How Far Would You Go For Facebook?

In a recent Huffington Post article, guests at a luxury hotel indicated that they would rather give up alcohol while on vacation than social networking. Although it may seem ridiculous at first, the study is also a frightening reality check of society's apparent addiction to interacting with others online. Be it through Facebook, twitter, or even e-mail, many people find it difficult to go one day (let alone an entire vacation) without going onto the web and updating their posts or perusing the posts of others.

If membership to a social network was an innocent part of life, then it probably wouldn't be so alarming to me that we all have such a hard time living without it. But the fact is by being on social networking sites you are indirectly allowing companies to market to you. Every time you like a particular page, or post a status about a product, companies use that information to formulate an idea of what your interest might be. As a result, there will be ads on the right hand side of the screen tailored to your interests. Even if you decline to both like pages and posting statuses, they could still market to you based on your age, gender, and other demographics.

At the same time, there is the aspect of the unknown about social networking membership. Who knows who exactly is looking at our information and for what reason. The panoptic nature of the internet means that we can never be certain if forces like the government or our teachers or whomever are actually looking at our pages. Think of the phenomenon of "Facebook creeping". If you participate in the activity, you know that you have probably spent way too long of a time looking at someone's page who you may barely know or not even know at all. Have you ever wondered who "creeps" on your profile or why they would do it? And perhaps the motivations of these unknown entities are less innocent than simply Facebook creeping.

So if by being a part of a social networking site means basically becoming a mine for marketing companies and an object of potentially unwanted attention, why do we participate? Why would people ever subject themselves to such a simultaneously ambiguous and nefarious force? Perhaps we were unaware of these dangers when we first joined our beloved social networking sites. But now, as the Huffington Post article indicates, there may be no turning back. If these sites are actually more addictive then alcohol, can we expect to see an influx of Social Networking Users support groups sometime soon?

Don't Write the Eulogy of Print Just Yet

 

      Increasingly we have experienced a sense of conversion from print to digital. With the advent of Nooks and Kindles at the same time as book stores like Borders going bankrupt, there seems to be a direct causation. While it is true that these events simultaneously occurred, I don't think that e-readers have crumbled the institution of the printed book.
      As Michel Foucault explores in his essay "What is an Author?", the printed word had its beginnings in exclusivity. Not only was literacy uncommon in the Middle Ages, but early books had to be made painstakingly, either by hand or with early forms of the printing press. Books were valuable and one of a kind. Although they became more accessible with later, faster versions of the printing press, they retained their sense of importance through the author function. To be well-versed in a certain area of thought, there were established authors and their publications to read. Today this tradition continues, not only with the reading of the "classics", but also with the idea in general that certain authors are experts in their particular subject. Why is it that professors assign specific readings in their classes? Could the same information be learned from other, lesser known sources? Although the answer may be yes, the fact remains that authors and their works are assigned hierarchical levels of importance.
      In the same manner, the media through which information is conveyed can be arranged in an order of reliability. In comparison to print, the digital world of information sharing can often be counterproductive. Simply the instantaneous nature of the internet and its countless contributors can allow it to be characterized as an unreliable source. And although e-readers are not necessarily as fickle as your average internet blog, it is true that they lack the sense of isolation that the printed word provides. While reading  a physical book, one is confined in general to the intended information. But on an e-reader, there is the possibility of downloading other publications and even playing games, which may distract from the reading experience altogether.
      The inferiority of both the internet and the e-reader therefore reinforce the importance and exclusivity of the printed book. Not only does a physical book usually cost more than its digital counterparts, but also more work goes into its production. Instead of the digital world driving out the world of print, I hypothesize instead that it has made the book itself more valuable to the reader.

Mortality or Virtual Reality?

-->

For fear of getting too batshit crazy and deep, let’s talk about out-of-body experiences. Usually we think of them as extreme spirituality where the mind is freed from the confines of physical existence.  At some point in your life you may have meditated and experienced this illusion. But is the separation of mind and body physically possible? Perhaps what comes to mind is a Matrix-like situation where we plug our brains into a computer and live a world entirely in our imagination. But imagine if our minds could exist solely on a computer. Arguably this situation may already be in the works.  Our personal computers are the guardians of our lives; they connect us to our friends, act as a source of virtually all information, and also help us complete work for school or jobs.

