Biotech Century

One of the main points of Jeremy Rifkin's argument in the article "Biotech Century" is that it is too difficult to "assess all of the potential impacts that a genetically engineered organism might have on the Earth's ecosystem." The practice of genetic modification is something that we know very little about. We do not know what the consequences of these actions could be, but we do know that there is a small chance that they could be drastic. Releasing genetically modified organisms into the environment is like releasing a drug to the market without having tested it first to find out what the potential unknown side effects could be. The drug manufacturers would know that the drug usually cured or treated the disease, but they would not know anything else. Without this information, they could harm people without meaning to.

This situation is a mirror to the situation that genetic engineering creates for the world's ecosystems. We should strive to learn much more before we try to use tinkering and trial-and-error genetic engineering to our advangtage. Rifkin claims, "While there is only a small chance of triggering an environmental explosion, if it does, the consequences could be significant and irreversible."

An Animal's Place

Michael Pollan's article, "An Animal's Place," first discusses a book by Peter Singer, "Animal Liberation." Pollan was ironically eating a delicious steak when he first read this manifesto for animal rights, and it made him feel very uncomfortable. The first part of his essay deals with all his counter-arguments to Singer's philosophical reasons for why we should not eat meat, and Singer's counter-arguments to Pollan's counter-arguments. This part of the essay gets a little confusing. But after that, the argument focuses on Pollan's view of what should be done about the treatment of domesticated animals. He argues for free-range farms that let animals retain their essential animalness, as opposed to factory farms, for instance, that keep chickens in cages so small that all their natural impulses to stretch their wings, preen themselves, etc., are prohibited. These types of free-range farms also help to keep the land healthier.

One element of Pollan's argument that I sort of did not understand was when he said that without humans to domesticate animals, the domesticated animals would not exist. He quotes a 19th-century philosopher as saying, "The pig has a stronger interest than anyone in the demand for bacon. If all the world were Jewish, there would be no pigs at all." If we had never had the urge to eat pigs, life for them would have been much different as a species. But obviously we didn't invent pigs, either. If someone would explain that aspect of the argument to me, that would be great.

Overall there was a lot of confusing ethical/moral philosophy involved in the essay, and that made it a challenging read for me, but it also made it really intriguing, and I enjoyed reading it very much. I think I agree with what Pollan is saying.

Another post about cultural globalization not being Americanization

There is one aspect of this article that was probably very controversial. The author addresses the hypocrisy of people who say they love cultural globalization but in reality only like part of it. These types of people are all for the idea of having many different cultural influences in America- lots of delicious food, different types of music, and beautiful arts and crafts from all around the world, for example- but when it comes to American products and influences going abroad to these smaller countries, these people are offended, saying that the ancient cultures need to be preserved and the freedom of the people of those countries need to be protected. But the author says that in reality it is those people's choice to have those products and influences there, and trying to prevent that would be taking away their freedom. I think I can agree with him to an extent, just so long as America isn't pushing its culture upon smaller ones and smothering them out. But I can definitely see how it could be argued that that was happening. For a more convincing essay, I would want the author to give more evidence to show for sure that it wasn't happening.

Cultural Globalization Is Not Americanization

I really enjoyed Phillipe Legrain's article "Cultural Globalization Is Not Americanization" because it made an assertion (if you could not figure out what it was, it is conveniently located in the article's title) and backed up that assertion with facts. Legrain also addressed a couple of counter arguments in his essay, just like we are trained to do in WR 122. He argues that despite the growing fear that American culture is taking over the entire world, cultural globalization still actually means that multiple world cultures are spreading across the globe, not just that McDonalds and Starbucks are appearing on every street corner. To do this, he shatters a lot of misconceptions about various aspects of American culture overtaking other cultures around the globe by showing statistics in his essay that disprove these notions. 

One reason I liked this article so much is that I am currently taking a comparative lit class with the theme of globalization as its topic. Legrain says, "New hybrid cultures are emerging, and regional ones reemerging. National identity is not disappearing, but the bonds of nationality are loosening." This is exactly the type of thing I am studying in my comparative lit class. This guy Stuart Hall, who basically invented cultural studies according to my professor, said that the old way cultural identity used to be perceived- fixed and exclusive, with a distinct tie to one's roots- just didn't work in the time of globalization, migration, and diaspora. The new way of thinking about cultural identity: hybrid, impure, multiple.  People's identities are not just tied to their origins, but also to everywhere else they travel, and to all the cultures they are a part of. I liked reading about that topic in  a different context.

Football is a Sucker's Game

Michael Sokolove's article, "Football is a Sucker's Game," was actually really interesting to me, even though it wasn't really what I expected. From the title, I assumed it was going to be some intense intellectual hating on football a lot, which would have been okay with me too. But instead, the article was a view into something I had never really understood before. I still don't feel like I understand football, but I never realized that it was so expensive! To me it seems illogical that the coaches get paid so much, and that the players won't come to universities unless they have the nicest "facilities." But what does it really matter if the locker rooms have metal lockers instead of wood? I have a problem with the idea of spending tons and tons of money on stuff that seems unnecessary to me, when other people don't have enough to eat. I also have a problem with the idea of buying things with money you don't have, especially such expensive things. Our society is built around this idea, it seems- it's easy to buy as much as you want with a plastic card, and that's why so many people in our country are so far in debt. I never realized that this idea is also a key part of college football.

Another problem I have with college football after reading this article is the idea that a good football team will increase the number of students who apply to the college. Maybe that's true but it's kind of sad, because football and academics are so unrelated. I did not go through the college search process, because I already knew I wanted to go to UO, and I ignored most of the pamphlets and flyers I got in the mail from this and that college, so I don't really know how people make the decision of which college to go to. But I sincerely hope it's not just based on which college has the best football team. That doesn't fit in with my "idea of a university."

Can This Campus Be Bought?

In "Can This Campus Be Bought?," Jennifer L. Croissant (who has such an awesome name, by the way) explores the implications of companies giving financial "gifts" to universities and university departments. One of the major issues with this type of philanthropy is the fear that students will be seen simply as consumers, and that their identity as students and learners and intellectuals will be undermined by their identity as consumers. "For many students, to be a citizen is to be a consumer, and nothing more."

The other main issue with companies giving financial help to universities is that it is never a "no strings attached" gift. It is fair that the companies want a say in the direction of the research that they are funding, because, after all, they are paying for it. But it can also limit students and faculty to do research about things they really want to study. This is a tricky issue for me to figure out how I feel about it, because I can see where both sides, the companies and the universities, are coming from. The universities want to have the freedom to make their own decisions, but they also need the funding from the companies. The companies want some benefits in exchange for all the money they are putting in. As for now, I'm not quite sure how I feel about this issue.

HUNGRY

I'm hungry.