The Need For A Measure of Restraint

Science is the quest into the uncertain world. It requires a great amount of passion, dedication, and courage to enter this uncertain world. Even though science might create an impression that it will lead us to an adventurous and enchanted ride, it is not always the case. Science has more dangers involved than the success and benefits it provides because science always involves uncertainty. For example, even though genetic engineering might “lead to discoveries of potential benefit to society”, the risks of genetic engineering are still unknown which provides us with a reason to be cautious.  

But should we always play the careful game while dealing with science? Or should we just directly dive into the uncertain world of science without thinking about the risks or hazards involved? Chet Raymo, a noted writer, believes that there should be “measure of restraint” when experimenting. I completely agree with him. One of the famous examples is Marie Curie who was killed by her research which give her a tremendous success and popularity. But she isn’t the only to get injured by science but there plenty of other too. 

One another notable example is Galileo whose work on the refinement of the telescope opened up the dark recesses of the universe for future generations, but it also ruined his eyesight. He was fascinated with the sun and spent many hours staring at it – leading to extreme damage to his retinas. This was the most likely cause of his near blindness in the last four years of his life. All these incidents prove that we need a measure of restraint.  

Certainty or Doubt

Doubt is the most intelligent things a human mind can do. It dominates most of our thoughts and actions than certainty. It is also the most powerful tool for society's progress and advancement than certainty. So, doubt is more important to the world to move into its next level. 

One of the famous examples of doubt is the flat earth. This theory had enormous impact because many people believed that if they moved to the edge of the horizon then they might fall off the edge. As a result, many people stopped moving which slowed the economy, and businesses had to bear losses as they couldn’t trade or manage businesses in other parts of the world. But our ancestors were smart enough to doubt this theory. If our ancestors didn’t doubt, then we would still live in that silly world. But, that’s not all. If this theory was never refuted, then I don’t think Washington would ever have discovered the US we live and prosper in.   

Also, as scientists are the ones who contribute most to the advancement and progression of the society we live in, they need doubt. As John Barry states that scientists need to “embrace uncertainty”, one such notable example would be Einstein who “refused to accept his own theory until his predictions were tested.” Similar to these scientists, we must doubt and shouldn’t “dogmatically believe in any philosophy” (Bertrand Russell). 

Doubt keeps things interesting, engaging, and fulfilling. Many achievers and entrepreneurs move through uncertainty to continue to grow. Therefore, without doubt there is no progress or improvement.  

Political Correctness: P.C.

“In the case of the politically correct, the prohibition of certain words, phrases and ideas is advanced in the cause of building a brave new world free of racism and hate, but this vision harmony clashes with the very ideals of diversity” (Kakutani) 

Political Correctness is one of the trending topics of discussion and debate. By the definition, political correctness is the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against. I completely agree with the definition. There is a positive ideology behind the term, yet the phrase is so often surrounded with negative connotations. I believe that everyone should push towards the positive agenda of political correctness where women and minorities are not insulted. 

Some like Kakutani may argue that political correctness limits the freedom of speech and clashes with “very ideals of diversity.” I agree with that. But the present culture is utilizing that as a reason for insulting not for explaining the truth. The growing use of social media has led many people who held negative views privately to think that they now have the right to express them without thinking about the consequence or consideration for who they might offend. If political correctness is used to hide or alter the truth to make it sound sweet, then it is the wrong way. But, the current society is using the term political correctness to validate their extreme views of what is and what isn’t acceptable in society, and this is not what political correctness aims to achieve. It is about not insulting or hurting women and minorities who have already faced a lot of discrimination in their lives. Thus, we all should strive towards explaining the truth clearly as it is to have a “brave new world” but not towards insulting minorities or others. 

The Job of the Ant

Have you ever seen a trail of ants going from one destination to another?  They seem to have a great sense of direction and are intensely focused on where they are going and what needs to get done. While Woolf observation of the moth’s death lead her to reveal the behavior of the society, we live in. These tiny ants have thought me a great lesson when I was a kid.  

Well, it was a pleasant morning, mid-July, benignant, with the sun as the celestial fireball in the sky of the summer months. The cloudless day and the light blue sky were brilliant against the green environment. While the beaked chorus of birds filled the air, bees are still murmuring in that strange cult hum exclusive to them. They flit from flower to flower, surfing the short spaces as they go.  

The same energy of the environment which inspired the bees, sent an ant from the side to side of his line of ants as I put my pencil distracting him from going in his line.  One could not help but watch the trail of ants especially, under a magnifying glass. The possibilities of pleasure seemed that morning so enormous that his zest in enjoying his meager opportunities of joining his group to the full, wonderful.  

