TOKFD

found this on wired magazine…

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

if someone is to slacker to read it, it basically states that RNA ( the basis of DNA and its predecessor) was formed not from a random conglomeration of the conforming compounds, but from a “recipe” of evaporation and recondensation that was recreated in a lab.

I write this blog due to the reaction of different people when I tell them about the interTOK activity and about the different quantum explanations that Fletcher tried to teach us. First of all, I do not wish to criticize Fletcher, although I was kind of disappointed when I realized he was not actually a physicist. During the conference, and when I still did not know this detail, I was intrigued and amazed by the aspects of physics that Fletcher described. Perhaps the one that struck me the most was the fact that we were one percent matter. This tiny detail, which I was aware of but to a lesser extent (atoms are mostly empty space), was so mind boggling (reference to the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy), that I spent about four days thinking about its connotations. My conclusion was not very convincing of satisfying, AT ALL. Our “existence” is marked by particles, some of which are not even measurable, and which vibrate and move constantly. I also began to think that these tiny particles were bunched into millions, even trillions to form single molecules and elements, which gave birth to cells and consequently to human life. It is such an extremely complex gathering of particles that the number Fletcher provided to explain the probability of life seemed reasonable to explain our existence in the Universe.

I did “accept” many of Fletcher statements, except the electron tunneling one, which I researched and was not that simple. However, there were others, like the 7^th grade science teacher, who asked me to explain the fact that we were 99% empty space because they simply did not find it reasonable that we ought to be an infinitesimally nonexistent life form. It all happened because I tried to explain the concept to my brother, who consequently told him. The teacher did not want to believe that we were 99% empty space, which forced me to interpret the theory in other ways, such as to say that we were mostly dark matter (I later rejected this possibility because we would annihilate ourselves) or that we were another undiscovered type of substance. Even other theories that I have read suggest that we are in fact empty space. The higgs boson, a particle which gives matter its mass, has not yet been discovered, yet it would probably provide evidence towards this concept. I would like to point out that I believe in these science concepts because I have always been fond of science (yes, I saw discovery channel when I was 5 years old), and it means that it is my personality which makes me believe in such facts. I was shocked by Fletcher´s statement that he was not a scientist because it altered my reliability of the source. However, since his lecture was based on scientist´s books, it gave me a base or reliability.

I could understand why other people would not like to accept our existence as merely a complementary and orchestral symphony of particles, or a random alignment of such. Some would prefer to see the world in a focused religious way only, while others would take both aspects to try and explain their existence. After all, these theories are all aimed at attempting to discover the truth about the universe, may it be in a scientific, religious or a mixed fashion.

Facebook allows users to create and manage friend networks, photos, videos, as well as thousands of applications that include a wide range of purposes. One of the most popular applications is the “groups” application, which allows the users to join, comment and participate in groups that they like. They are designed so that if a group is not in agreement with a user, he may ignore the group. However, there is a group that recently surged, called the “Holocaust is a Holohoax.” This group is one of the many which deny the existence and occurrence of the holocaust. The issue with these groups is that they are offensive to others. In this case, an attorney in Dallas Texas wants to take the conflict into court. The problem is freedom of speech.

The first amendment of the constitution states that all men have freedom of speech. This means that anyone can say their own thoughts lawfully. However, this law produces conflicts when these thoughts interfere with other´s thoughts. The owners of facebook have already removed groups that incite violence and hatred towards others. The problem in the case of “holocaust deniers” groups is that they do not necessarily nor clearly incite violence or hatred. They are meant to discuss the existence of the holocaust only. The problem here is where to draw the line in terms of group censorship.

Brian Cuban (the attorney), stated that the decision was not based on the first amendment, but rather in the ethical values of the owners of Facebook. Other groups, such as Neo- Nazi groups were eliminated because they provoked violence. The groups that are eliminated all have common aspects, such as exposing ideas and actions that are seen by the majority as unethical. Nazism and KKK groups have been banned, not because of ideas, but because of the actions they perform. This means that the Holocaust group cannot be eliminated only because they expose an idea that is contrary to most of the world population.

