Grades?

Where the hell do we see our grades? Maybe I missed a page or something, but I honestly have no idea where we see our grades. I've heard people say "look on the blog, there'll be a number there..." but I'm not seeing it. Some help anyone?

Brown bridging science and faith

Ever since the beginning of this class, a lot of the discussions have prompted me to think about Dan Brown's new book, The Lost Symbol. Granted, it's fiction, and I'm not about to say that anything written in it is fact, but I still think it's relevant, especially given his extreme popularity, which I would like to think is because our nation,and even world, is fascinated with his choice of topics.

Brown received a lot of criticism for his last two books/the movies made from them because they seemed to bash religion quite a bit. Angels and Demons is all about the conflict that many people feel between relgion and science; this idea that the two philosohpies are not not capable of existing in the same domain because one is based on faith (or to a Cartesian, irrationality and fear), and one is based on fact (reason and logic). Which is which is fairly obvious. Arguably, in his first two novels, science won the debate, since the protagonist was firmly on the side of logic, and in his second book the face of Christianity is a fraud. Brown even comes at the book assuming his readers will be Cartesians, as Langdon definitely is. He's skeptical of everything the religious characters do, and is often written to say that he wants to have some kind of faith, but finds his mind getting in the way.

The Lost Symbol, however, takes a new approach. Langdon is still highly skeptical, like his readers most likely are, but Brown I think tries to meld the two worlds a little more sympathetically. Whether it's because Brown was sick of the controversy or because he genuinely intended to broach the subject eventually, the new book tries to bridge the gap, asserting that religion, or faith at the very least, does not and even should not be separate from science. He brings up noetic science and IONS (Institute of Noetic Science) which actually does exist. If you go to their website, it states that their mission is "advancing the science of consciousness and human experience to serve individual and collective transformation." They also state that they are not a spiritual organization, but their goal is to explore the power of the human mind, including the power of belief. Brown takes this and makes the center of his novel the idea that science and knowledge can progress even further if they look at the religoius and philosophical ideas of the past, and take the core thoughts of faith, not necessarily what religion has become, into their research.

The book explores a pretty famous secret society, the Freemasons. Brown is obviously a fan of getting into conspiracy theories, hidden secrets, and secret societies, so, again, what's in the book has to be taken as a work of fiction. But he asserts that America was founded by Freemasons, and while most people would argue that our country is based on Christianity and religious morals, Brown tries to say that the religion has simply been misunderstood over the years. The Freemasons in the book believe that the human mind is indeed capable of surpassing the human body and ascending to become Godlike.

So essentially, Brown is trying to put religion and science back on the same page. Both, he would argue, believe that there is something separate between our consciousness and our bodies, one believes that that essence is our soul, and one that it is our mind. Brown asserts, through noetic science logic, that it is in fact our mind and soul are one, and, through a devotion to reason, we can reach the level of Gods. I'm not saying I agree with any of this, but I think it's interesting to see Brown tackling the fascination that so many people have with trying to reconcile such seemingly oppossing views: faith and logic.

Opening page of MN Daily online.

For those of you who haven't had a chance to check out the daily,
our very own Robin Brown was interviewed.
Here a the link!
http://www.mndaily.com/2010/02/21/going-digital
Mr. Brown, you're famous :)

thoughts on reality + some quotes

“[Our situation] illustrates the .. idea that governments rest on the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish them whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were established." - Jefferson Davis

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." - Ghandi

"Go confidently in the direction of your dreams! Live the life you've imagined." - Thoreau

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK

"love the life you live, live the life you love." - Bob Marley

Discourse stems from imagination.

Imagination is limited by perception

perceptions are limited by reality.

The separation of these from reality (though directly influenced by reality), illustrates the truth that all discourse is a mental construction (imagination). While science translates reality into tropes with mathematical analogies, imagination allows belief in anything. Imagination is powerful, and is instrumental in scientific progress, but the corrupted imagination of the immoral 'ghost' ignores obligation to reality (humanity, environment, etc).

Morality is a construction constantly influencing society However, unlike many human constructions, morality may hold an absolute: one that would apply to E.T., as well as humans. Only through morality can civilization exist. By further advancing morality society becomes more ideal. Economic theory will state that limited resources will always be distributed unequally among the insatiable demand of the people. BulLShiT: both global supply and individual demand are finite, so a state of fair and sustainable distribution of necessary goods is plausible, though impossible in our condition of overpopulation.

people need all the help they can get

It took my reading of a few blog entries to come up with some inspiration, but I found it. I knew you all had it in you… thanks. I read that the Cartesian logic was the biggest problem we were unaware of. I thought about this over a beer and almost started to agree. However, when the beer was gone and my focus returned, I think it is best for the society as a whole to label and divide and order things.
I don’t always find that the definitions that are generally accepted by society are appropriate or necessary, but you have to keep in mind the level of thought most people invest in their decision making process and what corrupts the inputs. Having a personal problem with Descartes is not much different to me than having a personal problem with organized religion, government, or society. They all want you in your place (wherever that may be). While I or you may disagree, it is usually not difficult to understand why divisions/labels are formed. Society as a whole needs help, and organization and structure helps it.
Beyond the fact that people in general need all the help they can get (maybe I’ve worked in the service industry for too long), I can’t help but think of our discussion of John the Savage and Brave New World. I was one of few who favored the society over the individual, happiness (even if false or naïve) over truth. If the Cartesian moment is the biggest problem we are unaware of, how can it be harmful? If society is limited in its understanding of truth, but understand their role in it they will be content and productive.
We can know things are incorrect or at times misleading or incomplete, and still understand they are best for the society as a whole.

More TV Examples

I think my favorite example of someone who has adopted a Cartesian philosophy is Dr. Gregory House, the main character of the fictional TV show House, M.D. Obviously, being a fictional TV show, certain aspects of Dr. House's persona are far more extreme than could be considered realistic (if you've seen the show, you know what I mean... he can be a complete monster sometimes). However, the writing is extremely smart usually, as can be seen from the obvious parallels between Dr. House and Sherlock Holmes (according to the producers, the similarities are intended). Here is a man who will stop at nothing to get to the truth. His love of reason and logic is often at odds with the consciences of his co-workers, which creates a lot of the driving emotion for the show. His inability to leave things unexplained is a common focus point of the show (such as Kutner's unexplained suicide), and his sense of right and wrong are easily skewed while in pursuit of the "truth" (he claims the Hippocratic Oath nullifies a "Do Not Resuscitate" clause in one episode, but helps a man commit suicide to save his son in another). I think part of what makes him so fascinating is that he does not fall prey to some forms of dualism that you see in most people. To quote Dr. House, "There HAS to be a reason." He epitomizes the Cartesian philosophy of categorizing everything, and valuing reason above all else.

Explaining everything, is this a new or old idea?

When we saw the video clips of blessed Terresa and Sparkle, we immediately began questioning what it was that we had just seen. Ideas like camera tricks or faking it were more plausible than divine providence. However, none of these things have been proven, therfore according to Cartesian thinking we must continue searching. This is the primary difference between Cartesian thinking and religous beliefs. We must continue searching continue searching until we have certainty without doubt. Religous beliefs would also create an explanation for all events as well, but with an idea coming from their faith. To anyone who didn't know any better this explanation would be, to them, certainty without doubt. However, anyone who lives in the modern industrial world is aware of science and the Cartesian method, even if they choose not to use it. In the case of blessed Terresa and Sparkle the responsibility is on science to prove that it wasn't a miracle. This is because religion doesn't follow the same rules, there not based on facts, but rather faith. The question we must ask is, should we accept something we can't prove as a divine intervention, or continue to look for an answer that can be based in fact? The Cartesian method says, keep looking, and I concur.

Don’t get involved if it doesn’t involve you.

Gay marriage has been a topic of controversy since the idea first came about. “A man and a woman are suppose to be united in holy matrimony”, and that’s how it’s going to be. Now I consider myself a very, not only Christian, but Catholic follower. In most areas of my life, I am quite conservative which should not be a surprise. The idea of dualism that has come to be known has become a way of life. We live in a world of opposites, and the “grey area” is a zone we steer away from. Society has created this fear of becoming different or opposing the norm, but who is to decide what the “norm” is?
If two people of the same sex want to be married, who are we to oppose them? In no way does it affect our lives, or the lives of people around us. It is their choice, their life, their happiness. The idea that Fausto-Sterling suggests in Sexing the Body, about having more than two sexes at first seems outrageous, but then later thinking about it, I decided..why not?!?
They were born that way, I believe God chose for them to be born the way they are, so why should be we try to make them who we think they should be?

