What are we thinking!?!

In the article, Bio tech Century, Jeremy Rifkin discusses the advancements of bio engineered food. Bio tech corporations are taking beneficial genes from animals and splicing them into the DNA of plants that we eat. One example was the tomato plant that now would not freeze because it had the anti-freeze gene of a fish in it. Rifkin talked about making our crops bug and disease resistant as well as the practice of using a very small amount of genetic variety in the plants we grow. I think that it is time that we become aware of the dangers that can arise from genetically modifying our food. We do not know if there are any of us who would be allergic to a tomato with fish in it. We do know that bugs and disease evolve and will end up stronger than our genetically modified food. This will lead to major crop failures and with the gene pool so small the plants will not have a real chance to try to find their own answer to the new super-bugs. These are pretty bleak visions of our future. I do not want this to happen. We need to look at the way we make our food, how it is distributed, and what we turn it into (food products, ethanol,etc). The modern methods are new to all of us. In the past our food was grown and distributed locally. It was fertilized by animals and not petroleum. Farmers made good use of their land unlike mega farms today who only use 15% of their land for growing crops. The food was better, animals were treated like respectfully and not like a number or future profit. Like so many other aspects of our way of life, the food we eat is in need of a drastic change of direction. i just hope that more of us realize this before we really end up hurt.

An Animal's Place

I have always been a meat eater. I have dated girls who were vegetarians and my wife was a vegetarian when I met her (she now eats fish and poultry). I have never had a problem with vegetarians and I have always thought about becoming one one day. Pepperoni pizza is pretty much the only thing stopping me. There are a lot of people who think that eating meat is wrong for moral reasons. Pollan talks about these people in his article, An Animal's Place. I have a hard time with the idea that every single living being (even fruit flies and trees) is deserving of the same rights as humans. This idea is crazy. People who believe this think that fruit should only be eaten if it has fallen from the tree branch and animals have rights.
I am more inclined to believe that domesticated animals on farms should be able to live the lives they are meant to live. This is a life of work in the fields aerating and fertilising the soil. Then after a long happy life they are killed in a quick and relatively painless manner so they can be eaten or sold by the farmer. American farms up to the Nixon era were small family-run farms where animals had their place and the wholesale slaughter of confined steroid filled animals was largely non-existent. Today, the fact is that small open farms are few and far between while the mega farms and meat processing plants are everywhere.
The article is summed up when Pollan proposes the idea that meat processors be open to the public so everyone can see the type of life these poor unfortunate animals lead. This would probably lead to better treatment for the animals and many people would decrease or elininate meat from theri diet. People are not concerned with the lives of the meat they eat. It is not an issue in front of them so most people do not even think about it. Pollan does not think vegetarianism is the answer or even a practical option either. Pollan is for eating meat but getting it from a farm or processing plant that treats the animals with dignity and lets them live the life they were meant to live. This is exactly what I believe. I do not think I could stop eating meat but I buy it locally from free range farms.

Cultural Globalization is not Americanization.

The article, "Cultural Globalization is not Americanization" by Philippe Legrain was an interesting read. I found myself agreeing with a lot of the author's points. His goal was to show that there is nothing wrong with different aspects of American culture making their way into foreign cultures. He tries to shoot down the idea that a Frenchman eating a McDonald's hamburger is destroying sacred French culture. That American companies do not have to actually compete for business in other countries when in fact they have to not only compete in other countries but also with foreign companies here at home. Legrain made me think twice about some of my own beliefs. I have thought that it would be wrong for American products or American ideals and ways of doing things to make their way into the far away pockets of uncorrupted humanity. These people have their own ways of life that have done them well for many years and our way of life may not suit them. Legrain says that it would be hypocritical for someone like me to think that this is right for these types of people and not for America. If I was to suggest homogeny here I would be laughed at and not taken seriously. Maybe the people from these parts of the world want to be like Americans. Maybe they want our way of life and our food and our music and culture. Why should I deny them their right to choose when I have that same right.
Even though I was somewhat affected by this article and may rethink my personal views, the article is written through some seriously rose colored glasses. Legrain does not talk about the devastating affect this way of life has on our environment. There is no reason anyone would be eating, wearing, or using products that are grown or made thousands of miles away. Most of the things we buy and eat are shipped and all of that shipping creates pollution. If everyone was to buy locally and eat locally grown or self grown food than our planet would be much better off. the current agenda for multinational corporations is to produce their products at the cheapest cost and with as few regulations. This has devastated the environment in places like China and throughout southeastern Asia. It has also destroyed the industrial sector of our own economy. Americans do not produce things anymore. Today we buy things. I think that Legrain should take a few paragraphs and address a few of the negative aspects of globalization because they outweigh the positives in my opinion.

College Sports, You know... Football.

Why does Sokolove refer to football as "The S.U.V. of the college campus?" Do you agree?
Do big sports improve school spirit?
Are big sports revenue-producing or draining?

