple act is actually starting to split a certain species of bird in two, according to Martin Schaefer. The Central European Blackcap Warbler is a small bird that spends its summers in southern Germany and Austria. These bird's migration routes are genetically determined and they normally naturally fly 1,000 miles south to Spain in the winter where it is warmer and there is more food.

Over the past 50 years, this natural routine has changed, now 10% to 30% of the species fly, believe it or not, northwest 360 miles to the U.K. for winter. They have been doing this because they are able to find plenty of food supplied by humans in the form of seed and suet. Since the flight from the U.K. to Germany is so much shorter than the fight from Spain to Germany, the birds coming back from the U.K. arrive sooner which makes them more likely to mate with each other. This is causing the birds to develop different characteristics and is called reproductive isolation. Some of the identifying characteristics of the U.K. warblers are shorter rounded wings which allow them to maneuver better without having to fly as far as the spain migrating birds. They also are developing smaller and skinnier beaks because they do not need to eat large fruit and olives. The European Warblers have not split into two different species yet, but could possibly if these changes keep happening and people keep feeding the birds like they are. When the U.K. birds and Spain birds are unable to successfully mate anymore is when they will officially be two different species.

Since we have been studying Darwin and evolution in class i thought this study was very relevant. It shows how much of an impact we are having on our planet that by simply feeding birds we can possibly create a new species. this also shows how delicate our planet is. This study is also interesting because of how fast these changes in the birds are happening. The articles said that the birds started migrating to the U.K. in the 1960's which is only about 50 years ago. Darwin believed that it took much longer than this for a species to change so much, but he probably wasn't taking into account the effect we humans have on other species. I am a strong believer in the theory of evolution so this study makes perfect sense to me and i believe that it is legitimate.

My primary source was an article from Wired magazine. The information from Softpedia was based off of the Wired article so it was virtually the same, just constructed differently. The article from U.S. News and World report was different from the Wired article in that is talked about genetics more. Even though all three of my sources were very similar, I found Wired to be the most straight forward and since I trust Wired magazine for giving me dependable information, I liked it the best.





"How Feeding Birds Splits Them into New Species - The process is being observed by scientists - Softpedia." Latest news - Softpedia. Web. 07 Dec. 2009. <http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-Feeding-Birds-Splits-Them-into-New-Species-128859.shtml>.

Keim, Brandon. "Feeding Birds Could Create New Species." Wired. 3 Dec. 2009. Web. 6 Dec. 2009. <http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/12/bird-feeding-evolution/>.

Milius, Susan. "Bird Feeders, Migration Change May Split a Species." US News and World Report. 4 Dec. 2009. Web. 6 Dec. 2009. <http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2009/12/04/bird-feeding-migration-change-may-split-a-species.html>.

Andy Goldsworthy

Andy Goldsworthy is an artist who lives in Scotland. He works exclusively in nature, using only natural resources and materials that he finds during his long walks, such as leaves, rocks, ice, reeds, and anything else you can think of that you may find in nature. The majority of the pieces he creates are temporary, and therefore cannot be sold. To overcome this, Goldsworthy takes photos of his work -a whole different piece of art in and of itself- and sells them. He also has released a few movies, that documents the construction of many of his pieces, and also gives him an opportunity to voice what his artwork and what it means to him.
This I think is the most important part of Goldsworthy’s work. For him, creating his work in nature is self-gratifying. It is made clear that the work he does if for himself, and that the photography and movie sales are there because like everyone else, he needs to make a living for himself and his family. I find that this sets him apart from other artists. Certainly, other artists create art for self-gratifying reasons, but it doesn’t seem as genuine as Goldsworthy’s pieces do. With all other art, there is a feeling that in the back of these artists’ minds, they are ultimately wanting it to sell. Goldsworthy doesn’t come across that way, which I think is difficult to find these days.
In Rivers and Tides, Goldsworthy’s most popular movie release, he talks about how his pieces keep him rooted and centered.
The video clip following is the scene of Rivers and Tides where he is speaking about his work, and why he does what he does. It sums up Goldsworthy’s mission in a few short minutes.

None of Goldsworthy’s pieces make use of tools of any kind, outside of his hands. He uses no mortar, nails, or any substance or material that has been processed by man prior to its application. This gives a whole new meaning to his work, that his work is truly born out of nature. It offers the statement that all the resources we need to create such beauty are out there, and one just needs the right perspective and lens to see it through in order for that beauty to come out. I find Goldsworthy to be a visionary, in a very primitive way. People go out of their ways to find innovation through new materials, inventions and so on… but Goldsworthy is still able to find innovation and inspiration in what is older than mankind itself.