The Truth is Out There

I would say that Descartes ‘inhabits’ Chris Carter, the man behind the show The X-Files. It may be a fictional television show for entertainment but it addresses real ideas that people have about the unexplained. The show was on for 10 seasons and was about a special unit in the FBI that was called in when things happened that couldn’t be explained. Everything from ghosts and spirits to aliens and monsters were covered. The show basically is about putting reason and truth into things that cannot be explained. Even in all this, there is still the presence of ‘god’ in the show as an explanation for many of the cases. We as humans always have to find the answer to things and be able to explain them and if we can’t, a lot of the times the explanations end up being explained by ‘god’. Maybe the fact that we have to explain everything and if we can’t we give it an explanation of ‘god’ because in fact reason is the center of all knowledge and this is our way of giving everything reason.

Necessary to Classify

When it comes down to it, it is impossible not to take a Cartesian view of the world. We, as a society of people, need to classify things into categories so that we can better understand them. I think that it goes against human nature to stray from this belief. Latour illustrates this fact ever so clearly in him depiction of the excavation site, with everything laid out to a grid.

So, to not be able to classify something, as in the case with blessed Teresa (even though we do have a name for the term Stigmata) it is frightening to think about. Cartesians need a cause and effect and a box to put something in. When Teresa and others who claim the stigmata is real they are unsure of what box to put this information in. I think that the fear of the unknown is what has driven the world to Cartesian thinking.

That being said, Descartes reasoning that the mind is separate from the body, completely goes against the acts of Blessed Teresa. I am not a religious person (as it seems most of the class is the same as me by reading other blog posts), so the Cartesian in me wants to believe that there is something wrong, that Teresa is doing this to herself, that this is a disease that we have not found the answer to. I need to classify this supernatural act so that I can designate it to its correct "box," so to speak. In addition, even the fact that Robin presented in class about curing warts by THINKING that something has been used to treat it makes it go away. The mind and the body are more connected than ever. It is the Cartesian belief that connects them, otherwise our classification would go out the door.

This is all connected in that the necessity to classify is embedded in our historic roots all the way back to Descartes. His reasoning and process present in the meditations have empowered everyone (well except the crazies) with the mental capacity to map and explain the world. By classify the mind-body dualism as separate entities, we have come to understand a being as a mind inside, but not connected to a body. "Teresa and wart" enthusiasts would dispute this fact, and the shear notion of the idea has caused hot debate over the years. Descartes has given us a way to classify the world and to look at the human being. His words can be best summarized as to say, "I am a thinking thing." Which means that his body is independent of his mind. The dueling debate will never die, but one thing is for certain: the tendency to classify is something that is necessary for human existence, because without it, we ourselves can not even exist.

We cant avoid the logic

I'd like to offer a different view to this discussion. Most of the people who have contributed so far say that they are not religious, for the most part. I, however, am deeply religious. In my opinion, Cartesian logic has led our society in a way that is necessary. We make all of our day to day decisions based on this logic and the reason our society has had so much success is because of this Cartesian logic. I would in no way say that logic is a mistake or a fault of our civilization because we would be nowhere without it. However, I do believe that our society has made the mistake of making it the ONLY way to see truth.
Anne Fausto-Sterling, coming from such a wide variety of backgrounds, recognizes this. Although science has led us to great heights, it cannot be the only way to know things. Why do we have to fit people into the two categories that we as logical humans have created when there is such a variety of natural humans that just don't fit. Why cant Blessed Theresa bleed out of her hands like Jesus did? The trouble with asking these questions is that we cannot find an answer that will satisfy our Cartesian minds because the answer may perhaps lie outside of the realm of logic.
National Geographic, Pinker, Descartes, all try to find solutions to these unexplainable things within the system of logic. If the answer is not attainable this way, we make it up or label it as an odd phenomenon and put it in a box for later study when we have the technology or whatever to figure out the logical reason. Even if we make a step towards less-Cartesian thinking, we cannot as humans escape from it. Now instead of 2 genders, there's 6. We a have a more complicated system of organizing genders, but a system just the same. As humans were confined to this.

Thank goodness for thinking

I am not a overly religious individual. I do believe there is a God and that there is an afterlife, but I am not a devoted church-goer and I do not believe in every scripture ever written. Therefore, when I saw the Blessed Teresa I automatically started to "watch myself think" as Robin said in lecture. I didn't believe it, but I was sure there was some reason this little old lady was bleeding all over other than God's presence . Descartes inhabited my thoughts in how I believed that if we spent enough time thinking and analyzing this phenomena we'd figure out Blessed Teresa's little secret.

I think being Cartesian has helped us all out a lot (ethically, scientifically, historically, etc.) Back in the day if we saw this crazy thing happening to a woman of God we'd totally buy that she was divine. The implications of believing something that is false (I'm again using my own judgement that it was false) would be huge! There are a lot of corrupt individuals out there that would use these 'miracle' for so many icky things (power and profit). We need to think about phenomenas like this so that we aren't tricked to believe in something that is not good or just.

Nature AND Nurture

If I take anything from this course, it will at least be that Cartesianism is the biggest problem society is unaware of. The very idea of understanding it as a problem is difficult; how can you aspire towards something you are unaware of. I know there are things that do not compute with my mentality. Faith, in a spiritual sense, is something I do not understand. I understand faith; I place mine in people and things all of the time, and I equate faith to be some kind of deep trust. But faith in a higher power, or even belief, is something I do not understand or desire. That being said, the Cartesian problem seems to be that we aren't even aware of some of our mental assumptions of the world.

I agreed with Pinker when we first read his piece, but his belief that "Its all in your genes" is very Cartesian in that it picks one side of a spectrum and stays there. There is no gray in Cartesian dualism, it must be black or white, nature or nurture. Fausto-Sterling's work refutes Descartes and Pinker in two important ways: 1. that very few things are black or white, even gender, and 2. the mind and body are absolutely not seperate. Descartes's meditations were reasonable in an age without advanced genetics, physics, and chemistry, and very useful politically and theologically, but they are outdated. Fausto-Sterling calls for a new viewpoint that is all-inclusive of science and culture to explain the way bodies work, something that plays out better in a practical sense. Just like the Mobius Strip in her book (the little ants running around the coil), we see that mind and body are intertwined with no clear boundaries, and we can also see the potential to conduct science in this fashion so it is considerate of culture and politics. While the pure scientific exploration of Descartes may have provided valuable information, and can continue to do so, it should only be used to lay the groundwork for science that assumes the purest of conditions.

The Limits of Duality

In her book "Sexing the Body", Anne Fausto-Sterling points out the duality of our perception of the world. We were all raised seeing these dualities and coming to accept them as fact, our young, developing minds unable to see any other way. There are boys and girls, dark and light, good and evil, and the list goes on and on. As we grow up, we continue to categorize things in this fashion, in a Cartesian manner, using our previous experiences and conclusions to draw new ones as we encounter new experiences.
Fausto-Sterling, in a way, breaks out of that Cartesian view of the world. While she is still using logic and reason to draw her conclusions (there's no escaping that), she starts to question the duality that we have been taught growing up. Why do there have to be only two sexes? To better categorize our world (Cartesianism again!!) shouldn't we narrow down such broad generalizations in order to understand each more clearly?
While this next example is maybe less important to our understanding of our world and ourselves, I cannot count how many times you see in film and television examples of the bad guy doing something good. The best example I know is Riddick from the sci-fi movies that share his name. By all of our standards of good and evil he is clearly evil; a murderer and thief, outcast from society. And yet when 'greater evils' come into play, Riddick becomes the good guy, fighting on behave of the same society which cast him out in the first place. In the same way Fausto-Sterling defines 5 sexes instead of just 2, couldn't we also better understand human nature (after all, that is what movies, television, and books try to do) by defining the in-between of good versus evil?
We will never ever part from the use of logic, but we must use it to break down broad generalizations into better defined categories. This will bring about a bit of a paradox, opposing Descartes, and yet Cartesianizing our world even more.

