Language

Does language limit our understanding of the world?

I think it does, but I also think that other factors like context and knowledge limit our understanding of the world. 

If we read a story about a man who belongs to the guerrilla, but we're not specified which guerrilla, and we are not from the country the author is writing about, or we know nothing of the history of that country, our understanding of the story will probably be limited. In this case our language is not the limitation because the language is one we understand and it enables us to understand the anecdote of the story, but the limitation of our context and knowledge is what hinders us from understanding a deeper meaning or an occult message in the story. 

An example of how language might limit our understanding of the world is a scientific journal. Our year 12 education does not enable us to have an advanced and complex scientific vocabulary, which makes reading a science journal a difficult task. If the language in the journal goes beyond our mastery of scientific terms then we will never fully comprehend the text we are reading, which is an example of how language limits our understanding of the world. 

Kony 2012

30 minutes. 5 days. 7,000,000,000 people.

Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Ifunny, pinterest, and many other social networking sites have been invaded by the video above. Kony 2012 is a campaign by the Invisible Children Organization that aims to capture Joseph Kony and put his reign of terror in Africa to an end. This video has become a massive awareness campaign, with amazing results. In just 5 days the video received over seven thousand million views.

In my opinion, what the Kony 2012 campaign has accomplished, and  is aiming to accomplish is beyond words. I take my hat off for these people, because they have managed to take something that very few people knew about and make it into something impossible to ignore. I have read the articles criticizing the campaign and, although some raise valid points worth considering, I am still a firm believer in Kony 2012. I don't give a flying fizzle (pardon my French) what people like Jorge, Sergio, Santiago, and others who always want to criticize everything and always go against the "mainstream" thing, think or say. I honestly don't think that this campaign will do more hurt than good. I don't think that we should be dissecting this campaign and trying to find its problems in TOK class because I honestly believe our opinion on this subject is none of our teacher's bussinnes (she types while waiving goodbye to a good grade this term).

I, of course, am aware that there are several issues with this campaign, like the prominence of the producer's son that has almost no relevance to the message of the video, or the fact that this didn't attract the attention of the USA government until now (shortly after oil was found in the African region were Kony operates), or also the fact that the orders are to kill or capture Kony knowing that his assassination could lead to more problems than solutions. I am aware of all these problems, but I firmly believe that this issues should not stop people, if they truly believe in the cause, from making donations or pledging their support. The Kony 2012 campaign is striving for good, not evil, so I would like to keep that in mind when discussing the potential issues of the campaign or the video. 

Here's to the crazy ones, the ones who know we live in a wonderful world

Think different, be different.
Smile. Laugh. Love.
Be the change the world needs.
Love this wonderful world.
Give life all you've got.
Be one of the crazy ones.
Think.

Is it Ethical to Create Recombinant DNA Organisms?

"A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon this world."

-Albert Camus

"Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do."

-Potter Stewart

Recombinant DNA is defined by Biology-online.org as spliced DNA from two or more different sources that have been cleaved by restriction enzymes and joined by ligases. Genetically engineered DNA made by recombining fragments of DNA from different organisms. The joining together of genetic material from two different organisms. 

Examples of recombinant DNA organisms include:

• Glofish - A zebra fish infused with either coral, anemone, or jelly fish DNA; which makes it glow neon red or green instead of being the usual black and white.
• Vacanti mouse - A mouse that has what looks like a human ear growing on its back. The "ear" is not an actual ear but an ear-shaped cartilage structure. 
• Neonmice - Mice that glow in the dark.
• Golden rice - A new variety of rice engineered to express the enzymes responsible for β-carotene biosynthesis.
• Insect-resistant crops - Crops with recombinant DNA from Bacillus thuringeiensis, a bacterium that naturally produces a Bt toxin protein with insecticidal properties. It repels insects without having to spray the crops with insecticides. 

There is no doubt in my mind that recombinant DNA has helped scientists make huge advances. It has helped them create crops that could help save people from vitamin deficiency, which could lead to death. Golden rice is a great example of this, as its DNA allows it to make up for the vitamin A deficiency in the diets of people in undeveloped countries. 

Another example of the advances that scientists have been able to make thanks to recombinant DNA are the Neonmice. Neonmice allowed scientists to understand 2 very important things: they helped them find a new way to engineer the animals to make them acquire certain medical conditions which has greatly speed the research in finding cures for this diseases. The second thing they helped them achieve was a greater understanding of type II diabetes which has send scientists around the world on their way to find a cure. 

However, what troubles me is this: how far should the scientists take recombinant DNA? Recombinant DNA (or rDNA) is something that shouldn't be played with. It can create dangerous organisms, or organisms that when inserted into natural habitats could unbalance the food chain and destroy other species. 