“It was as if someone had taken a tiny bead of pure life and decking it as lightly as possible, had set him [running] and zigzagging to show us the true nature of life.” But later I forgot about him. He resumed his position in the line, when he tried to run across to it, he succeeded which caught my eye. The hard work and dedication roused me. But, as I stretched out a pencil, meaning to distract him again, it came over me that dedication, focus and passion were the approach of living and success. I laid the pencil down again.  

The insignificant little creature didn’t know anything, but to follow its queen’s orders, and was so positive with the never-give-up attitude. In the end, before he went into his ant hill, O yes, he seemed to say his philosophy, never give up, look ahead, stay positive and do all you can. 

Animals: and: Food

It’s interesting how authors utilize different strategies and ways to write different and fascinating pieces. Especially, the use of comparison or personification with the qualities of animals in humans.  

So, let’s begin with “Consider the lobster”, Wallace places himself in the position of a lobster and claims, “you or I behave if we were plunged into boiling water” to describe the pain of the lobster when it’s cooked alive. He uses this strategy throughout the essay so the readers can relate themselves to the lobster as we often attempt to dehumanize victims in order to quell our own guilty feelings. But the idea of animals can also be viewed in a different perspective.    

In the “Modest Proposal”, Swift compares “buying the children alive” to “roasting pigs”, he switches the positions around as he places the children to the position of animals to share his feelings about poverty. This really creates an unpleasant feeling in the readers when it comes to eating infants. In this situation, Swift dehumanizes children to animals which comes under negative connotation. But, in the case of Wallace, he “dehumanizes” the readers to take the form of a lobster which can be considered under positive writing.  

Both authors use animals as their key to satire on the society they live. However, I found it intriguing because these two pieces are alike in a way that they both are discuss about food and eating and they are very sophisticated and interesting to read even though they were published during different time periods. 

Self: Centered: Society

In today’s modern society, we can observe that everyone is self-centered. Even though, in the last two decades, we have come so far that TVs went from box sized to a slim-curved, every household product, we are still self-obsessed. I believe that people in this society are so worried about their looks and wealth that their eyes have become blind from other important issues. 

Human beings begin their day with their “most exotic customs” of getting themselves ready. They go through “almost unbelievable ritual torture” to improve the way they look. From the beginning, this custom hasn’t changed even through the changing society and remains the key for presenting themselves to the society. But the truth should be that people should be characterized by their character but not only by their physical appearances. The wealth part comes next... 

Then, they go to work in order to pursue wealth. They developed the society to where “literally and truly, one cannot get on well in the world without money.” Not only we made the society that runs behind money but completely materialistic. It is also really funny when we say that money cannot bring happiness, but we never think of the idea about how the lack of money will definitely lead to sorrow.  All of this reminds me of Daisy who fits into all these categories of running behind wealth and making choices that are selfish. It’s interesting that Daisy was part of the 1920s but this still runs today.  

One thing is for sure that after reading “On the Want of Money” and “Body Ritual Among the Nacirema”, I was really intrigued by the fact about how we, human beings, are really self-centered. 

Living: on: Minimum Wage

In class, this week, we read “from Serving in Florida” by Barbara Ehrenreich who works undercover as a server to study the life of working poor with minimum wage and to live on the wages she received. Well, she finds out and describes to our readers that living on minimum or low wages is extremely difficult. The author herself works at two places to earn enough money so she can sufficiently eat and sleep without any luxury. But, when we think about the solution, we might all agree on the idea that the minimum wage should be increased so that the workers like Ehrenreich can enjoy a better standard of living.  

But are we sure that this idea could make the lives of workers like Ehrenreich better? In September 2016, one-quarter of restaurant closures in the California Bay Area cited rising labor costs as one of the reasons for closing. This means that people working in these restaurants became jobless because the wages increased, and the restaurants couldn’t bear these costs of paying them. 

In some restaurants, wage increase puts more money in the pocket of some, others with bearing costs of having their hours reduced and making them part-time. Higher labor costs render low-skilled workers, like teenagers who recently joined to work, unemployable as it removes their key competitive advantage—cost.  

Milton Friedman, an American economist who received the 1976 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, said, “Minimum Wages either do nothing or cause inflation and unemployment.” So, is it better to support the increase of minimum wage which leads to unemployment or let workers like Ehrenreich live with minimum wage so that low-skilled workers, who are poor, to have a job in the long run?