Pinker: More Cartesian than Descartes

Steven Pinker seems to be more Cartesian than Rene Descartes himself. Descartes wants us to believe that God—a perfect being in Descartes' eyes—gave us knowledge; therefore, our mental faculties are determined to be trustworthy (provided we separate what is clear and distinct from what is observed and confused). And through this trustworthy knowledge we may reason and understand the rules of our world, because God has structured our universe the same way He has structured our minds. Descartes believes that we are rational beings; that through reason we may discover and acquire an understanding of the universe ourselves—not through formalized institutions that make claims of truth. Descartes’ claims were indeed revolutionary. Written in a time where the Catholic Church was a source of overwhelming power and authority, Descartes’ claims seemed to usurp some of the Church’s power and reallocate it to us all. However, due to the political climate in which he was writing, and perhaps due to his own beliefs (debatable), Descartes made sure always to underscore his claims with God. This fact grounded his work in a religious context, and protected him from execution by the Catholic Church. This is where Descartes leaves off and Pinker begins. Pinker, instead, argues that we are rational beings and that it is in our genes. We can, through science and reason, discover the truth, and we don’t need God for us to do it. This is what makes Pinker even more Cartesian than Descartes himself: Pinker completes Descartes’ argument, taking it a step further, relying only on our capacity for rational reasoning, explicitly taking God out of the picture. This fact speaks to the complex theoretical system that Descartes created: one that attributes the “truth” to God while simultaneously allowing for an atheist like Pinker to adopt his theory and replace God with reason without contradiction.

Not only does Pinker replace God with reason, he explicitly uses reason to force God out of the picture. After challenging Descartes' ghost in the machine hypothesis with neuroscience, Pinker states, " And we have every reason to believe that when the physiological activity of the brain stops, the person goes out of existence" (The Blank Slate, 4). He goes on to state that people are often sorry to lose God, or at least the values associated with God. Reason trumps all for Pinker, and this is what makes him more Cartesian than Descartes. It must be noted, however, that Pinker's emphatic display of Cartesianism would not be possible if Descartes himself had not framed his theory in such a way as to allow for reason to undercut belief. Had Descartes made God more central to his theory rather than a "first clause" or "an author of order", perhaps then reason would not be--or become-- the quintessential unit of truth.

is it real?

I was intrigued by the discussion in class last week so I decided to look for the national geographic bit on stigmata (watch it here). I'm not sure it was the same one that people were referencing, but it's still pretty neat to watch.
I guess Descartes "inhabits" the producers at national geographic because they are always looking for a proper answer to everything. The fact that the show is titled "Is It Real?" and other episodes deal with Bigfoot, the Bermuda triangle, and UFOS kind of groups it with those unexplainable mysteries. This show basically questions the legitimacy of stigmata, and while they do suggest that it may be a true miracle from God, most of the time spent is reviewing cases, talking with scientists (a magician even makes an appearance), and thinking of logical reasons for why this may occur in some people. If reason is the center for all knowledge, if we can't find a logical reason for why this occurs, we can't make sense of it.
Another thing that I thought was interesting was that the Catholic church does not recognize any stigmatic cases as authentic and have only recorded one account as legitimate (st. Francis of assissi). Before knowing this, I would have thought that the church would accept this as a miracle but perhaps they share the same skeptisism as many, because there is no logical reasoning behind it.
I feel like a skeptical attitude toward stigmatism makes it simpler for us to understand. It is a lot easier to believe that people are faking it or that there is a psychological (mind over body or body over mind) reason for why this happens.

Discovering the great hairless ape

The February 2010 edition of National Geographic contains a short piece on chimpanzees of a reote area of the Congo rain forest that seem to have had no contact with humans until recently, so recent that the author, Joshua Foer, actually explains to the reader what is was like "watching them watch us watching them" both with immense curiosity. Like any National Geographic, the article is loaded with photos of the apes, the rainforest, and maps so we don't get lost along the trail of the tale. There's one photo showing primatologists laying out sticks that the apes had used tools onto a white sheet for examination and no doubt the collection of various metrics. One of the sentences that jump off the page is how the scientists mat have been collecting data, "but it was the chimps how were behaving as if they'd made a discovery." All of these things together just seem odd to me - why can't a chimp make a discovery; is anything they experience less important simply because humans view it as a petty achievement? The photos allowing us to experience the rainforest when there's two feet of snow outside, the map that shows me a representation of where the subjects of the story are at - despite our thinking that the map shows us where they're at. And finally the analysis that the scientists conduct over the sheet - All thanks to Descartes. Back to the discovery thing: since the mind/soul-body split this mode of thinking is to be expected. Soulless apes surely must lack curiosity, imagination, language... thought. Rene's instilled sense of doubt makes us wonder otherwise, well, maybe not the author of the piece so much, but the fact that we can imagine other possibilities and not feel like we are complete idiots all thanks to Descartes.

Cage of Diamonds

I have to say this before anything else can come of my words, interpretively, I am not a Christian. I come from a very Christian family, but have only been to any sort of church 3 times in my life, and 2 of those were pretty much forced. Don't get me wrong, I believe in souls in some sense, so its not like religion has had no impact on my life whatsoever, but even Einstein believed in souls and some sort of afterlife... it was just more along the lines of Stargate's ideals and not Christianity's.

That said, I find it very hard to believe in any sort of God. I can understand from a medieval sense why a God is a great idea and can still be a good influence, but I must say I'm with Pinker on this. One of my most common statements, albeit blunt and unweildly at times, is how you could possibly believe in a god, while simultaneously disgracing the idea of Harry Potter (The Harry Potter series is on the banned book list, I believe but am not positive, because the Vatican demanded it). From my understanding, creating something, i.e. the Earth, out of nothing, sounds a lot like magic to me.

So I suppose that is a prime example of how Descartes has limited my mind. To beleive in it I must somehow know it is there with tangible proof, not because someone else or myself felt it, though my own feelings could certainly add some sort of doubt. So, that throws God out the window, sorry Teresa I don't buy it. As for how to fix it, I honestly have no idea, nor do I particularly want one. This line of thought has brought me so much knowledge that one, I definitely can't refute it for being bad, and two, because of all this knowledge, I can only know what this knowledge grants... It's like trying to claw your way out of a roomy diamond cage I guess. It is clearly beautiful and can hold a great deal, and of course there could always be more outside of it, but the diamonds gleam so brightly that I have no reason to bother...

Blog Posting #4 (Due Sunday 2/21 11:59 PM)

This week we get to write about all the things many of us wanted to talk about for hours—maybe over beer: the faith-science wars; Christian Texas Patriots; bleeding mystics (and cute teenagers); indubitable 'selves,' reason (and faith), hypnotized away warts, and the entire mind-body split.

What we've been calling the 'Cartesian Moment' (Descartes' successfully elevating REASON to the center of all knowledge, and banishing the BODY and all its attributes) changed everything. Anne Fausto-Sterling starts her deeply political work on science, sex, bodies and lives by calling the 'Cartesian' split (a 'dualism') into question on many grounds.

We claimed that we were all 'Cartesians' even if we'd never read a word of his or even heard his name.

Fair enough. So now what?

Well, for starters, let's try to make 'common sense' of the idea that we're sort of trapped by the ways we see the world, and have trouble imagining things any other way. The idea that the world is 'framed' by certain 'paradigms' or 'world views'—ours being pretty 'Cartesian.'

Explain how Descartes 'inhabits' Steven Pinker (or Louis Menand), or the National Geographic producers, or Dr. George Buchanan, or people loving Blessed Teresa (or some of us thinking 'she faked it'), or sexologists who think there are 'six types of people' (…body, 11), or the guys writing the DSM, or the Founding Fathers, or, or, or. Find a good example to read closely—ours are fine; so are yours if you've got one. Whatever works.

Then suggest how this all plays out—theoretically, scientifically, ethically, historically, whatever. Work with our readings. How are we bamboozled and how might we get un-bamboozled? Alternatively: how does our 'reason,' rightly used, steer us right? How do we need to think in order to see more clearly? If you want a model, it's Anne Faust Sterling; her book is a passionate polemic about why seeing sex and gender wrongly (or confusedly) has made life harder for all of us.

New Disorders

This is in response to an article found on the Pioneer Press’ website http://www.twincities.com/health/ci_14373118?nclick_check=1 called “Changes in psychiatric manual could introduce new disorders”. It details plans to update the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. New proposals (for review) include “psychosis risk syndrome” and “hypersexual disorder”.