The attorney, however, must have a reason to want this group to be eliminated. Much like other´s who suffered or have ties to the holocaust, emotions are a crucial aspect of the decision. Facebook has already tried to be objective in these kinds of cases, and has been criticized for it. They drew the line based on the effect that the group has on the users, mostly on how the groups tell users to act. The “holohoax” group is within the legal boundaries of the group, but it is not within the ethical boundaries of thousands or perhaps millions of users. Because the group is owned indirectly by facebook, they are responsible for what they allow or prohibit in their website.

Facebook´s policy for statements says that users “will not post content that is hateful, threatening, pornographic, or that contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.” In fact, the holocaust groups do not explicitly do not post anything that resembles this content, and thus is protected by law in the United States. In other countries, the post might be banned due to culture or legal reasons, but because the group was made in the United States, it cannot be banned unless there is a special rule applied to the situation.

This situation is one of many conflicts in which websites struggle to maintain a balance between what is right or wrong with regards to posts and groups. In this case, the policies of the website and the constitution were the factors that have determined Facebook´s decision up to this point. In the future, the policies might change and the rules might be bent, but the issue of censorship and free speech is always controversial.

The influenza is a type of disease which is infectious and has been present in human history almost since its beginnings. Commonly known as the flu, this disease is infectious and evolves much like any other animal except faster. This disease is known for killing thousands a year and infecting millions. However, this disease is rarely lethal if it is treated with proper medical facilities. The new outbreak of Influenza has caused great commotion in the people but before I explain why, I need to explain other terms. The virus has certain variations that evolve to spread in the most efficient way. Much like evolution, these modifications occur to assure the survival of the specie. These modifications occur in the surface of the virus, and are named after the proportion of proteins in its surface. H1N1, for example, is also called swine flu and spreads through both pigs (hence the name) and humans. Even though it has been present in the 1918’s, there is a new commotion that begun in Mexico, where people were reported with the disease, which has spread to remote places such as New Zealand.

My point, however, is not to talk about the biological aspects of the disease, but rather of the role that the media has taken towards the outbreak and the consequences. If I get into CNN, or into YouTube, there are videos and news that constantly show new cases or prevention methods. However, in the case of regular flu, this rarely happens. Occasionally, there are advertisements in TV that show how to wash your hands. But in this new case of swine flu, there are massive ads and campaigns of hygiene and prevention, as well as coverage of the news. Even when thousands die per year of the ordinary flu, and millions of cases are reported, they are not covered unless they are interesting and new. This is why I believe that the swine flu has created panic and world wide interest because of media.

Media has become so powerful in the past decades, that there are arguments or events that can be perceived as critical by an audience, even though they are really trivial. However, this does not apply to all audiences, especially those who have previous knowledge of the fact or simply do not trust in a part of media. The current world is connected in a way that any event that occurs in the other side of the planet can reach the other in seconds. This has led to massive awareness of the disease. However, it is often the responsibility of a network or website to control or censor what happens and how it is told, as this can greatly influence how people perceive the event. If we use swine flu as an example, we can see how the news is constantly being repeated in the radio, TV and internet.

Even campaigns can create a false sense of insecurity, since a lot of advertisement may make someone think the opposite of what is really happening. We have to take into consideration that many aspects influence how a human being perceives an event or media. The amount of time dedicated to the news, the register and tone used, as well as colors (in the case of TV and internet). For example, using words such as “pandemic” and “outbreak” will only increase the sense of panic, rather than using less intense words. However, by changing the register and vocabulary, you may risk the real meaning of the situation. You can not always control the way that you describe an event, because human opinion and bias takes place in how you describe it. What you can do is try to educate the masses so that there is no sense of panic if the situation is not worthy of it.

Another aspect that influences how media portrays an event is the past records of such event. Has it happened? What were the consequences? In the case of the swine flu, it has already happened. In 1918, the Spanish Flu was discovered in a time in which war was raging. This disease, coupled with poor medical treatments and perhaps a bad timing, increased the number of casualties that occurred during the war. It was a tragedy in which there were millions killed (from 20-100 million). One of the most significant reasons that the outbreak killed so many people was that it affected young men. Influenza had and is still known to be lethal in very rare cases, especially in young children and older adults. However, this does not mean that it will happen again due to the improvement of medical services. The fact that past events of the same origin were so tragic creates a sense of fear within those who are knowledgeable of such past event.

