Creation Museum

Our discussion in class reminded me of this.  The Creation Museum in Petersbug, Kentucky.  The museum portrays a literal interpretation of the Bible as scientific fact.

Some photos (via Wikipedia)

People React:

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/53237252.html

As you can imagine, reviews are varied (via Google Reviews)

Frankenmuse

I was reading Pitchfork's review of the Sleigh Bells/Diplo "Reign of Terrror" Tour  and found a surprising link to a text I read for class.  Tucked in the scary depictions of the Florida shows, a description of the band Sleigh Bells jumped out, emphasis my own,

Keepin' it superficial and quasi-sexist: [Alexis] Krauss consistently adorned herself in an It-frontwoman hodgepodge that contributed to her vague "identity." As dandy as her shoegaze counterpoint to [Derrek] Miller's aggro-festive blare can sound, one could still project upon her a sort of Frankenmuse persona consisting of equal parts Peaches, Pink, Pat Benatar, Alice Glass, and Karen O. (I gaze at Lykke Li similarly, but shackle her to a different list of seem-alikes.)

 So there you go, the "Frankenmeme" in action! Can't decide if this is any more or less appropriate than the "memes" use in regard to GMOs, because this isn't that serious, and is actually a pretty apt way of describing the band's singer.  Isn't it crazy when you see what you talked about in class in real life?

Is that you, daemon?(Photo via Pitchfork)

Evolution vs. Creationism

I found numerous articles from the election.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/17/bachmann-schools-should-teach-intelligent-design/

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-people/rick-perry/video-perry-answers-childs-question-about-evolutio/

The issue is also debated in regular school districts:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/judge-rules-against-intelligent-design/#.TzxBtdQtrk8

Frankenstein

Regarded by some to be the first published science fiction book, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein tells the story of a  man who creates a living being from cadavers.  At a glance this book may seem to warn of the dangers of scientific experiments, I think this book encourages science as much as it discourages it.

There is, of course, evidence of the danger of scientific endeavors.  The monster Victor Frankenstein creates leads to his ruin, killing his friends and family, stalking him across Europe, and watching him with glowing eyes in the night.  But it is also important to realize that these are results of the creature's misery and feeling of being utterly alone, something which is Victor's responsibility, as the monster's creator, to address.  As Victor seems to realize in death, that as the monster's maker he had the "duty" to "assure...[the creature's] happiness and well-being (Shelley 185)."  From the moment the monster's life began, Victor has rejected his creation, leaving him to navigate the world alone.  Because Victor didn't fully think his experiment through, then dealt with the results of his science irresponsibly, all the death and much of the misery detailed in the book came to pass.  This could mean the book, instead of discouraging science, is encouraging responsibility in science.

There are other areas of the book that show a pro-science lean, one of which is also found in Victor's final speeches.  As he nears death he warns Walton of the dangers of scientific ambition, but then his final words are "I have myself been blasted in these hopes [of scientific accomplishment], yet another may succeed (186)."   Though Victor has suffered and ultimately perished because of his science, he still seems to think that someone else could succeed.  His final words suggest he thinks that the science of giving life to the dead is worth pursuing, and that he ultimately wouldn't discourage others from studying the subject. 

The book's preface also offers a glimpse to the author's view on scientific endeavors.  The wordy and confusing preface begins

The event on which this fiction is founded has been supposed, by Dr. Darwin, and some of the physiological writers of Germany, as not of impossible occurrence. 

I shall not be supposed as according the remotest degree of serious faith to such an imagination;

yet, in assuming it as the basis of a work of fancy, I have not considered myself 

as merely weaving a series of supernatural terrors. (3)

In this passage Shelley (actually her husband) suggests that there is some real, "not impossible," science is in this book, and thus the novel should not be received as merely a ghost story.  To me, this suggests that the author sees this situation as somewhat plausible, at least the idea that a scientist can create something detrimental and uncontrollable.  When this idea is viewed with the events of the book, this could be seen as warning; though this particular instance may be fictional, there are other sciences that are both possible and dangerous. 