In response to Rob Stein’s February 10, 2010 article Changes in psychiatric manual could introduce new disorders, let me first say that I am not a bit surprised. I am very interested to find out just how much further the Human mind has warped from normalcy in the past sixteen years. In our modern world of neo-liberal medicine, where patients become consumers and the corporate, for-profit realm drives medical services as products, it is no shock that more and more disorders will make the list. Where do these definitions come from and who do they benefit? “The proposed revisions are designed to bring the best scientific evidence to bear” and yet the first stage in publication is an online commentary soliciting public opinion? Until it is no longer acceptable for health care to be treated as the “big business” that it has become, I encourage readers to be weary of new products offered to fix newly defined disorders.

science, glorified, yet again

On February 4, 2010, an article entitled “Brainwaves” appeared online through the Star Tribune. The article explored the recent development of scientific evidence that some patients that have suffered traumatic brain injury can actually respond mentally to questions asked to them by their doctors. Some patients studied that were absolutely unable to communicate or exhibit any sort of physical movement showed signs that they were mentally responding to questions about their lives prior to their accident.

The article described, at great length for a relatively short article, how patients in a vegetative state due to massive trauma (but not oxygen depletion) can respond, but it is extremely rare. Ethics are only mentioned at the very end.

Draft:

This article is all about the glorification of science. This article simply describes that science has, yet again, done something really cool, tells readers all about it, and then right at the last second mentions ethics. What gets me most is that the article starts with a disclaimer saying that this new technique has so many restrictions that is can only be used on very rare occasions.

The author of the article spent a great deal of time conveying how excited all of the scientists were about this development. At the very end of the article, the question of the ramifications of this new technique was quickly tossed into the mix. This new technique could possibly aid doctors in determining if patients in a vegetative state are in pain or whether or not patients wish to remain living. The author of the article voiced come concern that this could be a problem in terms of whether or not the results are reliable enough to be considered accurate. In my personal opinion, I think that if scientists wish to inform the public about developments such as this, they should also be asking these ethical questions instead of leaving it up to the general public.

Drinking Soda, Increase Pancreatic Cancer

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/83774272.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUvDE7aL_V_BD77:DiiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

I am writing in response to article claiming that soda drinkers increase their risk of pancreatic cancer. I am not criticizing the accuracy or validity of the study, but I feel that people need to be aware of key information, before jumping to conclusions. New studies are brought to the surface each and every day, but the most important information if finding whether or not the study pertains to you. I feel that the findings of the study are the only part viewed, rather than taking a deeper look at the legitimacy of the study. Yes, it may be true that soda does increase the risk of pancreatic cancer, but an “increased risk” is too vague to be recognized as a problem. Also, we need to look at who was studied, and if they are similar to you as a person as in, where they are from, their health status, their diet, and other logistics.
Humans strive off of technology and research. We as a population are constantly looking for new ways to “improve” our lives. If we named and avoided every single thing that “increased” one’s chance of caner, it would be nearly impossible to live.
With that, I feel society as a whole needs to take many studies with a grain of salt, because the chance of the results pertaining to you is more than likely smaller than recognized.

Lauren Daggett

BPA and babies

I'll be talking about an article from the Pioneer Press, on February 6th called “The Chemical Revolt.” It is addressing the presence of BPA in many plastics, including baby bottles. I want to address the fact that the article heavily contributes to the semantic contagion issue; that no one has proven that the chemicals present directly lead to any serious developmental issues and that coming at the scientific issue by stressing mothers' fears for their children the article encourages people to be afraid of something rather than considering it logically.

The article “The Chemical Revolt” was interesting to me. It reminded me of many other news programs I watch that seem to be trying to scare me rather than inform me. The presence of BPA in our plastics is certainly something that the EPA should be seriously looking into, but can we really not store or microwave our food in plastic, or drink out of plastic bottles, or let our kids play with plastic toys like the article suggests? It mentions that 6 years ago, most moms had no idea what phthalates or dioxin were, so how serious can the issue have been? And isn't it highly possible that the reason that so many mothers are stressing and worrying about what their children touch (stress isn't good for pregnant women, is it?) is not that the media has done us a favor by raising our awareness on this serious issue, but that the media's obsessive coverage of the issue is making our society worry about something we needn't? One of your experts even acknowledges that she definitely has BPAs in her system but guesses they aren't harming her, so maybe we're all just worrying and stressing because everyone else is doing the same.

The Evolution of Running

My post is about an article in the Star Tribune about barefoot running. The article discusses the effect of shoes on running habits and running related injuries. Although the article states the facts and assumptions of the article accurately, my biologist issue with it is the way evolution is referred to. The article describes it as a thing people do almost willingly, and also describes our straying from past evolutionary trends as bad when it isn't necessarily so. These interpretations of evolution add fuel to the fire that is creationism, and allows people to actively deny evolution as natural and place supernatural causes for it.

Draft of Post:

In an article recently published in your paper, "Study on evolution of running finds going barefoot good for the sole, better for the heels," there seems to be an issue with the way evolution is described. While it is true that ancient man would have run barefoot, and that natural selection would have favored faster runners for hunting and outrunning prey, this was not a conscious act by humans. This seems to be the case when a scientist was quoted saying "We did not evolve to run barefoot... in the winter..." Humans (and animals) do not evolve to meet their own demands, nature forced conditions upon us that caused natural selection to occur. It is also inaccurate to state that shoes have had a negative impact on our evolution. While they may create negative habits for runners, running is no longer important to our survival and reproduction. Whether or not we run quickly no longer matters evolutionarily, and so our ability to run in future generations will likely remain somewhat constant. It is important to remember that natural selection occurs and then populations evolve, and that evolution can cause traits, such as running ability, to shift both forward and back depending on what nature demands of us.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: The News at Work

“The New Science of PTSD” (post-traumatic stress disorder) was a news segment discussed on Minnesota Public Radio News on 8 February 2010. The report, by Jessica Mador, examines the ways in which new science technologies have been employed by University of Minnesota’s Dr. Apostolos Georgopoulos, to more accurately diagnose those with PTSD. Georgopoulos, professor of neuroscience, states that according to discoveries with new neurotechnology, PTSD is in fact a “brain disease”. The article is focused around the return of Minnesota’s 34^th “Red Bull” Infantry Division from Iraq—as the Department of Defense estimates up to twenty percent of those who serve will suffer from PTSD. It is here that I examine the implications of naming/categorizing PTSD as a brain disease vis-à-vis the objective reality of modern warfare. More specifically, I want to know to what extent does calling PTSD a disease of the brain take away from the realties of war? Is PTSD a social political issue, or a brain issue? These questions are rhetorical; they are deployed to speak the ways in which the news works to affect lives.

For many of the soldiers of the 34^th Infantry Division that recently returned home, post-traumatic stress disorder may be a reality. Dr. Georgopoulos posits that PTSD is a disease of the brain, however, his claim raises a serious question: that is, to what extent does calling PTSD a disease of the brain take away from the objective reality of modern warfare? Understanding PTSD as a brain disease seems to suggest that the symptoms associated with PTSD lie in a problem with the brain rather than in the problems with warfare itself. This is not to say that the two are not connected—indeed, a sufficiently severe traumatic event coupled with a brain that fosters the anxieties and fears of that event are necessary for the existence for PTSD. However, labeling PTSD as a disease of the brain may only help to undermine the realities of warfare; those soldiers affected with PTSD may be quick to dismiss or suppress their reactions to war trauma under the assumption that they have faulty wiring of the brain. The Department of Defense reports that upwards of twenty percent of those who serve may suffer from PTSD, my fear is that we may see a rise in that number as a result of this publication. Those soldiers dealing with the reintegration process, and with the traumas they’ve experienced in war, may be prone to quickly diagnose themselves with PTSD, as they now have symptoms, causes, and explanations to identify themselves with.

