Beware of biotechnology . . .

Jeremy Rifkin’s essay “Biotech Century” introduced a discussion that was entirely new to me. I had previously been aware that biotechnology was commonly used in the agricultural industries, but I did not understand exactly how far scientists have come in the field of genetic modification. I am shocked that they can (and willingly do) insert an “antifreeze” gene from flounders into tomatoes to make them immune to frost! (314) Rifkin obviously represents only one side of the debate – that which is opposed to the use of biotechnology. He stresses that unregulated advances in the field will bring about “the uncontrollable spread of super weeds, the buildup of resistant strains of bacteria and new super insects, the creation of novel viruses, the destabilization of whole ecosystems, the genetic contamination of food, and the steady depletion of the gene pool” (318). His argument is very convincing, although I agree with the editors that he has a tendency to overstate his claims (311). Innovation and discovery can be wonderful things, but when we don’t have the capacity to calculate any risks from the creation of new genetic material, new plants and animals, we enter into an unknown, potentially unstable world. I am very sympathetic to Rifkin’s point; however, I do think that he does his argument a disservice by not truly addressing any counterarguments. Why are these companies investing so much in biotechnology? Assumedly, these companies are making large amounts of money, but there must be some possible benefit to society as well. If Rifkin had addressed those points and then successfully countered them, the article would have felt much more complete.

What's wrong with Speciesism? And other thoughts . . .

Michael Pollan’s argument in “An Animal’s Place” travels from an early acceptance of the animal rights point of view, to an acceptance of his animalistic urge to eat meat rooted in humane farming practices. The essay seems to be well thought out and makes a compelling argument for consolidating meat-eating and vegetarian views in a solution that promotes respectful animal husbandry over the practices of large slaughterhouses. I am thoroughly convinced by Pollan’s argument, but, perhaps, it is because I, like Ben Franklin (as referenced in Pollan’s essay) seek to “come up with reasons for whatever [I] want to do” (218). Pollan’s solution to eating meat – looking your food in its face and confronting the fact that you are, in fact, killing and eating another sentient being – is the way that I attempt to approach my meat-eating practices. To round out Pollan’s argument, I would add that “speciesism,” in itself, is not such a horrible thing. Speciesism, unlike racism which was constructed in order to grant certain races dominion over others, is as natural as any other animalistic quality. Cora Diamond in her essay “Eating Meat and Eating People” notes the distinction that humans make between themselves and other animals is a necessary component to species survival. Due to our level of moral understanding, we humans must create mythologies that separate our species from others. It is this separation that gives us the meaning that we need to survive (a meaning that, when absent, can lead to personal destruction). Without some concept that humans are superior and have some purpose to their lives – a concept that we cannot grant to other animals – we would have great difficulty in justifying any of our actions, including eating meat.

The Simplicity of Choice

Philippe LeGrain has a definite skill for trivialization. In his essay “Cultural Globalization is not Americanization” he argues against the commonly held belief (an assumption in itself) that the influx of American goods and media into other countries is having a destructive effect on foreign cultures and societies. His most successful arguments come from his reliance on the perseverance of local cultures in the face of American products – local television is more popular than American programming; local pop music is more popular than American exports. He stresses that American companies are not the only large corporations that flood the world with consumer goods; France, Spain, Britain, Sweden, and Italy have all been able to influence global shoppers with their own versions of what individuals need to obtain fleeting happiness. I agree with LeGrain in some respects. The United States does not have a corner on artistic innovation. Globalization has resulted in the confluence of many different cultures other than American ideas. I think that LeGrain oversteps his argument, however, when he suggests that this integration is only positive because it is rooted in individual choice. LeGrain states that “people choose the new ways because they are more relevant to their current needs and offer new opportunities that the old ones did not.” (p. 523) Yet, who determines our needs? What constricts our choices? Large multinational corporations that can spend inordinate amounts of money on complex advertising schemes can convince millions that they have new “needs” that must be met. These same corporations can constrict choices by buying out the opposition. Whether or not large multinational conglomerates are American is not a major issue; on that LeGrain and I are in agreement. The real issue with globalization, as I see it, is that these growing economic juggernauts are able to gain more influence with our choices. If choice is compromised, so is the marketplace of ideas.

Margaret Atwood's "A Letter to America" addresses many of the current crises that are troubling our nation, from the war in Iraq, to environmental destruction, to the rollback in civil liberties. I agree with most of Atwood's arguments, especially that a "City on a Hill" cannot bring liberty and enlightenment to the rest of the world if they are destroying those same ideals at home. Atwood seems to see a need for an unsullied America to act as a leader; not necessarily because the rest of the world still looks up to the U.S., but because, as Atwood states, "we know perfectly well that if you go down the plug-hole, we're going with you. We have every reason to wish you well." (p. 511) If the United States is going to involve themselves militarily and economically with the rest of the world, then at least they should be setting a good example.
My one critique of Atwood's essay is that she seems to reduce America's redeemable qualities to those cultivated through entertainment and artistic expression. I agree that our poets, actors, authors, and playwrights have shared many works of genius with the rest of the world. If we truly need to summon our "great spirits of the past," however, I hope that we reach instead for our Jeffersons and Douglass's, our Martin Luther King Jr's and John Muirs, rather than Marlon Brando and Humphrey Bogart.

Croissant's "Can this Campus be Bought?"

Jennifer Croissant’s essay “Can This Campus be Bought?” discusses the complex and often troubling relationship between universities and corporate sponsors. One of Croissant’s strongest points comes at the end of her essay where she suggests that large corporate donations often have the effect of convincing legislators that state funding for education is no longer necessary (p. 88). If this is the case, then these donations are creating a sense of dependency on the universities that could become very problematic in the long term. In addition to molding students into consumers and potentially influencing the direction of certain studies (especially those using certain technology), these vendor relationships are also investing in a self-sustaining relationship that will create even more dependency on commercialization in the future. I think that Croissant makes a very strong – and valid – argument, but I think that she underestimates the influence that the educators within a university actually have. If the professors still retain autonomy over their classrooms then they can simultaneously reap the benefits of the corporate sponsorship while also teaching about the need to be aware of the negative effects of sponsorship. I think that the University of Oregon walks this line very well. Even though Nike is a very large sponsor and vendor of the university, I have been exposed to controversies surrounding Nike’s manufacturing policies in multiple classes. If an academic institution can focus on creating the best minds it within its students, then hopefully those students will be able to see through the corporate sponsors and will become citizens, not consumers.

Response to Newman's "Idea of a University"

In the excerpts from “The Idea of a University,” John Henry Newman makes some strong arguments about the value of a “liberal” education and the duty a university has to provide a broad and varied learning environment in order to mold and socialize young minds. He stresses that the ultimate aim of a university is to “raise the intellectual tone of society,” and that the goals of specific occupational training or the cultivation of genius are secondary. Although I agree with Newman that universities should expose students to a variety of subjects and encourage socialization with other students, I argue that it is those very “works . . . of genius” (p. 53) produced within the university that give it its substance and power. Creating the greatest minds possible with the resources available to a university (professors, labs, texts, or other students) should be one of its foremost goals; this example set by the academic elite will encourage others to pursue knowledge as well, ensuring that the other benefits of a liberal education will naturally follow. Newman correctly argues that universities provide the foundation for a person to participate successfully in society. What he fails to recognize, however, is that society constantly progresses and that universities must progress as well in order to provide up-to-date preparation. The best way to ensure that progression is to support intellectual innovation – or “works of genius.”