In, Football is a Sucker's Game, Sokolove describes the state of modern college Football and its effects on students and Universities. He calls football, "the SUV of the college campus," because it is big, drains resources, lots of fun, and potentially destructive. In my opinion this statement sums it up. He talks at length about how these mega programs from well known Universities hardly make any money and are usually losing money at the end of the season. The number of people involved in running a college football team is daunting. Their is the coaching staff, the student athletes, the administrative staff, the boosters, the donors, the launderers, the medical staff, and the list goes on. Schools are forced to pour money into the newest, most appealing facilities or they run the possibility of losing potential star players to higher profile schools. I cannot really see a connection between all of this and the benefit for the everyday student or the University itself. The school can make a name for itself or it can be made a joke. The Universities who have losing football teams are always going to lose money. Donors become less interested, fans I don't care anymore, and the star players want nothing to do with them. These schools are left in an ever worsening financial hole that is terribly hard to get out of. Even if the big name schools don't have a perfect season and make it to a BCS bowl game they will lose some credibility and money.
For myself, as an average student, I do feel good to finally have a team to cheer for but its not like I could take my Dad to a game. The seats are too expensive or sold out. I think school spirit is built from the students accomplishing things together as a student body. Sports should only be a small part of that. Football does not bring me any closer to my fellow students.

Can this University Be Bought?

What do you think should be the relationship between commerce and academic life? How should the "life lessons" of the marketplace enter the University? Make connections to Croissant and to your own experience.

In "Can This University Be Bought?", Croissant talks about the deepening relationship between corporate commerce and academic life. This is a disturbing relationship that should not exist. Croissant talks about how ethical corporate sponsorships of University. This can help boost a school out of obscurity and as she says' "establish an institution's relevancy." This makes sense, more money equals a greater ability to be recognized equals more students equals more money. What is the cost of this? The school may be seen as legitimate but the corporations may want to have a hand in deciding what curriculum is taught and what kind of technology is used. Croissant writes about the relationship between the University of Arizona, AOL, and Cisco systems. Students at the University are being taught curriculum for a individual corporate system and is funded by the taxpayers. This is the type of narrowing of ideas that corporate sponsorships of university departments can bring. Croissant also talks about how the state government cut funds for programs that were being funded by sponsorships. This is the situation where the school will no longer have a say and must do what they are told by the people with the money.

I think the life lessons of the marketplace are not taught by having a specific sect of the market telling your teachers what they should teach. I think that classrooms need to be open to different methods of teaching as well as free thought and different views on a specific subject. The student will not gain as much as they could from a school that has the corporate sponsorships Croissant writes about. I can see Universities heading down the same path as so many other parts of American business.

One way I can relate this topic to my own experiences is to compare it to the state of Western medicine. Western medicine was hijacked by big corporate pharmaceuticals. They injected money into the family practices, medical schools, and research institutes. Today doctors are getting kickbacks for putting people on more drugs that are increasingly expensive. Hospitals perform the most expensive and usually unnecessary procedures. Most research for new drugs is performed by doctors and scientists who work for that drugs parent company. Advertisers push newer more damaging drugs on people everyday. People in the US are not getting quality health care and soon students will be taught a corporate agenda brought to them by their sully sponsored university.

The Idea of University...

What is Newman's "Idea of a University?"
What is Spayde's?

Newman's Idea of University is a place where as he says, "all branches of knowledge are connected together." He believed that to separate the different sub-sects of a subject would harm the greater body of knowledge they came from. The student needed to study all that the liberal University had to offer and studying one field will take away from the experience. Newman believes formal University education will lead to better thinkers and more prosperous members of the Catholic church. These people with knowledge of the sciences can better contemplate the mysteries of Christianity. He believed the University was a place where the students interacting and relying on one another, each with their own set of skills, would thrive. Newman says that gaining a "philosophical habit," is the main purpose of the University. Newman goes on to talk about the fact that training of the intellect will "best enable him to discharge his duties to society." This training will raise the level of public awareness as a whole. It will advance the society culturally and morally. To Newman the idea of University is something that will enrich an individual for a lifetime.

Spayde's idea of University is a place that is not the most important place of learning like many people believe. Spayde thinks the majority of really useful learning is done actually experiencing life and it happens with every new experience. Spayde says, "is it any wonder that many of us are beginning to feel that we didn't get the whole story in school, that our educators didn't prepare us for the world we're living in today?" He does not discount the importance of formal learning when he tells of the humanities classes for people near the poverty line in the lower east side of New York. Spayde says that "this is just the beginning of the engagement between ideas and reality." David Orr of Oberlin College describes two types of knowledge: slow knowledge and fast knowledge. Slow knowledge is the kind of life long learning that gives our lives meaning. Fast knowledge is like technology, quickly changing and quickly obsolete. He explains that too much emphasis on fast knowledge in our hi-tech society can lead to disaster. Spayde believes that the idea of University is doing what you truly love, to have learned enough about yourself from your own experiences, and to not get caught up in the structured formal way of learning.