Works Cited:

Youtube
National Gallery of Art
Rivers and Tides official website

Darwin Revelation

We witness today more than ever the natural selection of social status. Our society revolves around our class status the same way that Darwin discovered that a female finch chooses which male finch to mate with based on the size, appearance and survival skills of the finch. Social status is similar to Darwin's idea of natural slection because we still base our opinions on beauty and class.
Compared with Darwin's idea of natural selection, we still judge one another based on our success and our status in life. Social status and class are important today since it is known that the class you are born into, either lower class, lower-middle, middle class, upper-middle class or upper class, is typically the class that you will remain in. "Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution" (Natural Selection). These different social standards that we are born into segregate our world by income levels, which prevents some from moving up in the world the way that a finch with a smaller beak has a more difficult time attracting a female finch to mate with.
Most people are middle class, making somewhere between fifty thousand and seventy-five thousand annually in the United States. Our government runs the United States, so that we are born into natural selection not only by our appearance and ability to attract another to reproduce with, but also through our income levels because it is common that the class that you are born into is the class you remain in. People who are born into a wealthy family are given oppertunities that people who are born into the lower income class are not given. They have security that the government protects by lowering the taxes for the wealthy and raising them for the middle class, which doesn't make sense and is the reason for why people have a difficult time becoming a part of a higher income level class.
Darwin's theory of natural selection will always have an impact on our society because it is never going to disappear form our world. All species are going to have a certain "type" that is more common and popular and has more of a chance surviving than others in the same species. In humans we don't only see it through our physical appearance, but also with success and where we are placed within the set class status of the United States.

"Natural Selection." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection. 4 Dec. 2009.

Jen Stark

(Over and Out / 19" x 19" x 5" / hand-cut paper / 2008)


Jen Stark is a contemporary artist whose majority of work involves creating paper sculptures. She also works with drawing and animation. She gets her inspiration from fractals, wormholes, and MRI scans. All of her paper sculptures are cut by hand, Her work frequently reflects an object’s ability to appear bland on the surface, yet reveal a hidden system of patterning and color.

I was drawn to her artwork when I saw it online, I had never seen such a complex use for paper. Let alone any that were as interesting as these sculptures. It is very interesting to me to see how something so simple be used in such an uncommon way. Especially since all of her sculptures are cut by hand not with lasers or machines. I also loved her color choices, they are very bright bet they all seem to work well together. After looking at her website the sculpture I liked the most was Over and Out (pictured above). The overall shape is very unusual, the colors caught my eye immediately and I found it very aesthetically pleasing. I could not imagine cutting out all of those individual pieces of paper.


(Purple / 20" x 20" / hand-cut paper / 2009)

I thought that this art was best represented in the formalist theory, it is a "manipulation of an artistic medium that is capable of producing a unique and arresting response in the aesthetically attuned audience member." I feel that this described the art the most, since it is original and not trying to represent something else. I feel that this would be considered art because of the creativity behind the artwork, and how it is something that is more original, seeing as how it is paper, which is a medium that is usually used as a base for art, not the art itself.

In class we talked about the revival of art, how it has progressed, and new ways of expressing oneself. I think that this definitely fits this description, I think that using paper as the art itself is very innovative and a very ambitious project to take on.

"Streaming Gradient" by Jen Stark from Jen Stark on Vimeo.

McCulloch, Adam. "Jen Stark's Paper Sculptures Explore Fractals, Wormholes, and Dead Bodies." Wired News. 25 Sept. 2007. Web. 04 Dec. 2009. .

"Sculpture." Jen Stark. 2009. Web. 03 Dec. 2009. .

My question is: Would you consider this formalist? Is this even art? Or would it fall under another category of maybe a craft or hobby?

Milking Rabbits?!

You've heard of milking cows and goats and sheep, but what about rabbits? The Netherlands-based biotech firm, Pharming, is "ready to start commercially milking rabbits." But this doesn't mean that you are going to be finding rabbit cheese on supermarket shelves. These genetically engineered rabbits are being milked to produce a potentially life saving drug.

These rabbits have been genetically engineered to produce a human protein called C1 inhibitor. A drug created from this protein can be used to treat people with hereditary angioedema. This is a rare, potentially fatal genetic disorder caused by a deficiency of the plasma protein C1 inhibitor. It is characterized by swelling of the extremities, face, trunk, abdomen and upper airway, which can cause severe pain and potential death.

One of the only treatments currently available is C1 inhibitor concentrate obtained from donor blood. While this is a useful treatment, complications can arise in the form of blood viruses and limited resources. One possible solution to these problems is developing a drug from the milk of genetically engineered rabbits. Because the protein is produced in the milk, there is no chance of contamination from viruses, and because you are not restrained by limited resources of donor blood, the protein is produced in nearly unlimited quantities.

A rabbit can produce on average 120 milliliters of milk a day, and in the modified rabbits, each liter contains 12 grams of human C1 inhibitor. This is a readily available, contaminant free source of the protein needed. Pharming has been milking rabbits for years, and they have recently developed the drug Rhucin as a treatment for hereditary angioedema. The company submitted the drug for market approval in September, and an official verdict is expected some time next year. If the drug is approved, the company would start milking a herd of about a thousand rabbits, which would produce around 1,440 grams of C1 inhibitor a day.