Goose-stepping Blastocysts

My letter will be to the Star Tribune regarding an article in which Senator Curtis Coleman - Ark (R) likens embryonic stem cell research to the research conducted by Nazi scientists on Jewish holocaust prisoners. The article is really more about how the senator, when asked to recant the statement made over syndicated radio, refused on grounds of ethical and moral obligations of the value of a single life. Here's the link: http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/84258352.html?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c::D3aDhUec7PaP3E77K_0c::D3aDhUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU


Senator Curtis Coleman doesn't need to apologize at all for his statement about how embryonic stem cell research is "what the Nazis did to the Jews"; it won't make much difference - the damage is done. Referencing Nazism in context with anything today creates mindsets that instantaneous sets an audience against the subject you're talking about - in this case Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR), by invoking all the imagery we have come to associate with Nazism: hate, murder, evil, etc. To this extent the senator may be successful; I mean, how many of us would bother to contemplate the significance of his well-placed hate tag? The big arguement for Senator Coleman is that a single life is too valuable to sacrifice for another. The problem with his rationale is that researchers have have been publishing for at least the last four years that they are refining techniques to remove a single cell from a blastocyst without have any negative impacts on embryo development. Tell me, would you donate a single cell if it could mean the possibility of saving another person's life? The new techniques will no doubt raise new ethical issues to debate over but hopefully they won't be supported with outdated ideas driven by polarizing pathos.

Talking in a coma.

This is about the article:
http://www.startribune.com/science/83506247.html?page=1&c=y
Which is about studies contducted that say that people in "vegetative" states actually have brain activity nd can communicate through machines.

Is it really ok to use MRIs and other tools to allow coma patients to "speak" through them? As the article states, there are ethical questions about whether or not is is ethical to rely on these answers form serious questions concerning the patient. For one, we don't know for certain that these answers are truely what we interpret them to be. For all we know they could mean something else completely different. The techniques and studies are not that reliable. I don't think that these studies can truely be used until someone wakes up from their coma and confirms that that was really what they were "saying" then.

surgeon v robot

I've decided to write my letter to the editor about the following article in the startribune
www.startribune.com/lifstyle/health
This article talks about the dramatic increase in robot usage for surgeries, specificly for prostate cancer surgeries. The author suggests that too little is known about robots effectiveness to reach a verdict. Despite this no research is being done.
This article brings up a number of good points about a relatively unknown technology, surgical robots. I find the additional cost intriguing, and it raise several important questions. What is the significance of this amout, given that the total cost of the surgery and hospital stay could have six figure costs. Also, what stance are insurance companies taking? Will any providers pay for surgeries done by robots, or will the patient have to pay the difference out of pocket? I would also not find it surprising if using robots voids any coverage the patient may have, since there is so little data on the results. Despite all this, people still went with the robot almost 90% of the time. I think people are comforted by advanced technology, regardless of how effective it may be. This could lead to real danger if people don't know the facts, both fiscally and medicly.

Is being at risk a disease? Soon perhaps.

I’m writing my letter to the editor about the article “Revising Book on Disorders of the Mind” published in the New York Times. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/health/10psych.html?ref=science). This article talks about the changes that the writers of the 5^th edition of the DSM are proposing to make. My letter specifically deals with the idea of identifying “risk syndromes” in the DSM.

You said “One of the most controversial proposals was to identify ‘risk syndromes,’ that is, a risk of developing a disorder like schizophrenia or dementia.” Although this may change the lives of those who are identified as having a “risk syndrome”, people would argue that the benefit of catching such a disease ahead of time is, overall, more beneficial to the person. Yet how can this be so if “studies of teenagers identified as at high risk of developing psychosis, for instance, find that 70 percent or more in fact do not come down with the disorder.” Labeling a human being as having the risk for something like schizophrenia, given the likelihood of the person actually developing the disease, seems to have a greater disadvantage than benefit. Labeling an individual, in any circumstance, profoundly changes the stigmas and stereotypes that that person becomes associated with. Oftentimes this is unavoidable, but I believe that labeling someone as having a “risk syndrome” has all of the negative consequences of the stigmas associated with the disease without the disease present. Spare a person the humiliation of being labeled an almost “schizo” and label them after they’ve been diagnosed.

Robots!

This article from the star tribune is titled "Is a robot's arm better than a surgeons?".

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/84307407.html?page=2&c=y

The article addresses how patients are beginning to request a robot's "hand" for their surgery rather than that of a surgeon. This is a concern for many health professionals because the use of this robot is much more expensive than that of a surgeon's own capabilities, and the work is not necessarily better/worse.

I am baffled by this article because only a couple years ago we were talking about how much better it would be to have robotic assistance during surgeries. If there wasn't any significant difference using the machines, why did we invest in them in the first place? Hospitals must have looked at the pros and cons of using such machinery. Why are they now saying there is little difference in the over-all effectiveness? Could it possibly be ridiculous costs in healthcare to begin with? Hospitals and medical organizations need to seriously look at what they are spending on these fancy new advances. This is why we have such ridiculous costs in healthcare. Robots are fancy...but not always practical.

Two Sides to Every Story

My letter to the editor will be in response to the following article:

http://www.startribune.com/nation/83845817.html?page=1&c=y

This article talks about a new agency, similar to the National Weather Service, proposed by the Obama administration to monitor and predict the effects of global warming.


In your article "With climate change comes new federal agency to track it" several good points are brought up. The article acknowledges that extremist views of global warming are not to be taken as the truth, as well as stating that an accurate prediction can help farmers and other people who rely upon the land for their well-being make good decisions for their businesses. However, while not taking an extremist perspective on the issues of climate change, the author still gives the impression that global warming will only have a negative effect that people must prepare for and adapt to. This is not the case. According to GlobalWarming.org, this gradual change in climate will bring benefits as well as potentially harmful conditions. These benefits include longer growing seasons, more rainfall, and fewer deaths due to cold, which right now outnumber deaths due to excessive heat. Most people are unaware of these potential benefits (I myself was until I did a little research after reading your article) and I believe it is the media's responsibility to publish such information, providing readers with multiple sides of a story, allowing them to make their own decisions.

New Education Techniques in Science-based Classes

The article that I am choosing to write about is out of the February 11th, 2010 edition of the Minnesota Daily. The article is on the front page and is titled "New STEM Center to Focus on Educational Process." The article is about how science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (collectively called STEM) need to take a more central role in education nationally, and recently the University of Minnesota added a center to study issues in STEM education. The article focuses on the fact that teaching science related topics is hard and educators need to come up with more effective ways to teach students. The problem I have with this article is that it is non-collaborative between the sciences and the humanities (the basis for this class). It uses a scientific approach to solve a scientific problem. Also, the science classes that are currently being taught in middle and high school are completely independent of other topics learned. In no way did I ever experience interdisciplinary learning in a STEM related class in high school. The purpose of my letter to the editor is to propose an overhaul to the way subjects are taught in middle and high school, not just science subjects.


Letter to the Editor:

In response to your article titled "New STEM Center to Focus on Ed. Process," I believe that the newly created STEM education center is missing the point on educational processes and current focuses of its research. You say "science, technology, engineering, and mathematics need to take a more central role in education nationally," but with this quote I think that you are missing the point. STEM subjects do not need to take a more central role (I think they ARE in the center already), but rather interdisciplinary studies need to take a more central role. Focusing on science-based education is like teaching someone to catch a fish, but not how to reel it in. It is only half the battle. Teaching a student to take science related information and apply it to life problems and questions creates a student that is conscious to a world outside of science. I think that STEM should include a 'H' in its name designated for teaching the humanities, because by addressing an issue using both scientific and humanistic angles, students will truly be better suited to create an "economically stable nation." Just a suggestion that STEM should do some research on.

Global Warming?

This is in response to http://www.startribune.com/nation/84252087.html?page=1&c=y, an article about the $10 Billion/yr promised to 3rd world countries to counteract the effects of global warming.

How can the United Nations even be taken seriously anymore? While the original intentions of the organization were good, it has since become dominated by 3rd world countries who are just out to "get their's." The meetings are dominated by poor countries looking to leech money from the 5 or 6 countries that drive the world economy. The logic, the evidence, that spurred this monetary pledge is bunk, as admitted by the scientists behind the report itself. So why are larger countries insisting upon donating billions and billions of dollars to 3rd world countries? Are we responsible for the hardships that they might incurr from climate change, just because we consume larger amounts of fossil fuels? If industrial nations are to be held responsible for their larger amounts of fossil fuel consumption, shouldn't third world countries be held responsible for the greenhouse gases emitted by natural causes such as volcanoes? More importantly, don't industrial countries already take more aggressive approaches to greenhouse gas prevention than their third world counterparts? Agriculture and livestock are large sources of revenue in third world countries, and don't face nearly as many restrictions as those industries do in the United States.
The article should focus on the more important part of this story, the fact that the UN is giving them any money at all.