Another topic related to the swine flu that aroused my interests was the increasing segregation of the infected or of those who even cough. It is more like a trend of “social distancing” which began from the outbreak and which marks the different opinions on the disease. The interesting thing is that it occurs almost unconsciously. If someone sneezes, then automatically, you feel disgusted or display caution towards the individual. The fact that it occurs demonstrates how easily the human being can separate from the individuals who are “scary (in this case infected)” caught my attention the most. It seems like all the history of segregation and equality are somehow reflected in the current situation, in which one group is viewed as a degraded entity. Although it has not come to such as extreme as to create segregated societies, Chief Surgeon Sanjay Gupta states how significant a hand shake can be. He is even promoting a “elbow bump” as a greeting that replaces handshakes and kisses. It appears as though this “crisis (I personally still do not believe it is one)” is exposing the most simple of human behaviors creating changes to these.

I would like to remark that all these observations were made before most mayor news and blogs presented the possiblity of a overrated event. It was kind of coincidential, though, that LA NACION reported on the Spanish flu later that same week.

http://gwdprk.blogspot.com/2005/06/more-pictures-from-north-korea.html

They just seemed pretty nice compared with what we think of North Korea

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/03/19/suicide.forrest.japan/index.html

If we wander around Costa Rica long enough (not so much really), we will eventually find a forest. Forests are viewed as peaceful, ecological and harmonious. Thus, we try to protect the forests and its wild life. There are forests even in parks, and although they are small, they provide a living environment for different animals and a relaxing setting for humans. We travel to forests; we play, or admire the view if there is one. We may even become interested in the biological aspect of the forest. For Costa Ricans, the forest is a place that represents the cultural tranquility.

However, the big type of forests can usually be dangerous, they are hiding places for organizations (for example FARC) and they are often chosen by criminals because of their remote locations as a place to hide bodies. They can also be traitorous and dangerous even for regular hikers. The point is that forests are view differently in different cultures and depending on the context.

In English, we discuss the honor of the Japanese, and how they would commit suicide to end the suffering of others. They are willing to accept guilt in order to release others from it. I bring this point because of the forest that is mentioned in the article. It is a Japanese forest which has amazing views of Mount Fuji and is a constantly visited park for many, most importantly suicides. Such was the case of Taro, a man who tried to commit suicide in the forest, yet failed because he was discovered before dying. Taro explained that he had lost his job, and therefore it was necessary to commit suicide amidst the economic depression.

To explain why someone would commit suicide in Japan for losing his job, I need to once again refer to English class, where Lissy explained how a job was somewhat different in Japan because workers were expected to continue to work even after the established 8 hours. They were also expected to meet with their superiors constantly, almost socializing, in order to be promoted. A job was most likely to be kept for life, even if it was disliked by the worker. Having several different works in your curriculum meant that you were not committed, and therefore meant that you could not get another job as easily. It was based in the feudal system and the values that existed before the modern world, and it therefore somewhat similar.

The problem is that the forest does not only encounter isolated cases of suicides, but it is a frequent point of visit for such. Now with the economic depression raging through most of the world, the situation is worsening to the point of having to install security cameras to detect these people. As the article states, the government has pledged to decrease the rate of suicides for 2016. However, how can it be possible to diminish the rates of suicide in a country where it is still considered honorable? It has much to depend on the cultural aspect of Japan, and whether the government can actually change the mentality of its populations.

If we analyze the ethical implications of such actions, it may mean that it is unethical to change a culture, but it may also mean that it is the evolution of the culture to a state in which the loss of jobs does not mean suicide as the best solution. If the government actually desires to change this rate, then they must foment the change in culture, which all the areas of knowledge, as well as the ways of knowing.

So what exactly do you have to do to change a culture? First, there must be a change in the perception that the population has on their culture, and this may come with time of propaganda or an important event. If we examine other examples of cultural change, such as Stalin´s purges, we can identify the necessities of such, even though the extent would vary depending on the significance of the social change. There must be a strong government that withstands the pressure in order to put forth a strong and confident perception of him. This way, people can actually trust in their actions. Furthermore, there needs to be extensive propaganda and time, all these to gradually change the culture. It is needed because a culture evolves, much like any organism, and a sudden change would be denied, or heavily countered. Language would be a crucial factor because there would be a need to decrease or change the use of words that have honor and suicide as connotations. Emotions and reason would then be somewhat controlled after perception and language are changed because they would be based on the convictions of the newly formed society.