But I think the preface also sparks the imagination.  If there is some science in the re-animation, what else is possible?  People of this time couldn't have predicted the sciences we have now, such as cloning or growing artificial organs in labs,  Mary Shelley could have just as easily wrote about one of these situations.  This is also the way Victor first becomes interested in natural philosophy, not from hard science, but from the possibilities science presents.  Ultimately the preface says don't write this  book off as totally inauthentic science, don't read this as a ghost story, read this as something that could happen.  I think in encouraging this at the start of the book, the author wants the reader to imagine other sciences that could come to be.

Mister Green

I recently watched a cheesy, yet striking short film entitled "Mister Green."  The films takes place in a future where global warming has caused major cities to flood and higher temperatures globally.  Mason, the main character and reason for the film's title, is head of the Department of Global Warming, which gets little funding despite the fact that global warming has wreaked havoc on the world.  Through the scheming/faux-seduction of a woman who's environmental company lost government funding, Mason finds himself turned into some kind of plant-human hybrid, able to photosynthesize and sustain himself with sunlight.

Human-Plants Frolicking Amongst Plant-Plants

The film ends with what seems to be Mason infecting the president's cabinet with the spores of the flowers which turn people into plants.

Okay, while that plot summary makes this film sound no better than a SciFi Original Movie, this film really encourages the viewer to look critically at the government and modern society in general in relation to global climate change and environmental issues.

The government's handling of global warming is at the forefront of the issues addressed. In this film, the national government seems have done nothing to prevent global warming, as the film shows that the worst-case scenario has come true.  Even worse, it has no plans of doing anything in the near future, with Mason mentioning the funding for his department has been cut until 2016.  Just as global climate change is an issue many politicians don't face today, this film suggests the future will be the same.  This is alarming, because unlike today, where the effects of global warming are relatively small, in this future world they are major -- Venice is underwater, New York is underwater, and everyone looks too hot all the time.  The changes are very undeniable and incredibly tangible, yet the government continues to ignore the issue.  Mason says that if people want change, they will have to force it.  This takes on new meaning when it seems that not even the flooding of New York is enough to "force" the government to work for change. It speaks for how low of a priority the environment is, for seemingly nothing will get the government's attention.  Apparently this "forcing" will have to be more personal, as Mason makes it so the president and his advisers will photosynthesize. 

Don't mess with nature y'all, or I will turn you into a plant-person.

I guess it also speaks to how much denial there is with global climate change.  Many people say that scientists don't agree with each other, or that global warming is just another natural weather shift, or that we have no way to determine that we are the cause.  None of these things are true, and the science behind global warming is solid, and yet people refuse to look at the science, feeding their belief by not looking at the facts that would force their opinion to change.  I just hope that people aren't so thick-headed that the flooding of New York City would prompt voters to force the government to some action. 
So how do we get the government's and general public's attention?  The film seems to say that we must force it on them, but in a way that is like an attack.  Mason is turned to a plant person against his own will, and only then does he seem to realize the benefits.  Because he chooses to infect the president and cabinet in the same way, with subtle infectious spores, it can be inferred that Mason sees this as the only way things can get done.  But is it?  I have no answers.

I guess the thing that struck me the most about this film was what it said about the role of humans in the environment.  Biologically we are consumers, but materialism has brought new meanings to "consumer."  Instead of this just applying to the need to eat plants or other animals, it means using the earth's resources at an alarming rate, and using resources even when it hurts the environment and will hurt us in the end.  By turning people into plants, people go from consumers to producers, able to sustain themselves without anything but water and sunlight.  Maybe this doesn't have to be taken in the literal sense, but instead read as people must lower their level or consumption, going from hyper-consumer to a producer of some sort.  Maybe we shouldn't be plants, but maybe instead people who live sustainable lives, who live at a local scale and aren't dependent on fossil fuels and manufactured foods from far away places.  This would force us to connect to the natural world, keeping us in-tune with the weather and the changing of the seasons, and this connection would help us realize how important it is to take care of the natural world.