I'm focusing on an article from the Star Tribune that shows increased rates of patients opting for more expensive robotic surgery, though these surgeries haven't shown any higher rates of success. I decided to use this article because though id addresses the monetary issues of these procedures fairly well, it fails to ask why people are opting for these more expensive surgeries.



Looking at the issue this article addresses, I can clearly see a hole... why are people opting for these robot assisted surgeries over standard the surgeon/scalpel based ones. What social/media forces are pushing this movement to make people think that these surgeries are better for any reason. While no real why is mentioned, I think this article could definitely be expanded to include the social forces pushing this trend, such as the legitimation of robots because of their sterility/perfectibility/etc, and how this makes them seem better than an old fashioned bloody surgeon.

Depression's evolutionary path

I chose an online article from The Wake. The article talkes about depression through history and how it is a trait that doesn't have anything to offer that might be advantageous to our evolution. I thought it was interesting that it referred to depression both as a disease, disorder, and personality trait. I guess I feel like there is a problem in classifying it as something that might have been culled out through evolution, because it is all in your head: you're not slower, weaker, or less attractive to potential mates because of it. It doesn't have any evolutionary advantage, but neither do ADD or OCD or any other mental disorder that you may be diagnosed with.

Here is my rough rough draft, I would appreciate any constructive criticism you can give! thanks.


This article looks at depression as something that should be helpful to our survival or have been wiped out in the evolutionary process. Depression, as far as we can tell, is not linked to any particular gene, which indicates that it must be free from the physical body and all in the mind. Depression is not a physical abnormality, but rather a mental disorder such as add or ocd. Though it may not have a purpose like jealousy or competitiveness, it doesn’t seem to hinder people from growing and reproducing either. Rather than looking at depression as something advantageous or disadvantageous to our evolution, we could instead ask why certain people are more predisposed to the disorder than others, or what kind of environmental or biological factors contribute to depression.

Blog Posting #3 (due Sunday 2/14, 11:59 P.M.)

This week, we'll use the blog as a place to develop letters to the editor and improve each other's work. The required posting, thus, comes in two parts:

1) Identify, in a few sentences, the publication you're looking at (something local, in the Twin Cities area -- can be online or in print), the problem you see in the way science is being deployed there, and why you think it's a problem you think it's potentially dangerous or harmful enough to merit your time in addressing it. The point of writing this little meta-commentary, before writing the text of the letter itself, is to inform your colleagues about what you're trying to do, so they can best evaluate how well you did it.

2) Write a draft of your letter to the editor.

(For easy reference, here's the text from the assignment sheet: "Write a letter to the editor of that publication, in which you describe that problem, explain and analyze it, and propose a corrective. (Note: letters to the editor are, of course, for a general reading public. This is part of the challenge—how to communicate ideas such as semantic contagion, legitimation, biopolitics, and Cartesianism effectively, without using any jargon? And they are short­—150-200 words maximum!)")

Finally, in your comments this week, offer some suggestions to help your colleague improve their letters -- what can be clearer? how could the arguments be strengthened? how might something be worded better? Let's make these as good as they can be!

Public Health Care

Watching the debate on Thursday, I couldn't help but feel like both sides were missing one of the MAJOR issues with disorder classification. It was even touched upon by the first question asked by the audience. What are the monetary and political ramifications of calling apotemnophilia a disorder? With the health care debate red hot in Washington, what have we discussed that is MORE political than a controversial disease/disorder/ailment that could cost insurance companies millions of dollars if recognized as an official disorder.

Pinker does a good job touching on the "wannabes" and the trend for social disorder diagnosis rates to rise after they have been brought into a larger societal view. He stayed within his bounds though, and avoided discussing the implications of increased awareness for apotemnophilia. People abuse all systems, its a reality we live with, and this situation is certainly susceptible. How many people think the diagnosis rates will skyrocket if apotemnophilia is classified in the DSM as a disorder? I believe it will. I also believe if government health insurance is fully implemented, it will jump even higher! Not a massive jump, but it shall exist. While some of these people may truly have apotemnophilia, how many of them are being lumped into a broad-spectrum diagnosis when their problem is actually something entirely different? While the idea of amputating a leg may seem absurd to a rational being such as those of us reading this blog, I can think of plenty of reasons why an irrational person would want an amputation BESIDES the reasons prented as grounds for an apotemnophilia diagnoses.

The fact that the classification of apotemnophilia as a disorder is disputed, and health care is a hot political topic at the moment, is what makes this a clear cut case of biopolitics, and I think it would be interesting to see Stephen Pinker's musings into the larger societal role this disorder could play.

Humans to Aliens

I think this is one of those issues that will definitely define (at least partially) what it means to be human, for the foreseeable future. On one hand, we let evolution stop completely by "fixing any abnormality," something we feel so compelled to do, or we force evolution to continue in a way we deem favorable, with an android-human future forthcoming as such. The way modern consumer health is structured, I definitely see humans heading for the android future, we're already taking steps that way, as demonstrated by our professor. But perhaps his 20-15 vision is just a side-bonus... I mean why shoot for normal if you can get great, right?

That aside, the question begging at the hamstring of modern consumer surgery, as said in class, is what happens when these implants, reductions, removals, replacements, etc. become demanded. That is definitely a factor for the people getting their limbs removed. If they had no clue that they could have such surgeries, how many would want them, or even think they need them. Maybe that feeling of a limb not belonging where it hangs for arms and legs is normal, and these people just never got that, or maybe it is poor nerve connections. Regardless, you can't want something if you don't have any knowledge of it! and that is why drug companies advertise.

***
Do you have RLS? ... even if you're not sure, why not ask you're doctor? It could make you life better forever... blah blah blah ... oh, and don't worry about the side affects (all fifty of them, stated in rapid speech or fine print)... they don't matter if your problem is solved, never mind the ten other we created... (we've all seen these commercials).
***

But that is just the point, these side effects do matter. You look better than her, so you must be a better person (naturally or through money). Oh... you're ugly so I don't like you... shoo


If we are headed for an android future, we better watch as these side effects build... anybody see Independence Day, starring Will Smith? I sure as hell don't want to end up stuck in a life suit like those aliens! How about I am Legend... lets all be vampires... it'll be great cause we just cured cancer right!

Life in easy mode

While reading Aldous Huxley's A Brave New World, I found myself identifying with the savage. The idea that we must experience pain and hardship, in order to appreciate what we have, is something I agree with. This idea comes from the philosopher Friedric Nietzsche, and has been integrated into our society. It can be seen in the credos "No Pain, No Gain," and "That which doesn't kill me makes me stronger," which has been adopted by athletes and soldiers. Nietzsche believed that happieness came from overcoming our pain, and that if we mask our pain we won't fully enjoy our lives.

Science may have reduced our pains, but has it made us happier. I would say that it has, for several reasons. First off mental pains like depression come from a chemical imbalance in our brain, and not from external sources. Therfor, anti-deprassants can fix pain that couldn't be fixed before. Nietzsche's philosophy assumed that all our problems could be fixed through hard work, which I disagree with.

But what about Apotemnophilia? Is it a good idea to allow people to cut off their limbs? I think it is. The source of their unhappieness comes from possesing the limb, and if they amputate the limb they are addresing the issue and fixing it. What other alternatives are there? Living in unhappieness? Would this even be an ethical debate if prosthetic limbs were superior to their biological counterparts? I highly doubt it.

I think people should be able to pursue happieness in what ever way they see fit, as long as they do so with the constaints of the law. If somone wishes to live their life in front of a television or all drugged up, thats fine by me. I don't want to live my life that way, but I also don't want to meddle in their life, even if they want to chop of their own limbs. This idea was the quientessential thinking of John Locke.

Do we really own our body, or is it just a lease?

“We have the right to our own body” is an argument many are willing to make, but is our body really our own? Somehow we were put on this Earth, and somehow we will be taken off of it. How we chose to live is our prerogative. We are given the one chance to have a life, and make whatever we want from it. Yes, there are “rules” and “guidelines” that we are told to follow, but essentially it is our decision. On the other hand we have our bodies.