In regards to the ethics of this new discovery, the rabbits "stay relaxed and appear to suffer no discomfort during milking." They are milked using mini pump machines very similar to those used in milking cows, simply on a smaller scale.

These Dutch bunnies aren't the first animals milked in the name of human health. A farm in Russia recently milked mice to produce human breast milk substitutes, and are hoping to advance towards producing the protein in goats. But rabbits are well suited to producing complex proteins that can hopefully lead to other new medicines; transgenic bunnies are currently being investigated for potential treatments for stroke victims and organ transplant patients. The breeding processes are faster than goats and cattle, and, as mentioned above, the milk production is sufficient for the desired needs.

For more information, see the following sources used:

Group, Pharming. "Pharming Recombinant Human C1 Inhibitor: Results In Pre-clinical Ischaemic Reperfusion Model Confirm Potential For New Indications." 22 October 2009. Pharming Group NV. 1 December 2009 <http://www.pharming.com/index.php?act=medi>.

Owen, James. "Rabbits Milked for Human Protein; Drug Soon for Sale?" 1 December 2009. National Geographic. 1 December 2009 <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091201-rabbits-milk-human-protein-drug.html>.

U.S. Hereditary Angioedema Association. 2009. 1 December 2009 <http://www.haea.org/index.php>.

Is technology capable of evolution?

When Darwin worked his theory of evolution, and that the fittest survive, the notion of “Artificial Intelligence” was not even a whisper in the most radical scientists’ dreams of the time. Darwin and his peers were working with the natural world; the only world they knew of. However, that creation of artificial intelligence (AI) in the late 20th century brought along a fresh set of goals and dreams for scientists working with intelligent computers. For the last five decades, and possibly more, people have fantasized about computers being able to carry out human tasks; to be able to feel emotions, empathize with them, and relate to people on an emotional level. It is a thrilling prospect, but it also creates dangers that are for the most part unforeseen by people until it is too late. I plan to talk about what could happen if technology were to evolve too far, to the point where it could evolve itself.
David Linden follows Darwin’s theory of evolution explicitly when he is discussing the evolution of the human brain in his book, “The Accidental Mind.” Linden uses an ice cream cone as a metaphor, stating that as time passed and the human brain developed, lobes and components were piled on top of one another while the less developed portions of the brain remained at the bottom, but still retain their usefulness. What would happen, if scientists and engineers were able to create an artificial mind so complex and self sustaining, that it would evolve on it’s own? Virtually, it would repeat the process that Linden described in “Accidental Mind” and be constantly building on itself to become a more intelligent, more technical organism? An example of this could be a robot or form of computer that is physically able to alter it’s processors and computing mechanisms, to ultimately raise it’s level of consciousness and comprehend more of it’s immediate environment. What if, in the distant future, a robot could teach itself to feel emotions? This is the concept that the movie I, Robot grapples with. Based on Isaac Asimov’s novel, the movie tells the story of what would happen in the future if robots (who were always used as servants to humans) were able to develop a conscious and rebel against and injustices imposed on them. The following clip is a key scene from the movie, in which a robot is being questioned for the murder of a scientist.

The clip here questions a robots capability to willingly commit murder. Even if they know it is wrong, Sonny makes the viewer think about the choice the robot would make. Would a robot follow its duty all the way to the end like it has been instructed, or will it be able to ethically say that it is not okay with following through with the instructions given?
Philip K. Dick’s story To Serve The Master takes evolving AI to a different level. In the story, Applequist (the lead protagonist) meets a robot - who were long thought to have been systematically destroyed- and begins to make repairs at the robots request. During that time, the robot tells Applequist about how the war turned out centuries ago, how there was a battle between the Leisurists (those who believed in the right to own a robot as a companion and servant) and the Moralists (those who believe that owning a robot makes the whole world lazy and useless), and how the Moralists won, and robots were hence destroyed. However, later in the story, we find out from a human that the war was actually between robots and humans, and the humans defeated the robots after several years and thousands of lives. Dick infers that the robots have evolved to the point where they are capable of manipulation and deceit, characteristics that are never seen in artificial intelligence.
William Calvin argues that humanity survived by getting smarter, by becoming more aware of their environment. “How did we cope? By getting smarter. The neuro­physi­ol­ogist William Calvin argues persuasively that modern human cognition—including sophisticated language and the capacity to plan ahead—evolved in response to the demands of this long age of turbulence. According to Calvin, the reason we survived is that our brains changed to meet the challenge: we transformed the ability to target a moving animal with a thrown rock into a capability for foresight and long-term planning. In the process, we may have developed syntax and formal structure from our simple language.” (Cascio, www.atlantic.com)
But what if robots could develop the same emotional capacity to survive? In this lifetime, perhaps we’ll never know. But that hasn’t stopped people like Asimov and Dick from trying to figure it out.

