An Invisible World

Mark A. Smith really likes to observe those little animalcules! He devotes his entire article "Animalcules and Other Little Subjects" to describing his observations and what they mean to him. He explains that these "little subjects" (268), although tiny and seemingly insignificant, are full of life and are constantly in motion. Just because these forms of life are microscopic and invisible to the human eye doesn't mean they're non-existent. Smith explains that one of the main reasons that he likes to observe these animalcules is because they are, to him, representative of human life and, in some ways, necessary to human life. Some of these animalcules are present in our bodies at this very moment. Without them, our bodies wouldn't be able to function as smoothly as they generally do.

To be honest, I was bored while I was reading the majority of this article. Most of it was devoted to describing his observations detail by detail. Microbiology has never particularly interested me, and Smith's describing the particular families and species that each microorganism belonged to failed to hold my attention. However, my interest WAS sparked towards the end of Smith's article. He began talking about how the life at the bottom of the pond is in many ways representative of human life. He explained that although we sometimes cannot see it, "life fills and overfills the world from puddle to ocean, from dirt clod to mountaintop" (272). As simple as most of these creatures are, they live in our bodies, the ground we walk on, and more or less everything else on Earth as well. Smith continues and explains why exactly he finds these observations so necessary. "You should know, then, that what works inside this jar works just as well inside of you" (270). Human beings are houses for these micro-animals, which do serve an important purpose inside our bodies. He also explains that our bodies' make-up isn't really that different from that of these animalcules. Some have exhibited evidence of consciousness and decision-making ability, making them seem more similar to human beings that we may have previously thought.

Although I don't particularly have an interest in the topic he was speaking about, Smith's use of language makes it apparent that he has an extreme love for these animalcules and even for the instruments that enable him to observe these creatures. He describes a simple microscope as if it were the most magnificent object that he has ever owned in his life. These descriptions help drive home his love for the animalcules and indirectly helps explain why he believes these observations are so necessary.

...So We Kill Ourselves?

Benjamin Phelan's article "How We Evolve" can basically be summed up by the information given on the last page. Much of the article explains how humans have evolved throughout the centuries, how DNA changes and mutations can be linked back to particular cultures, and how our advanced human intelligence has led to the development of many devices and actions that are harming our entire world. This last bit of information is the bit that Phelan hones in on as he concludes his article. He expresses his fears that because of our advanced intelligence, humans are potentially bringing about "a self-inflicted extinction" (202). Even though our DNA can evolve quickly in order to help us adapt to our natural surroundings and circumstances, at the rate we're working at now, our so-called progressions might result in the extinction of the human race as we know it.

What Phelan talks about almost seems like an unintentional suicide by the human race. We are so focused on making new and advanced technologies that we don't realize the dangerous repercussions that come hand in hand with these technologies. Phelan explains that "the global climate is changing too violently for DNA to respond by fiddling around with heat regulation and hair thickness; forests everywhere are being clear-cut too quickly for their inhabitants to adjust, so food chains are coming undone; the collapse of global fisheries has been identified as an imminent calamity; and a nuclear disaster would constitute a catastrophe many orders of magnitude larger than what nature could readily absorb" (202). Because we are aware that our species will, inevitably, one day become extinct, we should use this knowledge to try and put off this extinction as long as possible. Sure, we can't change what is going to happen naturally, but we don't have to cause it to come about quicker than it would on its own. Phelan puts it perfectly when he says "we continue to evolve in the face of hunger, disease, and a changing ecosystem; but our virtual habitat of culture could enable us to become both subjects of evolution and conscious codirectors of it" (202).

It's a scary thought, that we might have a hand in our own evolution due to the evolution of our species up to this point. Common sense would say that we should be conscious of the decisions we are making and the effects of these decisions, especially if they are directly impacting our evolution. What's scary about this thought is that most of the time, we're not conscious about these decisions...or rather, we're not conscious of the repercussions of our decisions. We don't like to believe that our developments and the way we live our daily lives is harming our environment, and subsequently our evolution. Phelan sums it up the best in the last two sentences of his article: "the culture that we've created is, strangely, evolution's most powerful tool and its potential nemesis, the womb of human nature and perhaps its grave. By our own hand: this is how we evolve" (202).

An Ethical Look at Climate Change

In his article "The Effects of Climate Change," John Broome claims that he "doubts" that "the money market reveal[s] people's ethical judgements about the value of future well-being" (Broome, 17). He says that if their behaviors in the money market did reflect their ethical judgments, economists couldn't "justify proclaiming an ethically neutral stance and taking the discount rate from the market." Although people might argue that they can do so "on democratic grounds," Broome explains that this is not possible, because this would require "leaving ethical judgments to the public rather than making them for themselves" (17). Since democracy and the democratic process requires debate and discussion, economists should want to share their thoughts with the public instead of keep them to themselves and let the citizens form their opinions on their own.