It is also not ethical to toy with life. Scientists who experiment with recombinant DNA might develop a "God complex" which could lead to them trying to control life and new species. It is also not fair to the animals being used as experiments for rDNA. The scientists are meddling with the essence of their being, their DNA, which could lead to trauma. Another thing that isn't ethical is how much pain and discomfort these experiments must be causing the animals.

The questions I have are:

How safe is it to experiment with rDNA?

Should the humans be allowed to create new species without consideration to the consequences it may have on the environment?

How far should scientists be allowed to go? Should they stop at plants, fish, and lesser mammals? Or should they continue towards greater mammals and humans?

How far is too far?

Empathy

"Empathy depends not only on one's ability to identify someone else's emotions but also on one's capacity to put oneself in the other person's place and to experience an appropriate emotional response" 

-Charles G. Morris

"Could a greater miracle take place than for us to look through each other's eye for an instant?"

-Henry David Thoreau

Empathy is something that few people master. Most of us can feel empathy to some level, sociopaths being the major exception, but few of us truly master the art of stepping into someone else's shoes and feeling what they're feeling. 

Empathy is what allows us to live together in a society without ripping each other's throats out. It is a skill we have developed over millennia, and many would say it is a skill that sets us appart from animals. Now, is this true? Are animals incapable of empathy? The answer to this question is no, it is not true that animals are incapable of empathy.

A very clear example is provided by a study that took place recently in the University of Chicago. In this experiment scientists sought to find out wether a rat would release a fellow rat from an extremely unpleasant cage if it could. The answer was yes. The free rat responded to the occasional distress calls uttered by its compatriot, it learned to open the cage, and became more and more efficient at it over time. The free rat would release his companion even if he wasn't rewarded with a reunion afterwards. The most astonishing aspect brought to light by the experiment was the fact that the rat, given a ration of chocolate chips, would save one or two for his companion and would give them to him when he released him. The unavoidable conclusion that the researchers came to was that what they were witnessing was empathy.

Now, think about it. We're talking about a rat here: A RAT. We consider rats to be some of the filthiest and less lovable animals. We associate rats with cheaters and betrayers, and they, generally, have a very bad reputation. If we can see this level of empathy in a rat, this level of caring and understanding, why do we think animals cannot display empathy? Why do we believe we're superior to animals?

Who Am I?

Which of these am I? 

Am I only one, or am I a combination of them all? 

Am I who people see me as, or am I who I see myself as? 

Does a mirror tell the truth? 

Can a mirror reflect everything we are, inside and out? 

Does a mirror see what makes us who we are? 

Can everyone see who we are, or only those closest to us? 

Do we know who we are? 

Do we know why we are who we are? 

Which of these elements makes me who I am? 

Is it all of them together?

I think so

I think we're too complex to describe in one word

No one single thing makes us who we are

It is a combination of everything in our lives that creates who we are and who people see...

The Hunger Games - A Futuristic View on Ancient Rome?

The book trilogy The Hunger Games, is a trilogy about a girl, named Katniss, and her struggle against the power that oppresses her people. The books are set in a future America, though it is no longer called America, it is called Panem. Panem is divided into 13 districts and a Capitol. The districts once decided to rebel against the Capitol, but the Capitol won, and as compensation it asked the districts to send a boy tribute a a gril tribute each year to compete in a thing called the hunger games. The games consisted in releasing the 26 kids into an arena with the knowledge that only the last one standing would be able to go back home, showered with prizes and food for their people. 

The games were televised for everyone to see, their viewing was absolutely mandatory. For the people in the districts it was torture seeing their children dying, but for the people in the Capitol, it was the highest entertainment event of the year; and this is were the allegory with Ancient Rome comes into play.  The hunger games were blood baths designed to entertain the people. The people of the Capitol were controlled by means of keeping them entertained and well fed and, exactly like the Roman Emperors, President Snow knew what he needed to keep them subdued was Panem et Circences (Bread and Circus). He knew that as long as the people of the Capitol has entertainment and were very well fed, they would never rebel against him. He knew all he needed to maintain his position in power was to keep them comfortable. The Roman Emperors did exactly the same thing. They had games were gladiators fought each other for the glory, while the gladiators fought, the people of Rome were kept entertained by these games. During the games the Emperors used to throw bread into the crowd, feeding them. Their logic was very solid: fed and entertained, what reason did they have to complain? This is how the Emperors maintained their power and popularity. 

In my opinion Suzanne Collins, the author of The Hunger Games, is a genius. She managed to create a world that showed us how backwards human beings can be. She showed us how even though time moves on, human beings are still as savage and primitive as always, the only difference being that we've learnt new ways to disguise our primitive ways. We are a race that's primitive in the most fancy and sophisticated of ways, and Suzanne Collins has managed to show us this in her wonderful books.

Let the Hunger Games Begin,

And may the odds be ever in your favor.