Works Cited:

Dick, Philip. The Philip K Dick Reader. New York: Citadel, 1987. Print.

Cascio, Jamais. "Get Smarter." The Atlantic, July/August. 2007.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/intelligence

Linden, David. The Accidental Mind. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2008. Print.

Reborn Coma Man’s Words May Be Bogus

November 23rd it was discovered that a man named Rom Houben was misdiagnosed after a car accident that was thought to have put him into a deep coma. For 23 years he was actually conscious but unable to communicate. “I shall never forget the day when they discovered what was truly wrong with me, it was my second birth,” Mr. Houben, now 46, was quoted as saying (Castle).

Now, scientists are debating weather or not he was actually telling his story or not. Rom Houben’s account of his ordeal, repeated in news stories since appearing in Der Spiegel, appears to be delivered with assistance from an aide who helps guide his finger to letters on a flat computer keyboard. Called “facilitated communication,” that technique has been widely discredited, and is not considered scientifically valid. “If facilitated communication is part of this, and it appears to be, then I don’t trust it,” said Arthur Caplan, director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Bioethics. “I’m not saying the whole thing is a hoax, but somebody ought to be checking this in greater detail. Any time facilitated communication of any sort is involved, red flags fly” (Keim).

Houben has since proven able to answer yes-or-no questions with slight movements of his foot. It’s a tremendous accomplishment, and raises the chilling possibility that as many as four in 10 people considered utterly comatose may be misdiagnosed.

It was a lucky coincidence. Steven Laureys, a Belgian neurologist, had heard about the case. Laureys, who heads the Coma Science Group at the University of Liege, had long suspected that many patients who are in a coma are in fact conscious, at least intermittently, but that their awareness goes undetected. When Laureys pushed the man into an MRI tube, large areas of the brain were lit up on the monitor. The cerebrum, with its gray matter, was apparently only slightly damaged, leading Laureys to the conclusion that the mind of the man in the seemingly empty shell of a body was in fact largely intact (Dworschak).

However, although he can communicate with movements of his foot, people are still very skeptical "You see this woman who’s not only holding his hand, but what she’s doing is directing his fingers and looking directly at the keyboard. She’s pressing down on the keyboard, pressing messages for him. He has nothing to do with it.” Facilitated communication could only be considered credible if the facilitator didn’t look at the keyboard or screen while supporting Houben’s hand, and helped him type messages in response to questions she had not heard, thus ensuring that Houben’s responses are entirely his own (Dworschak).

Houben survived by learning to live with the small amount of information that had remained accessible to his senses. He studied the goings-on in his nursing home as painstakingly , the quirky mannerisms of his fellow patients in the common room, the doctors' appearances in his room and the chatter of the nurses, who had no qualms about saying whatever they wanted to in front of Houben, who was supposedly incapable of hearing them. "It made me an expert on human relations," Houben writes (Keim).


Sources:

Castle, Stephen. "Misdiagnosed With Coma, Belgian Man Communicates After 23 Years." The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 23 Nov. 2009. Web. 03 Dec. 2009.

Link

Dworschak, Manfred. "'My Second Birth': Discovering Life in Vegetative Patients." SPIEGEL ONLINE. 25 Nov. 2009. Web. 03 Dec. 2009.

Link

Keim, Brandon. "Reborn Coma Man’s Words May Be Bogus." Wired News. 24 Nov. 2009. Web. 03 Dec. 2009.

Link

Darwin & Technology

Throughout our class we have discussed many themes based on our studies of Charles Darwin. More specifically we have looked at the hot topic of evolution and creationism. During our classes I typically entertained the theory of evolution much more than I did creationism; Karl Sims describing evolution being the repeated cycle of reproduction with variation and selection of the most fit organisms (par. 2.1). Looking at this definition I began to ponder about our future. My revelation was that Darwin's theory of evolution has risen us up to a level of control where we produce technology that contradicts the evolutionary purpose of adapting. Based on our studies of Charles Darwin I wonder where evolution will take us in the future?

We, the human race, have evolved into the dominant species on Earth and have continued to grow to the point where we adapt our environment to ourselves rather than adapting to it. I found this thought very interesting because as De Candolle states in the book "Darwin", "all nature is at war, one organism with another, or with external nature" (82.) With exception to fighting with each other we have essentially dominated almost every conner of the globe using technological innovations. Humans have reached a height in evolution to the point where we can apply our knowledge and create technologies and equipment to adapt our environment to our own needs. Compare this short amount of time to to the thousands of generations it would take to adapt our bodies to a given place and you can say we have come a long way.