I was born and raised Catholic (now whether or not that has anything to do with this argument, I guess is left up to the question of nature or nurture). I have this idea that our body is not “our own”, but rather a unit we are given to use in the one life we have. We are born in bodies and die in bodies, but they do not define us. Our personality, soul, beliefs, actions, morals, and goals do. All intangible, yet this world seems to place a greater emphasis on the visuals. As discussed in Emily’s Scars, through time our lives became “some- thing-raw material-that people expected themselves to do something with”. An evolution of finding “something” turned into physical uniqueness.

“The contemporary twist on the modern project of the self is that many of us moderns-most observers agree the number is increasing-include doing things with our bodies among the ways to seek the unique point of our lives. At the extreme, the point of one's life can be the modification of one's body.10”

How far is too far with this modification, and does it really better one’s life? I feel that the idea of “being different” has created this world of judgment, and also an impossible strive for perfection. The judgment comes from first visual impressions, the strive for perfection comes from the modifications and distances being taken by people we view as “perfect”.

As history has shown, this demand for physical changes is not about to end, but is one’s truly creating “something” out of their life by changing their body? Our lives are ours to do what we wish, but bodies…. bodies may just be something to carry those lives around in, and should have no impact on how we as people are defined.

Lauren Daggett

What is normal?

Reading about the history of makeup and hair dye, cosmetic surgery and designer feet brought this question to my mind. Over the past week, I have been observing more and more the impact of marketing on society and on myself.
With the advancements in technology and quality of photo retouching you can do today, the 'ideal woman' has become something almost unachievable. Flipping through my roommates Cosmo, I can see lovely ladies adorning almost every page- many of them with their sultry eyes half closed, mouths slightly open, vacant expressions on their faces. They have flawless skin, not a strand of hair out of place, and 'perfect' proportions. They are gorgeous and with tools that you too can obtain (makeup, hair products, lyposcution and breast augmentation), you will be beautiful, life will be easy, and you will be happy. A few months ago, one of the headlines on the cover was, "get rid of muffin top!" My reaction to this: "well wtf is muffin top?" A few days later as I was standing in front of the mirror getting ready to go out, I noticed that my jeans felt a little tight around the waist and that I had flesh bulging up over my belt- the dreaded "muffin top!" Now that that had a term (classification!)- I was aware of it and conscious of the fact that I needed to get rid of it.
This image that magazines, billboards, movies, and pretty much everywhere else has become near impossible for women to match, bringing about that "inferiority complex" and making cosmetic surgury more and more fashionable. You too can stand out- in a good way while still being normal, accepted, and comfortable in your own skin- with the rachel haircut, angelina jolie lips, petite feet, and a brand new nose.
I don't like the power advertising has over me. I don't like the fact that I am 5'10 and 150 lbs and that there are still things that popular culture tells me I should change about my body to be happier and live a more rewarding life. I don't like that I subscribe to buying pricey, high end make up or that it makes me more confident in myself, but somehow it does.

it's 5 minutes till midnight and looking back on this post I'm not exactly sure that I've anwered what I should have or have the right idea of what I should be posting... I hope this post did not get too off topic or turn into too much of a personal rant.

If it ain’t broke don’t fix it!

I really enjoyed the article by Arthur W. Frank and how he addresses "biopolitics". Unlike apotemnophilia or the more strange fixations of changing one's appearance, Frank focuses more on how people have changed their bodies to be a principle of "capital". He discusses how our bodies have become a reflection of our selves and how we now have a choice to "fix" our imperfections, with plastic surgery.

I am one of those individuals who do not believe people should be allowed to chop off limbs just because they feel like it. The same goes for lengthening legs and designing vogue-approved feet. The implications of these procedures go beyond the individual who chooses to do them. Frank talks about how by choosing to do some of these procedures we almost begin to look down upon the individuals who do not "fix" their imperfect nose/feet/face etc. In the beginning of his article he talks about the person he sees walking who has some abnormality, and he finds himself asking why the individual didn't get it "fixed". Frank states, "Patients become consumers of medical products a status that empowers those with sufficient resources and disenfranchises others who lack these resources" (p. 20).

Medicine and medical products have become extremely consumer-driven. Frank explains how a magazine puts these perfections into discourse with an example of Vogue's article on the perfect foot, "Vogue presents a potent lesson in what patients are entitled to expect from their physicians, as well as what people should expect of their bodies". This is extremely dangerous.

This idea of plastic surgery and getting any procedure that changes the appearance one's body is tricky. It's is extremely difficult to justify reconstructing a person's face because of an unsightly birthmark and to not justify a person whose feet cause them distress because they see them as not being normal. So, my question is where do we draw the line? I do not know how to honestly answer that question, however I do not think a procedure should be done if there is any substantial harm that could come to the individual by doing the procedure. I remember reading an article somewhere about a woman who had a foot procedure done, so I tried to google it but found this one instead not as good but still worth looking at.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/07/health/07FOOT.html?ex=1071378000&en=02b427cf212c36d5&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=2

 

 

Pinker, Locke and Politics

Steven Pinker argues that Locke’s “blank slate” concept—the idea that the human mind can be interpreted as, “…white paper void of all characters, without any ideas” (Pinker, 2)—is false. Locke’s theory implies that human beings at birth are equal, and that the only way to furnish the human mind is through experience. Using evidence gathered from the fields of neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, and genetics, Pinker claims that human beings are in fact not born with “blank slates” and that we are not all the same. Pinker’s philosophy implies that there are human beings that are predisposed to excel in certain areas, and that there are other human beings that are predisposed to a futile existence. However, Pinker goes on to assure us that we have no reason to fear inequality, for as long we have laws, policies, and institutions that defend against discrimination and promote fairness, we will avoid a society that exploits the weak and favors the strong. If the world were to fully concede that Pinker is in fact correct, then to what extent would those very laws, policies, and institutions need to be adjusted to stand in line with Pinker’s ideals? Focusing primarily on western conceptions of human nature and human rights, it seems that a substantial adjustment is necessary, as our idea of what it means to be human is deeply grounded in Locke’s writings. The question is then, would the world be a better place if we were to accept that all men and women are not created equal? I’m not so sure this is the time to address such an open question, let us treat it as a form a rhetoric, a rhetoric that speaks to the trouble with Pinker’s argument: that is, if we are to change our conceptions of the human mind and human nature, how can our institutions and social practices remain the same? Short answer—they cannot. In an attempt to settle the dispute between Locke and Pinker, we must learn to re-read Locke’s message not as scientific “fact”, but as a mechanism employed to promote and secure fairness and equal opportunity within a political body. While Pinker’s science may provide us with biological “fact”, it does not necessarily provide us the ideological framework necessary for the implementation and cultivation of a fair political system.

I understand the complexity of these issues, the thinking here is abstract and far-reaching. Therefore, to make more clear the arguments set forth, I turn to an article by Jack Donnelly, a professor of the theory and practice of human rights at the University of Denver. In his article, “The Relative Universality of Human Rights”, Donnelly posits that the very idea of human rights is a social construction. He refutes the idea that most societies and cultures have practiced human rights throughout most of their history, and that those who do believe societies have practiced human rights for most of their history, “…confuse values such as justice, fairness and humanity need with practices that aim to realize those values” (Donnelly, 284). Donnelly goes on to state that, “[t]here may be considerable historical/anthropological universality of values across time and culture. No society, civilization, or culture prior to the seventeenth century however, had widely endorsed practice, or even vision, of equal and inalienable individual human rights” (285). Donnelly is speaking to the fact that the very idea of human rights did not exist until the modern west wrote them down, and claimed them to be inalienable. Prior their creation, human rights were simply impossible to conceptualize. However, human rights for Donnelly, “[provide] attractive remedies to some of the most pressing systematic threats to human dignity” (288). In this light, we can begin to see how the construction of human rights, a construction not set in scientific “fact”, has provided us with a tool to help guide humanity in a direction of justice and fairness—even if those values themselves are social constructions.

We must learn to read Locke in the same way. Locke may not have the scientific evidence to back up his claim, but his conception of human nature and of the human mind, have provided us with framework for understanding how to live amongst other human beings in such a way as to not let the strong dominate the weak. Just because Pinker deemed Locke’s claim scientifically inaccurate, does not mean that it is not useful, or that it does not have it place in politics.