Of course, like any other TOK aspect, the task will be difficult to achieve, especially under Japanese strict rules and other circumstances, and must therefore be a gradual process.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/03/17/cameroon.pope/index.html

As we enter, or leave, puberty there is a number of factors that are implanted in our brains. In Lincoln, for example, we used to have classes about the use of drugs and about birth control. In my opinion, these reunions, or talks, were given prematurely because of the age they were given to us, about 13 years old. However, the will not be the topic addressed as it is recommended that education of these topics must begin at the earliest stages. The topic I will be addressing is specifically birth control and how different perspectives exist in the current world and why.

In our earlier biology classes, we learned about the scientific process that was sex. There were (and still are) sections of textbooks that are designed to explain sex as educationally as possible. There were even sections that intended to address birth control methods in textbooks that were meant for middle school. Many of us learned that having babies as teenagers was not the best idea considering that we would probably have to skip school and hold new responsibilities that were not known to us. Textbooks taught us that these methods would avoid STD`s and undesired babies. Because of this, our culture became a niche for young people to study and learn in a prosperous environment. However, there are other places that do not allow, or that are not used to such education. The article above is about the pope`s visit to Cameroon, where he strongly discouraged the use of condoms. Although this might seem as somewhat senseless to our culture, there is a reason behind this conviction. The Vatican`s belief is that condoms should not be used because they violate the moral implications of nature and god`s will (this means contraception and birth). Their ideals come from the bible and from interpretations that have been carried on through generations to form the church of today. It would seem somewhat radical that the church is one of the most strong advocates and fighters against AIDS because the main prevention against AIDS it are condoms. However, the idea is not as radical because the church supports the research for cures and preventions against the disease.

In the case of Cameroon several other countries in Africa, which have the highest mortality rates of AIDS, what can be done? Should the Church sacrifice its convictions in order to promote the use of condoms, or should they continue ratifying their ban on condoms? If you consider other places where condoms are used, there are several aspects that influence the decision to punish and individual. One of the most important aspects is Culture. In Costa Rica, few people are punished for the use of condoms, yet there are people who are punished for using other birth control methods. However, it is important to realize that there is no punishment for the use of condoms, so it is up to the individual to decide whether or not it is morally correct to use condoms. The importance of the Vatican`s view is that is pressures the individuals who have the strongest convictions. In a place of the world where AIDS is widespread and extremely feared, how can individuals decide if the consequences are worse than the use of condoms? It could also be beneficial if a pope decided to lessen the pressure against the use of condoms because it could mean that people can use condoms without having to feel less Christian.

This situation represents the overlap of two ideas, even though they do not oppose each other. The church may fight aids with research, rather than condoms, and prohibit them as a means to fulfill the will of god. Although it seems rather unusual, it only is a matter of context and convictions. I posted this article because it seemed rather ironic that someone with such will to erradicate AIDS was against condoms. It was not until I viewed the situation from their perspective that I realized why.

The Darwinian Theory of Evolution has some very interesting statements. The theory regarding Natural Selection stated how mutations in an organism were reactions to changes in the environment. These mutations were called by Darwin as “natural selection” because they defined the survival of the species. The theory states that those who do not evolve tend to die out, while those who mutate or “evolve” are vulnerable to extinguish. Evolution, however, occurs slowly, (thousands of years) and the survival of the specie depends on the path of the genetic mutation. What the law is that there is only one right path for survival. If the Darwinian Theory is correct, then the connotation to this idea would be extremely significant. Human thoughts always have more than one answer, it maybe be to resolve a mid-life crisis, or as a resolution for war. Whatever the conflict is, humans tend to have more than one possibility. What if there could only be one answer? I will try to answer the two hypothetical situations:

What would happen if there only was one answer for some questions? It is a hard question to answer, but it is somewhat explicable. TOK and philosophy would be greatly affected by such altercation. The Ways of Knowing as well as the Areas of Knowledge would change significantly because of unilateral answers. As a TOK student, I have learned that a TOK answer must include various perspectives, answers and implications. However, if we apply this argument, the whole idea of TOK would be limited, because there would be some sense of what truth actually is. If we take reason, for example, we can see how several premises lead to a conclusion, which can never be completely true. It can be logical, but not necessarily true. The theory of natural selection would mean that some of these conclusions, either from reason, emotions, languages or sense perception would be true. The implications about truth would mean that there is no need for further analysis, therefore making TOK useless in some ways. I believe that there are some things that cannot be completely true, for example language and sense perception, only because they yield a certain degree of human subjectivity, either because of natural (such as color blindness) or human reasons (analysis of a text). I believe that the same also applies to the other areas of knowledge, and consequently to the Ways of Knowing. However, if there were to be something that is true, it would completely redefine what humans perceive. It would mean that once there is one truth, it may spread to other areas, and eventually we would find the meaning of life, if possible. But what would happen afterwards? Is the human race condemned to think in the search of the truth, or is our brain a gift?

What if the theory of natural selection refers to our path in evolution? If we knew the future for some reason, how could we deal with our extinction or how to avoid it? If the information is to reside in private hands, like government control, then it would be different if it were overtly known. What would a government do to ensure the survival of its specie? Would it seek to kill if necessary or to form whatever groups, alliances or laboratory experiments are necessary without taking into consideration the overall consequences? My opinion is that it probably would choose to follow this path not only because denying it would mean complete extinction, but because the initial consequences would assure the continuation of the human specie. There would be incredible opposition, however, due to the ethicalness of the means that the government must take. For example, if the survival of the specie depended on stem cell research and the imposture of superhuman genes, then it would meet tremendous opposition by the current advocates against it. I believe that if a government knows the mean to survive, it is their duty to communicate it with its population, preferably the world, because if not, the actions would be seen as senseless and the consequences could mean the extinction. Although there would be more agreement to the actions that have to be taken, there would still exist groups that oppose due to religious or emotional beliefs such as “god`s will”. The ethical aspect of the situation will always be directed to the actions that the people or the government takes. However, if the destiny of the human race is known and there must be actions taken in order to save it, I believe humans will always somehow ignore the ethical aspect of their decisions to save the human race. It may mean that they must destroy the world’s factories to avoid Global warming, or that they must kill the leader of a radical country. This situation would be similar to that of the Cold War, where people disobeyed orders to fire nuclear missiles (the Cuban missile crisis) in order to avoid nuclear war and possibly, the extinction of human race. When dealing with a complete massacre obliteration of Humanity, there is no sane human being that wants to destroy the world unless it is an extreme case of hatred or of religious conviction. The responsibility of the human race would be in the hands of a few or many, and would deeply depend on the morality of each or the group. It would depend on several aspects, their morality, and their perception of the world, their religion, emotions and convictions among others. If I were to decide the fate of the world (if it depends on one person, that is) it would very hard to determine what I would do, but as a most probable outcome, I would save the specie, no matter what happens because the survival of the race would be more significant than the death of millions, of a few or of myself.

I had already heard of teenage pregnancy in various cases (including a movie….), and it does not seem as odd (taking into account countries like india or middle east) as having a 13 year old father. I was yust hovering aroud youtube and i encountered this video (sky news) about a british child who had a child with his 15 year old girlfriend. The most notable KI in the video and the situation is whether or not children should be able to be parents, not focusing as much in girls (some may argue), but in boys, and when is it too young? financially…..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1aPwYcI6Lg&feature=bz301

As most of you already know, eutanasia has always been a controversial topic. Some countries have stronger opinions towards this “permitted murder.” This time, the controversy was dealt with in Italy, where a woman will be allowed to die after years in a coma. Perhaps the most shocking aspect of such event is the fact that Italy’s government allows such action, even with the Vatican pushing for the halt of the murder. Of course, the Vatican is legally a country and is separated from the government of Italy, but the country still has strong religious bases from which arguments against euthanasia can be found. here is the link if anyone wishes to comment…

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/02/03/italy.euthanasia/index.html