This technological crouch that we put on evolution is becoming more evident than ever. With globalization and the international merging of economies, not to mention the demand for mass communication, it is easy to say we rely heavily on technology, more specifically computers. I realized this when I was staring at my own computer in class when my screen saver popped up. The screen saver I have is called Electric Sheep which is a series pixels that morph into different structures, textures, and motions. I remembered someone describing this to me who said it imitates evolution. Looking into Electric Sheep I found that it uses "evolutionary techniques of variation and selection to create complex simulated structures, textures, and motions for use in computer graphics and animation" (Karl Sims, par. 1). More specifically the process involves the use of algorithmic and mathematical methods to generate complex models with nearly infinite levels of detail.

Similar to biological evolution, simulated evolution uses the same concepts of genotypes and phenotypes. It includes the same process of expressing phenotypes generated from genotypes, selecting the fittest phenotype, and reproducing it to generate new genotypes with respect to variation that are random as apposed to being general. What this means is an image (sheep) is produced from a genetic algorithm, or DNA in biological terms, and reproduces a variation of that information with another sheep which will entail the next image. As this process is repeated the image is varied based on those altered algorithms. Creating these fractal images is simply simulating evolution by interpolating/combining the sheep's fractal code with another sheep which is loosely called mating or breeding. Stated by Edward J. Bedwell and David S. Ebert,"This sketch presents a system that combines implicit surfaces, as modeling primitives, with genetic programming to facilitate automated generation of exceedingly complex models" (Artificial Evolution of Implicit Surfaces)

Since when were we able to mate or breed technology and what does that mean for our future? Apparently its been happening for a while says Jamais Cascio, "It’s visible in the hive mind of the Internet, in the powerful tools for simulation and visualization that are jump-starting new scientific disciplines." He had the same revelation I did, that no matter what happens in our future we now posses the tools to survive, "we don’t have to rely solely on natural evolutionary processes to boost our intelligence, we can do it ourselves" (Get Smarter). We have now evolved to be able to not only change our environment to suit our needs but also to where we can imitate evolution itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e7lPYTIaRQ

Work Cited

Bedwell, Edward J. "International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques." Artificial Evolution of Implicit Surfaces (1998). Print.

Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid? - The Atlantic." The Atlantic: Breaking News, Analysis and Opinion on politics, business, culture, international, science, technology, food and society. 6 Feb. 2007. Web.

Darwin, Charles. "Selections from Darwin's Work." pp 67-254 in Darwin. 3rd ed. Philip Appleman, ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2001.

Dick, Philip. The Philip K Dick Reader. New York: Citadel, 1987. Print. Lyell, Charles. Principals of Geology. New York: W.W. Norton, 2001. Print.

Insolentdragon. "You Tube- Electric Sheep." You Tube. You Tube, 28 Feb. 2007. Web. 1 Dec. 2009. .

Sims, Karl. "International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques." Artificial Evolution for Computer Graphics (1991): 319-21. Print.

Natural Selection and Evolution in Bacteria

Darwin devoted much of his life to understanding and furthering the world knowledge of natural selection (Mayr 24). By studying the variants in many different species of animals, Darwin eventually concluded that these given animals experienced natural and evolutionary changes in size, body structure, and habits. Thinking deeper into natural selection and evolutionary change, I realize that cells must make evolutionary changes as well as the host being in which they reside. Let’s look a bit smaller into the world of cellular organisms, for they, too, experience and undergo natural selective changes in the evolutionary process (Darwin 128).

Examples of natural selection processes are well documented in life forms that have very rapid life cycles, such as bacteria. Bacteria are tiny, single-celled prokaryotic organisms. They reproduce quickly and therefore evolve quickly, even within a few weeks of their life cycle. Although many types of bacteria are helpful to human and animal health, some cause infectious diseases such as strep throat, ear infections, influenza, and tooth decay. These differences in the structure and purpose of bacteria are examples of evolutionary differences (Neese 462).
Natural selection processes in disease-causing bacteria are widely documented. For example, a person who is ill because of disease-causing bacteria can become well when given antibiotic drugs which destroy the bacteria in the person’s body. Bacteria that were once fought off by a particular type of antibiotic drug become resistant, or become used to, the given drug (over time). The first time the drug is used, most of the bacteria are killed, but some of them can survive, if they have a gene or genes that allow them to withstand the drug's effects even somewhat.

The bacteria that survive are better adapted to deal with that particular type of antibiotic drug, thus portraying significant signs of an evolutionary adaptation. If the surviving bacteria are able to reproduce inside the person’s body (for instance, if the patient stops taking antibiotics early), then the next generation of bacteria is better suited to deal with the antibiotic drug as well. If the drug is used again, the bacteria will be more resistant to the drug; more will survive and be able to reproduce and the person remains ill. That’s when a doctor will try a different type of antibiotic. Hopefully the bacteria will not be well adapted to the other drug, will be destroyed, and the person will get well. However, over the last 50 years doctors have had to make antibiotics stronger and stronger to deal with these quickly evolving microbes. Today, strains of bacteria have developed that are resistant to antibiotic drugs, so scientists are always trying to develop more effective medicines.