 It’s undeniable that we spend an obscene amount of our time typing and staring at our laptops. As they are an extension of our minds and lives, it’s not that difficult to picture the activity going a step further. Who’s to say that in another century our entire lives won't be lived online through virtual reality? And what would that do to the importance of the physical body?

From my perspective,  life in the physical world is just a losing battle; the body is a weak organism susceptible to the perils of nature and disease. Many (admittedly obsessive) humans are forever searching for methods to prolong their lives and potentially live forever, but that could not be achieved through the physical existence. The only place that immortality is possible is in the realm of virtual reality.  Sure you could say that this depends on the lifespan of technology through which we would access this theoretical world, but I feel much more confident in the longevity of a computer over the frailty of the human body. Then that brings our argument to the morality of having to live completely through the mind. Some would argue that that wouldn't be really living if you couldn't physically experience the smell of fresh grass or the comfort of a hug from your friend. But if a virtual reality world could mimic our senses, would it really matter? I personally feel torn, but the possibilities of a virtual reality world would be endless.

#Twitter #Famous

           

Picture this: in the olden times of lore (20 years ago) someone who wrote for a living (gasp: a writer?!) had their work published in print mediums like books, newspapers, and magazines. It was reasonable to assume that a particular author's greatness or talent in writing could be judged by said sales of those books, newspapers and magazines. But that was a long time ago, and nowadays there's something that this generation pays more attention to than some best-seller list. I'm talking about Twitter followers people! How many do YOU have? Your friends? Your favorite celebs? With every 140-character post you hope that you are being funny/inspiring/profound enough to make more people click the 'follow' icon on your twitter profile. Let's face it, the entire reasoning behind having a twitter is for the sake of gathering as many people as you can to read your daily thoughts.

Some of the most popular people on Twitter are comedians like Rob Delaney or maybe sizzlingly romantic singers like Frank Ocean. Even morons like the Kardashian sisters have an entire Twitter empire. So what makes them the most widely read contemporary “authors” in the modern world? Why are people spending more effort reading their twitter feed than the pages of a book?  I myself enjoy cracking open a physical book at the end of the day and dog-earing all the pages. 

But I will shamelessly admit that I too am a Twitter enthusiast. In the end it definitely comes down to the excitement of it all: constant new tweets to read, information from all over the world, and a way to get a laugh or maybe some important relationship advice from Drake. Although (old) people might say that this medium is a product of our attention-deficit modern culture, I just think that they should accept change is inevitable- and most importantly follow me on Twitter. 

Technological Blessing or Mistake of the Past?

In July of this year a very curious piece of research was brought to the attention of the world. It would simultaneously bring hope to those suffering from infertility, and also disgust to those who saw it as scientists "playing God". The Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St. Barnabas in New Jersey released the information that they had been testing the use of genetic modification with in vitro fertilization. 15  babies in the program were born using a method that uses DNA from three separate parents. The method  was used for couples who wanted to conceive their own genetic children but were unable to do so because of mitochondrial defects in their eggs. The institute extracted healthy mitochondria from an anonymous female donor's eggs and then inserted the mitochondria into those of the mother, replacing the defective ones. So far, two out of the 15 babies have been shown to have successfully inherited DNA from the three separate parents, which means that they will be able to pass on those genes to their children as well.  Does this experiment have implications for human future itself?

It seems that the main issue behind this particular work was that of human infertility. But to many people it could be a gateway into fixing other genetic problems that we wouldn't want to pass onto our offspring. Julian Savulescu, an Oxford professor and controversial ethicist, argues, "When it comes to screening out personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence, you could argue that people have a moral obligation to select ethically better children". Indeed, the technology now seems to exist to isolate certain "good genes" from one parent and meld them into the greater DNA structure of another. What Savulescu proposes doing could in the short run save parents the heartbreak of their children growing up to have intense behavioral issues and self-destructive tendencies. It could also do a future favor to the communities that they would grow up in by removing a potential threat of violent assault or perhaps drunk driving.