I'm going to be honest, I was a little bit confused about the specifics of this article. I had to re-read the section regarding the money market a few times before I understood what Broome was trying to say. It isn't that Broom is unclear, just that the topic is a tricky one, and I think that's why it's creating such a problem. It was interesting to hear about climate change from an ethical perspective. Normally it is only investigated on a scientific level. It is true, though, that humans have a tendency to "give less weight to their own future well-being than to their present well-being" (17). We want to make sure that we're comfortable now without worrying about the consequences that might follow later. This is why the climate is changing so drastically. We have no problem creating wonderfully convenient lives for ourselves now, even if the long-term effects directly damage our future well-being. This, I think, is Broome's main point. This is the habit we have to break if we want to slow the drastic climate change.

To Blog or Not To Blog?

I sort of have mixed opinions when it comes to blogging. I think it's great for class assignments, like we use it for. It allows other students in the class to read and share their opinions on their classmates' writing. This allows other students to use, in their own papers, some good writing methods used by their classmates. Starting a conversation about writing is also easier this way. Some people might feel more comfortable posting a comment on another person's blog than sharing their opinions verbally in class.

To be honest, if it weren't for this class I definitely wouldn't have a blog. I wouldn't have any reason for one, really. I do like to write things down in a journal from time to time, but I don't really want that journal posted on the internet for the world to see.

So I guess what it comes down to is that I don't mind blogging for class, but I would not start a blog on my own.

"Just Add Water" Observations/Inferences/Recalls

Observations
- Opens with a black screen and the repeated phrase "Thanks for coming, would you like a receipt with that? Don't forget to take a mint!"
- Voice over mentions routine life as houses that are almost identical are shown.
- Desert area of California, but flashbacks show that it used to be thriving.
- Ray picks up trash and tells Nora to keep the change.
- The grocery store is called "Right-Valu."
- The house is really dark and Ray's wife seems very withdrawn and off.
- Talk about the son's violence and anger and his dad's failed promises.
- A phone call comes in that Ray's mother is in a coma. The son is very nonchalant about this information.

Inferences
- Ray's life if very repetitious, but he doesn't seem to be getting bored with it. Is he going to shake things up a little bit as the movie progresses?
- The whole town seems to be stuck in this routine, just like Ray.
- It used to be better there. (Remember the billboard that shows a fishing resort.)
- Ray is very generous and always optimistic.
- "Right-Valu" might be the place where Ray meets respectable people, unlike those who live in the rest of the town.
- Is she mentally not all there, or is she hiding something? It seems as though she never leaves the house.
- There's a strange relationship between Ray and his son, and maybe they don't always see eye to eye or have the same values.
- Ray seems worried about his mom's coma, but his son doesn't. Maybe there's some tension in the family regarding people not getting along?

Recalls
- The type of town (with the neighbors who know each other, off-beat families with issues they don't necessarily want to make public, the relationship between the main character and the cashier at the local grocery store) kind of reminds me a little bit of "What's Eating Gilbert Grape."

Questions About "Just Add Water"

I just want to say that I really want to see how this movie ends, especially after watching the part we watched last class!

1) What's up with the wife? Why is she so withdrawn? Is there something mentally wrong with her or is she like this because she's doing something behind his back?
(I asked this before we watched the second segment. She's having an affair, and that's at least partly why she had always been withdrawn.)

2) I don't know if this is significant at all, but what's in the tin that Ray has in the car?

3) How does Dike manage to run the town? Are their any law enforcement people around who would be able to stop him from cheating people out of money like he does?
(This question was also answered in the second part. The town was declared a toxic waste site, and instead of moving out, Dike bought all of the property from the government for a very cheap price. Since he now technically owns the town, he decided to charge anyone who wanted to continue living in the town.)

4) Toward the end of the last scene we watched, Danny DeVito's character urged Ray to go for his dream of re-establishing the town. Is this something Ray is going to attempt to do throughout the rest of the movie? Is that where the significance of the title comes into play? Will that be Ray's solution for the town?

5) Are Ray and Nora ever going to get together?!

6) Why is the town in shambles? What happened to it that made it so desolate?
(Again...this was also answered. The state diverted the water and it then became a chemical run-off area. The state declared it a toxic waste site and strongly suggested that everyone leave.)

Focused Freewrite : What is a Writer?

A writer is any person who chooses to express himself through the written word. Anyone can be a writer. In writing, or at least in creative writing, there is no good or bad; as the saying goes, "one man's trash is another man's treasure." Some people might argue that only those who have studied the technical aspects of written language and structure or those who have been published are writers. I disagree. In my mind, anyone who has ever written anything as a means of conveying a certain point, thought, emotion, or story is a writer. That person might not be professional per se, but he is still a writer.