This video helps to further explain the process in which bacteria can undergo the process of evolution in a human host. Specifically, the video talks about tuberculosis and its variants due to vaccination in a Russian prison. I found this video to be informative and visually helpful. This is only one video of 6 relating to the topic.

WORKS CITED

"Antibiotic Resistance of Bacteria: An Example of Evolution in Action? - Answers in Genesis." Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics. Web. 01 Dec. 2009. .

Darwin, Charles. "Selections from Darwin's Work." pp 67-254 in Darwin. 3rd ed. Philip Appleman, ed. New York: W.W. Norton,2001.

Mayr, Ernst. "Who is Darwin?" in Darwin 3rd ed. Philip Appleman, ed. New York: W.W.Norton, 2001.

"Natural Selection: How Evolution Works (ActionBioscience)." ActionBioscience - promoting bioscience literacy. Web. 01 Dec. 2009. .

Neese, Randolph M and George C. Williams. "Evolution and the Origins of Disease." in Darwin 3rd ed. Philip Appleman, ed. New York: W.W.Norton, 2001.

Meet the Natives

Last Sunday night I was sitting on my couch eating some cereal and watching the tube and I came across an interesting documentary. “Meet the Natives: USA” followed five ambassadors from an island called Tanna on their journey to America, a journey that had a goal of spreading the word of peace to America.
Tanna is an island in the South Pacific where people live a very traditional lifestyle. They are an agricultural society wherein men hunt and gather and woman care for the children, all the while rejecting modern technology. The five men who embark on the journey, Chief Mangau, Keimua, Sam, Kuai, and Namus, bring an outsiders look into our culture and bring to light points of view most Americans probably haven’t thought of. Their characters and positions in their community also help us paint ourselves a picture of what their culture is like.
At the age of 65, Chief Mangau is known as a “figure of authority, guidance, and wisdom” (Nat Geo). Keimua is the village’s head dancer; Sam is the local medicine-man while Kui is simply known as the “happy man.” Namus, the translator conveys the ambassadors’ remarks and opinions.
It was amazing how these men picked up and commented on certain parts of our culture. The most astonishing was their shock and concern about homeless in New York City. When they saw an old, scruffy looking man sleeping on a bench, they were shocked to find out he was homeless. “There are so many buildings,” Mangau states. “How can there be people living on the streets? That man must not have anybody who loves him.”
The show cut to a scene of Chief Mangaus’ village. The tribe was gathered to build a house for one of its members. The who community joined in and built the house and made a celebration out of it. the men remarked how in their culture you don’t need money for a house, you just need family and friends. They said with sullen looks on their faces, “America is too busy chasing money.” They took a taxi ride for their example. The taxi rides are nice and convenient, but they cost money. “So the people with jobs get to ride the taxis. But if you do not have a job you have to walk.”
The Tannesian men seemed almost confused by the way we lived. They have found a way to live and thrive in peace and happiness, all without any money, cars or electricity. America has taken the opposite route, and some are growing skeptical of this way of life. In 2007, Nicholas Carr posed the question: “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” He describes how he feels the internet and other such technology is dumbing down America. He tells how media and technology reflect who we are as culture and also shape the way we think. Fast paced internet searching has lead to a thought process that has grown less in depth, and more in skimming and paraphrasing. Perhaps humans have reached their evolutionary limit, but instead of coping with that we create external databases that use high-tech complicated software and technology.
Philip Dick also depicts bleek outcomes concerning America. In the Golden Man an instinctual species of man that can see into the fourth dimension takes over the human race. Pay for Printer conveys a future where aliens take over the planet but eventually die off and humans need to relearn how to build a society from the ground up. Technology is often a key part in the downfall of humans in Dick’s short stories. Ironically, in both stories Dick brings humans back to a primitive way of life, with an instinctual species in the Golden Man and a society that needs rebuilding from the ground up in Pay for Printer. It is this same primitive state that the Tannesian Natives have been living in since their existence. On the island.
One main theme in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is that geography plays a heavy role on species and their evolution, and isolated geographic regions lead to isolated and unique species and cultures. Charles Lyell describes this theme by stating "the disposition of the seas, continents, and islands, and the climates, have varied; the species likewise have been changed; yet they all have been so modeled…to indicate throughout a perfect harmony of design and purpose" (Darwin 52). Tanna’s location in the Pacific Ocean has isolated it and its people, creating a culture long lost in America and most of Europe. Luckily they have been given a chance to spread their messages and hopefully give American’s a little insight to what we have lost sight of.


videos here


Works Cited
Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid? - The Atlantic." The Atlantic: Breaking News, Analysis and Opinion on politics, business, culture, international, science, technology, food and society. 6 Feb. 2007. Web. .
Darwin, Charles. Darwin (Norton Critical Editions) (3rd Edition). New York: W. W. Norton, 2000. Print.
Dick, Philip. The Philip K Dick Reader. New York: Citadel, 1987. Print.
Lyell, Charles. Principals of Geology. New York: W.W. Norton, 2001. Print.
"Meet the Natives | Programmes | Nat Geo AU & NZ." National Geographic Channel Australia and New Zealand. National Geographic. Web. .