After all, there are already practices in place of screening embryos for the genetic disposition for certain cancers and defects. The process, called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), is used to screen for embryos free of mutations on the BRCA1 gene, which could carry a 60-80% increase in lifetime risk of breast cancer. Just this past July, at the conference of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, research was presented on the PGD method that very successful distinctions between embryos that carry the breast cancer gene mutation and those that didn't. To those who carry a long family history of cancer, this practice may very well become a common test.

For all of the potential benefits of the two genetic modification methods mentioned above, there is still the question of the past transgressions of similar programs. What is today’s genetic modification is not so far off from the concept of eugenics. The historical legacy of this practice is one of racism and prejudice against mental disabilities, most notably in Nazi Germany. But the idea of eugenics and ethnic cleansing stems even farther back from programs in the United States back in the early 20^th century. According to an article by Edwin Black in the San Francisco Gate, “In its first 25 years of eugenics legislation, California sterilized 9,782 individuals, mostly women. Many were classified as ‘bad girls,’ diagnosed as ‘passionate,’ ‘oversexed’ or ‘sexually wayward’”. Even the Supreme Court supported the practice through a decision in a 1927 case, the reasoning being to prevent the world from dealing with future generations of “imbeciles”.

Although the contemporary field of genetic modification is not, to my knowledge, involved in the sterilization of the “unfit”, it does have a clear parallel with eugenics. Both types of programs place importance on removing perceived human imperfections. But who is to decide what particular traits or genes are fit for removal? Cancer and infertility have clear moral justifications, but what about the genes for certain mental disabilities? The other issue with genetically modifying future children is the disparity between rich and poor. It would be a practice largely of the elite because such cosmetic procedures cost tens of thousands of dollars. Arguably, a future picture of humankind might be one that juxtaposes rich, genetically “perfect” people with those who are poorer and genetically inferior.

Whatever the positive implications of human genetic modification, it is also difficult to predict what future course such programs would take. We cannot predict whether humankind would learn from the mistakes of past eugenics programs, or if they would instead inadvertently adopt a similar purpose. I personally hope that these new technologies will only be used for the purposes of infertility or preventing life- threatening disease, but we will have to wait to see what the future of reproductive science entails.

The Most Delicious Import that New York Has Ever Seen

 Move on over Nathan's, Japan is taking over.

Meet the Terimayo. It ain’t your average hotdog. On top of an otherwise typical frankfurter is piled teriyaki sauce, mayonnaise, and seaweed flakes. It sounds crazy, right? But just prepare yourself, because the end result is something like a symphony for the taste buds:  salty, sweet, creamy, and savory, all existing harmoniously. It's unlike anything you've ever had before, but somehow it feels so right.

This crazy concoction is just one of 22 signature creations by the owners of JAPADOG, a Vancouver-based street-vendor-turned-restaurant. What started out in 2005 as one Japanese couple and their food cart has now expanded to five Vancouver locations and one in NYC. In just seven years, the chain has seen amazing growth. So what's their secret?

The genius of JAPADOG is its flawless combination of two distinctly different cuisines. With one glance at their menu, it’s easy to see the cultural melting pot at work. Their specialty dogs incorporate traditional Japanese elements.  The list of intriguing toppings includes teriyaki, seaweed, miso, noodles, and sesame seeds.  For the meat portion, customers can choose from a regular all-beef hotdog, countless types of turkey and pork sausages, and two vegetarian options. And if you want to add a little kick to your lunch, you can pick up a side of spicy wasabi fries. The meal that results from all of these unique offerings is one that truly blurs the lines between what is Japanese and what is American.

But the culinary influence doesn’t just stop there. With their offering of bratwurst and fried sauerkraut, there’s even a play on German cuisine.  Keeping that in mind, who knows what other cultures have contributed indirectly to the JAPADOG? Human history, and especially that of culinary traditions, is often marked by the exchange of ideas. As the modern world increases international trade, the process is sped up like never before. JAPADOG embodies this concept of globalization by becoming something that transcends the traditional boundaries of the nation-state. The interaction of different cultures forms new hybrid identities. The hotdogs could even be a metaphor for the lives of their creators, who moved to Vancouver from Japan to pursue their entrepreneurial dream. Perhaps they symbolize how as immigrants, the couple was forced to mesh their sense of being Japanese with their new lives in Canada.