When we look to Pinker, it is hard to imagine a world that accepts all people as not created equal, while promoting fairness through government policies and institutions. It would seem that welfare programs would shut down, and equal opportunity government programs such as No Child Left Behind would be a thing of the past. If my argument is anything close to correct, it is here that we being to see how scientific truth does not necessarily coincide with fairness and justice; moreover, social constructions, albeit not set in scientific fact, do provide us with a means for creating and maintaining a life worth living.

A New Question Entirely

We cannot deny that medicine has ceased to be merely something we turn to for the sake of our health, to relieve pain. Clearly it has become a means of achieving an identity. We've got everything from removing warts to reconstructing genitals to completely changing what our face looks like. It is all a means of getting to look how we want to look. Now, as many people have already said, we do this every day when we chose our clothing or do our hair or make the conscious decision to not do any of these things. It is all an identity.

Arthur Frank describes this in an interesting way when (on page 6) he talks about how we all belong in a field. Our hierarchal position in this field depends on the capital we have, whether its feet that fit into designer shoes or a nice face. This identifies the importance for one to have the capital necessary to fit into a certain field and almost justifies any means of medical enhancement to achieve this capital.

The key word in that sentence is almost.

Although it seems to make sense, logically every human "owns" their own body therefore they should be free to change it however they please, somehow it seems unfair that society dictates how one should look so much so that it drives people to actually change themselves surgically to fit in. When talking about Apotemnophiliacs, the issue is how one reflects their internal innate self physically. However, In Arthur Fank’s article, the issue becomes not the innate self, but the influences of our society and how they govern what we look like.

We as a society have the ability to use science and medicine to change our appearances however we may want (for the most part). So whether or not we should change our appearance seems to me like a pointless question; if we have the ability it will be done and no matter how much we may object to it now, in time it will become the norm. So my question becomes which has the authority to compel a person to seek medical means to change what they look like, the innate self or society? Should we respond with surgery to every little flux of our society? Or should we only use surgery as a means to achieve “one’s true self”? Beats me..

Discussions of Technoluxe

Arthur Frank's piece reflects in essence what we are attempting in this class. Engaging in dialogue to test one's views against the reaction of others. Through this "perpetual process" we gain a better understanding of each other, ourselves, and a way to make decisions that are not so easy to make.
Much of "Emily's Scars" details different medical situations that may or may not warrant corrective surgery. we are surrounded by this technoluxe everyday. All forms of advertising, celebrities, even the women in the Minnetonka restaurant I work in remind me of this modernistic expansion of what we need and want. When is enough enough?
Frank suggests that technoluxe depends on accepting that life is a project of shaping(one's body) and that projects are realized through acts of consumption. Keep people afraid AND YOU WILL KEEP THEM CONSUMING. Frank even cites doctors using this fear as a moral defense! If surgery can prevent teasing then surgeons are morally responsible to do so. Wow. If you don't fix that you'll never be normal.
Not all of the situations discussed are so easy to joke about. Children with facial "abnormalities" brings up more difficult questions for me than rich women who want prettier feet. No matter how differently these two situations seem to me I agree with Frank in that it is impossible to determine the amount of pain caused by them or the possible gains of fixing them. It can't be quantified. one can't simply "draw lines between types of surgeries and give some but not others an ethical seal of approval."
In this Socratic approach to bioethics we must consider each other in our so called "personal choices". Not only the decisions we make but also that a choice exists effects everyone. Awareness of the impact on others these decisions have is an essential part of bioethics. This brings me back to dialogue, this class, this blog...

Designer Babies???

At first when I saw this prompt I was going to bring up the insurance issue (after all, mentioning it at the first lecture got a bit of a chuckle out of Robin...) but seeing as the topic has already been discussed I shall take a different angle.

I'm going to start by mentioning Carl Elliot and "A New Way to be Mad", though only as a springboard into other issues. In terms of biopolitics and determining what sorts of wild and wacky procedures, medications, etc. are acceptable in today's society and deciding where we as a society draw the line, I think Elliot brings up some relevant points during his interviews with several apotemnophiliacs who have successfully become amputees. Many of them express happiness with their decisions and say they are much better off now then before their operation or accident. None of them feel that their decisions affect the lives of others, they do not demand special treatment from others.

In class we talked about people taking Prozac and saying that they 'are themselves' only when on the medication. They are not affecting the lives of others by paying for their prescriptions, only working to better themselves. Individuals with gender identity disorder have sex change operations performed and say they are much happier afterwards. This procedure does not affect the lives of others, and once again the individuals are happy with their decisions. People all over the world opt to have cosmetic surgeries performed all the time. These people get more attractive noses, bigger breasts and butts, tinier waists, and less wrinkly faces. Their decision brings them happiness and doesn't affect anyone else.

In terms of what we should allow people to do, I think your body is your own. If you want no legs, bigger boobs, pierced ears, a penis instead of a vagina, go right ahead. It is your decision. But as soon as the things you do to your body affect others, that is where the line is drawn. There are discussions about building 'designer' babies. Couples can go in and have certain traits removed from their eggs and sperm. In most cases I have heard of this only in cases where a family is predisposed to certain illnesses, cancer, Parkinson's, and the like. But what is to stop these people from requesting a blue eyed baby girl?

I was very surprised to hear that judges ruled it legal for the deaf couple to use these techniques to make sure their baby was also deaf. While the line is very fine in this debate, and technically I see the benefits of helping prevent cancer in a person, I can see the technology being abused and soon we will end up in a society like that in "Brave New World" where every aspect of our development ensures that we will behave a certain way, look a certain way. That is completely unfair to the person whose life is being decided for them.

While the line between ethical and unethical is still being determined and many aspects of it will always be cloudy and open to interpretation, I believe that we must not begin making biological decisions for people. Part of our individuality is defined by the randomness of our genetics, and taking that away would in essence kill a part of ourselves.

Intersting, In Terms of Insurance

Of all the readings that we have read thus far, the one that has stuck out the most to me was the David Brang report “Apotemnophilia: a neurological disorder.” Brang describes a study that he helped run at the University of California, San Diego that suggested that Apotemnophilia actually has a neurological basis (as opposed to being entirely psychological, as was previously thought).

I remember that when we initially discussed this article in class, the question of insurance arose. It’s an interesting question. Who covers this? I am very close to someone who works for the Department of Human Services in Healthcare Purchasing and Servicing for the state of Minnesota. This deals with insurance in terms of peoples’ coverage and eligibility for programs such as Medicare (a federal program for seniors and people with disabilities) and Medicaid (a state and federal program that coverers various healthcare issues that are predetermined by each state). I was speaking with her about the issue of Apotemnophilia’s coverage by insurance shortly after our discussion in class and she had some very interesting things to say about coverage.

While there is a definite condition that has been identified, the person with whom I was conversing with says that there are definitely some issues that come up when faced with the issue of coverage. While most insurance plans differ, for the most part they do cover various neurological disorders and the accepted, appropriate treatments. There seems to be issue with the fact that there isn’t something visibly wrong with the limbs in question. If a doctor cannot actually see anything wrong with the limb that an Apotemnophiliac wishes to remove, there is no reason for a state or federal program to cover that. Policy makers will most likely side with people who need treatment for some other, more acceptable condition. The problem with insurance is that there is so much grey area when it comes time to speak about coverage. For example, Medicare and Medicaid in Minnesota will cover standard treatment for Epilepsy (medications, surgeries, medical consultations that patients were referred to, etc.), but these programs will not cover treatments such as Vagus Nerve Stimulation, as their policy reflects the viewpoint that this is an experimental treatment. While Apotemnophilia is in no way the same as Epilepsy, this person is certain that the treatment would be viewed the same (because the lines defining this condition are so fuzzy). BUT, here’s the interesting part: Medicare and Medicaid WOULD (most likely, under most circumstances) cover the costs of the surgeries that it would take to reattach (or remove) an Apotemnophiliac’s limb/appendage after they had tried to remove it themselves. In the Elliot article, he mentions the person that tried to give themselves gangrene so they could have their limb removed: this would most likely be covered by insurance (especially if you were on Medicare or Medicaid – unless you outright told your insurance company that you purposely mutilated yourself for your wellbeing…then things could get messy).

All of the above are just answers to questions that I had or thoughts that I had that were responded to by a state employee. I’m really interested in this in terms of insurance. It brings up all the questions of acceptability and who deems things acceptable as well as a glut of other issues…but my post is getting a tad bit long. I just found this all very interesting.