Religion and Science

The connection between science and religion has come a long way since these two fields first crossed paths. In the beginning people looked to the church for answers, and not to scientific findings. Society believed that religion was more valid than science. In “Cosmology and the 21^st- Century Culture” by Nancy Abrams and Joel Primack”, it talks about how in the biblical times it was believed that the sky was actually water: “According to the first creation story at the beginning of Genesis, by creating this dome on the second day, God divided the waters ‘above’ from the waters ‘below’ and held open the space for dry land and air” (Abrams and Primack). This Biblical tale would be told until Greek philosophers came up with the idea that the, ”Earth was not flat and domed but a round celestial object”. Slowly this philosophy would start to spread and attract students like Galileo. In the beginning of the 17^th century Galileo proved that the Ptolemaic Earth-centered picture was wrong. In Galileo’s Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632) he would mock these ideas. This didn’t go over well with the Catholic Church, and Galileo would end up spending the rest of his life under house arrest. Many scientist in Europe were terrified by what the Church did. Scientist would enter a “de facto pact of noninterference with religion: Science would restrict its authority to the material worked, and religion would hold unchallenged authority over spiritual issues” (Abrams and Primack). This would create a major gap between the two “realms” for sometime.

As time went on the gap between these two “realms” would start to close. More and more evidence would start to be published. Herbert Spencer’s “survival of the fittest” helped back Charles Darwin’s discoveries. In my mind Spencer and Darwin helped rekindled the connection between science and religion. Other scientist would study, and test these ideas, creating their own. Even religion would slowly look into the scientific field. In “How to Teach Science to the Pope” by Michael Mason, it talks about the connection between religion and science. Brother Guy Consolmagno is both a Jesuit brother and an astronomer for the Vatican. Consolmagno believes, “If you think the universe is fundamentally good and that it’s expressions of a God, then studying how the universe works is a way of becoming intimate with the Creator. It’s a kind of worship” (Mason, 1). By studying this field, he believes, that you are worshipping God’s creations, bring you closer to God. Consolmagno believes in this connection, and it has “been a big motivation for doing any kind of science” (1). Here religion has found a way to incorporate science. The video that I found is a clip from Stephen Hawking's Universe. It is about the existence of Evolution and other scientific discoveries. It goes back to the earliest of times, and to the present. It helps show the connection and progress of religion and science.

Work Cited

Abrams, Nancy and Joel Primack. "Cosmology and 21st-Century Culture." Science. Setember 7, 2001.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5536/1769

Mason, Michael. "How to Teach Science tot he Pope." Discover Magazine. August 18, 2008.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26274906/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m93D6tslaeg&feature=player_embedded

Darwin Revelation

Our studies of Darwin have helped in furthering my belief in evolution as well as increased my understandings of the controversy evolution vs. creationism. Up until this point in the semester I never had a full understanding of his theories. Now after reading his work and discussing it as a class I can truly understand his beliefs. I have realized that the topics that cause a tremendous amount of controversy are the topics that are most crucial in our society. Darwin’s theories certainly caused a bit of turmoil.
Since I was young, I have never been a religious person. It just wasn’t something that ever seemed realistic to me. After reading various selections of Darwin’s work it only made my beliefs even stronger. The article “How to Teach Science to the Pope” really caught my attention because it discusses how science poses questions that immediately spark religious exploration. It was also interesting because it talked about how the Vaticans are now keeping a close eye on science and trying to incorporate it into their “modern theology”. This to me is interesting because science and religion usually tend to create controversy. They do not normally mix well.
Another article that really helped in as my belief was “Cosmology in the 21st century”. Cosmology discusses the ordinary world and makes sense of it by using people’s senses of reality as well as their identities and behaviors. According to this article, “A living cosmology for 21st-century culture will emerge when the scientific nature of the universe becomes enlightening for human beings.”
Overall, Darwin has helped my immensely in furthering my belief in evolution. Before I took this class I was still a little uneasy as to whether or not I believed it all. I believe that all the controversy caused by his theory has helped many others besides me to take a deeper look and come to an actual realization. Controversy makes people reconsider and rethink their ideas. I like controversy for that exact reason. It teaches people that until you have heard both sides of the story you can’t make an educated decision. That’s why in my opinion controversy is a great thing.