Although their menu items may be unique, the cross-cultural idea behind JAPADOG is not. Just walking the streets of New York, you can see hundreds of street vendors and restaurants serving international cuisines. The options are endless- Thai, Ethiopian, Spanish, Argentinean, and Italian eateries could all be found on the same block. It’s even rumored that there are more French restaurants in New York than there are in Paris, (thanks to a certain Snapple fact). Just as we export “America” through the likes of McDonalds and other fast food joints, we also draw in an enormous wealth in foreign culture through their cuisines.

I see this vast culinary diversity as a reminder that we no longer belong to one city or country. In many ways, mankind is turning into a single, although still multicultural, global entity. The great thing about food is that it can act as a scientific indicator of this process. Through cuisine, we trace interactions between different regions of the world, and we can catch a glimmer of the far-reaching affects of globalization.

So next time you're over on St. Marks Place, drop in to JAPADOG. It'll be like taking a trip to Japan while keeping one foot in New York. 

Power to the People

Many Americans have a picture in their mind of what home schooling is. In the past it has been a huge burden on parents if they chose to stay home and guide their child's individualized learning. It also could be difficult to find the right textbooks at a local bookstore or know where to order them through catalogues. In today’s time, home schooling is incredibly better because the internet provides an endless font of benefits. Now, online courses take the weights off of parents teaching. Nooks and other e-readers cut textbooks costs in half and make buying them as easy as a swipe of your finger. And for the critics who say that the students miss out on human interaction, there is even the option for tutoring via Skype. Home schooling is now an easier method for families than it was ever before.

To start off- what exactly is it like to take online courses? I looked up the high school level program in the Keystone School online to find out. Like any traditional school, there is a curriculum and a set of requirements for graduation that emphasize math, science, social studies, and English. 

Delving a little further into the courses themselves, I found incredibly detailed outlines of what the workloads would be like. It surprised me to see that there are even lab sciences offered, many of which can be done with simple materials found at home and others for which they provide a lab kit with the cost of the course. It’s plain to see that in terms of designing a syllabus, parents no longer have to worry. Online courses are now a full-fledged industry with professionals collaborating to produce expert course designs and curriculums. In fact, parents no longer need to even be present for home-schooling, which maybe could free them up to bring in another source of income. (They’ll probably need one, with most courses priced at hundreds of dollars)

Then comes the next 21^st century blessing: e-books. This trendy technology can actually be a huge benefit to your wallet. As I recently found out at the NYU Bookstore, textbooks ain’t cheap. I can’t imagine having to spend thousands of dollars on books alone throughout high school or middle school. Not only is the content from textbooks now more accessible, but also cheaper than traditional hardcovers or paperbacks. Just browse the etextbooks section of Barnes and Noble’s website for proof:

Some of these digital volumes are up to three times cheaper than buying the physical tome. Options to rent them are even better, and there’s no worrying about if the book gets damaged. Although the starting price for a Nook is about $99, when you could save on average $50 per large textbook the extra cost soon pays for itself.

A major question about home schooling via the internet is if the student will miss out by not having the physical presence of a teacher to instruct them, which I find to be a valid concern. But in yet another of the many examples of cultural convergence, tutors now have the option to operate through videochatting. Programs like those offered through Sylvan Learning Center focus on the importance of speaking and working with teachers in real time. It’s almost like bringing the classroom setting to the student. Not only does the student get valuable human interaction, but they also get one-on-one help by an expert in the subject, something their parents wouldn’t necessarily be able to provide for them. Here's an example of a similar program offered through Revolution Prep:

So what’s the verdict? It seems that with these three Web 2.0 technologies, home schooling is a more viable option than ever. The quality of the education provided is guaranteed by online courses, and combined with cheap e-textbooks, it takes an enormous pressure off of parents. Students don’t lose out on the teacher interaction without a traditional classroom setting because they can receive even more individualized instruction via Skyping with their tutors. Logistically, the internet has streamlined the process of education from home. The only downfall is that for all of the methods I have described, there is money involved. Shouldn’t knowledge be free? But that’s an entirely different discussion.