Work Cited:
Abrams, Nancy and Joel Primack. “Cosmology and 21st-Century Culture.” Science. September 7, 2001.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5536/1769

Darwin, Charles. “Selections from Darwin’s Work.” Pp 67-254 in Darwin. 3rd ed. Philip Appleman, ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2001.
Mason, Michael. “How to Teach Science to the Pope.” Discover Magazine. August 18,2008.
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/18-how-to-teach-science-to-the-pope

Logic vs Comfort

For anyone living in a modern nation today, the world is full of blessings thanks to science. We have access to vast amount of knowledge, copious amounts of food, and the ability to jump in a car and travel hundreds of miles in a single day. But reading Darwin made me realize that the source of these blessings is also the cause of many problems to humans on a very personal level. The view of the universe that science has given us works very well in a purely logical world, but we are not purely logical creatures; and we never will be. We pride ourselves on this fact in our feel-good entertainment (particularly movies); showing that emotion is greater than pure machine logic. Yet the view of the universe we are expected to accept by the academic and scientific world is logical to the utmost. Herein we find the issue with the universe science presents, and the revelation I came to after reading Darwin. Humans need to find a view of the world that coincides with their own individual thoughts and beliefs.
Philip K Dick’s Exhibit Piece begins with George Miller, a man that is unhappy with his current life. It quickly becomes apparent that he empathizes with the ideas and culture of the twentieth century far more than those of his own time, and in the story we find him suddenly living the life of a twentieth century citizen, surrounded by the things that make him happy. Although there is definitely confusion about which world is real and which is illusion, there is no argument about which one George chooses to call his home. By choosing to stay in the twentieth century reality, George selected the reality that best fit his own system of beliefs and needs. The world George rejected had many opportunities available to him that were simply did not exist in the twentieth century, yet he chose the less advanced world anyway. He threw away the world with advanced researching technology, and advanced robotics in favor of dark wine colored carpets and an easy chair (Dick). In the end, it wasn’t about what was logical, it was about what made him happiest. George’s decision echoes a choice all of us make about what our own world includes. If we choose to believe in the world of science, we get incredible explanations and well researched answers. But what the world of science does not give, is comfort.
There is a reason every culture around the world has a unique mythology explaining the unexplained. It is the same reason why people tend to reject and fear what they do not understand. Humans need to live in a world that reflects their own beliefs and understandings. If they have nothing to believe to provide answers, they will invent their own reality to do so (Abrams). Every person that ever lived has created a reality that suited their personal mental needs, beliefs and feelings. This is a major reason why so many debates have been held on the topic of evolution. Some people find the concept liberating, providing them with a world that makes sense, and others find the idea alienating, showing them a world that is unfriendly and cold. Personal comforts show us why these debates rage on, yet personal comforts count for nothing in the world of science. And in educational institutions around the world, science is mandatorily the only story to be believed because it is the only one that is logical. When understanding this, it becomes obvious why theories such as intelligent design came into being. People were struggling to find a system of beliefs that match what they feel is true. And of course once an idea is established, the next natural step is to look vigorously for evidence that supports your theory, and less vigorously for evidence that denies it. Darwin felt the same way. He had been raised and educated under Christian doctrine, believing that God created the world we all live in. So when his found evidence to contradict this comfortable way of thinking, it is no wonder he hesitated to publish his theory.
Contrastingly, it is also no wonder that Elizabeth Cady Stanton wanted the world to lose Christian doctrine in favor of evolution. One take on Christianity shows that woman is often portrayed as the root of the beginning of evil and the downfall of man. In Stanton’s perspective, Darwin offered a perspective that liberated her from what she felt was an unfair sentence and an ignorant viewpoint (Stanton).
Cosmology and 21st-Century Culture sums the essence of this idea perfectly. Science has given us a world where, “most educated people in the 21st century live in a cosmology defined by a 17th-century picture of cold, still, empty space, along with fragments of traditional stories and doubts about what is real”. And despite the evidence science has given us about the origins of the universe, “It never fully replaced the Medieval universe in people's hearts, partly because it felt so incomplete.” In this viewpoint there is no particular place for humans and certainly no place for God (Abrams).
Learning about Darwin has brought this understanding to my attention in a way that nothing else could. Although the pieces of this idea have been known to me for a while, examining the topics created by Darwin’s work truly solidified this for me. I do not believe that science can ever replace the comfort of religion, nor do I think that it is the job of science to do so. That being said, I think it is wonderful that so many ideas are presented to us every day. It makes each one of us aware of our own view on the world, and forces us to come to terms with the world.



Works Cited
Dick, Philip K. The Philip K. Dick Reader, New York: Citadel Press. 1987

Stanton, Elizabeth Cady. “The Women’s Bible.” in Darwin. 3rd ed. Philip Appleman, ed . New York: W.W.Norton, 2001.

Abrams, Nancy and Joel Primack. "Cosmology and 21st-Century Culture." Science. September 7, 2001. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5536/1769