This weeks lecture was given by our very own Dr. Loren McClenachan. I have been fortunate enough to have taken a course with Loren during my sophomore year and I must say I was excited to see that she was participating in our lecture series. Dr. McClenachan gave a discussion on a new study that showed marine ecosystem health declining. As I know from the course I took with her, marine ecosystems have been heavily hit by impacts from climate change and continue to change on a yearly basis. The site that Loren used for her research was in the Florida Keys. Loren researched the history of marine ecosystem health in an attempt to formulate a better understanding of how the reefs and surrounding ocean in the Keys was in rapid decline. I especially enjoy Loren’s talks because I find that Loren does not only research very compelling topics but she uses images to draw contrast between timelines and uses figures that are easy to understand to all levels of audience. Loren focused on the smaller sizes of contemporary trophy fishes, the importance of coral reefs for the ecosystem, and the boom-bust fisheries.

Although Loren focused largely on marine ecosystem health, her talk had a resounding theme that focused on the rapidly changing environment that is now a reality we live in. An important aspect of environmental health research is the transparency and efficacy of policies that are made to ameliorate environmental issues. If we do not raise awareness of the harm that we are afflicting on the environment, we are going to continue to see the issue of a constantly shifting baseline, that will likely deteriorate the environment further. One fascinating thing that I learned during this talk was that the US only hold environmental history from the 50s forward. This is less than 70 years of environmental history and we have already done so much to destroy it. If we had more history recorded, we could be more informed about the failures of certain policies or decisions. Loren was able to illustratively describe the deterioration and destruction on our environment both in the past and present. She advocates for the use of intersectionality when considering policy decisions that will effect not only domestic life but life globally.

Loren’s talk was similar to themes seen in all environmentally related lectures. The earth is seemingly on a path to its destruction by the human race. We are literally going to kill ourselves off with the poor and greedy decisions we make as a species. Loren’s talk had some references of hope, though her topic shed a bad light on our treatment of marine ecosystems. She spoke about the Goliath Grouper and how we are still able to invest time and effort into protecting vital species and habitats.

Dr. McClenachan’s talk really highlighted some of the issues that are continuing to plague our world unnoticed. We as humans have continued to exploit the lands and resources that have allowed us to survive. We need to radically change the way we view nature and change the way that we as a global community have been treating it. Loren’s research is vital to this movement towards a more environmentally secure future. Her work on the conservation and protection of marine systems plays a key role in understanding how we effect the ocean systems. If I could pull one thing away from this talk I would say that we need to raise more awareness on the issue of environmental degradation as a whole. I am very happy that Loren was able to participate in this lecture series and think that she should continue to be included in this in the future.

The Professor of American Studies at Yale, Ms. Greta LaFleur came to speak to us about the relationship between sexuality that we experience early in life to the environment. Professor LaFleur structured her talk through a few different “narratives” that she believes best illustrates this connection.

Ms. LaFleur began her talk by detailing about a narrative of an execution. This kickstarted the discussion/talk with a vivid account that I thought did well to hook the audience by presenting an intense scene. She then went on to detail the narrative of captivity. Captivity refers to the Catholic sailors that were enslaved by the islamic slave trade market towards the end of the 20th century. Professor LaFleur went on to talk about sodomy which confused me because she then was able to relate this to her initial assertion that our environment relating to early sexuality. The first two accounts that LaFleur gave did not necessarily pertain to our environment or the environment of the narrations that she provided. This is where I had a little trouble bridging the gap between her talk theme and her examples. Later on, Professor LaFleur went on to read a quote that highlighted the connection: the relationship and actions that humans embark upon are all a part of history and the earth through the change we have experienced.

The quote that LaFleur provided as the reason of connection between the environment and people relies to the theory of climate. This is understood as the shaping/adapting of peoples bodies and lives to the climate that they live in. This is a fairly simple idea but when applied to the narratives that LaFleur provides, it provides compelling evidence of her claim. She further elucidated her point by talking about cuffing. This is understood as the idea that generally, when the weather gets colder outside, people tend to want to come together and share their body heat. This can be seen through hugging and snuggling that is quite prevalent. This example provided evidence that people inherently do change their behavior around the climate whether this is conscious or subconscious.

LaFleur continued her talk by introducing Samuel Smith and detailing an essay  of his. This essay was on the causes of a variety of complexion and figure in the human species and it looked at the variation in humans caused by just about anything. These differences play together with the environment to influence how people act and live their lives. The main argument that LaFleur posed was that humans are inherently connected to the environment whether that is consciously done or not. We have all adapted to our natural environment, climate, weather and we may not necessarily be aware of it but it has shaped our behavior and the way we live our lives. Overall, I enjoyed Professor LaFleur’s talk and found it to be very compelling. If you think about what she was talking about it makes quite simple sense. We are all a product of our environment and the climate/natural environment that we live in is going to ultimately affect the way that we live and act with the environment itself but also with others.

 

 

 

 

 

Professor Peterson from Colby gave an intriguing talk on the relationship between German philosophy and the environmental change that we have observed over the last several decades. Most environmentally driven talks that we have held at Colby have all addressed important aspect about specific environments and their larger role within the global ecosystem. However, Professor Peterson decided to change the form of speech and talk more directly on the issue between German philosophy and environmental change.

During the talk, Professor Peterson alluded to some of the great philosophers such as Emmanuel Kant. Peterson focused on the idea surrounding priori, the feeling held before one experiences something, to better understand the dynamic relationship between the anthropogenic effects on the environment. He postulates that the idea of priori is why our human nature has gone against us in terms of making real environmental progress. The analysis that Peterson discussed was both in-depth and intriguing because of the angle he took to approach the topic of change. Peterson went on to talk about analyses done on the brain and how this correlates to his stance on the topic. This was especially interesting because of the compelling evidence that he presented. The idea that humans will not necessarily act under risk is something that I support. This is always obviously seen through how most people treat the environment that they live in. Humans will essentially wait until the last minute to change – we are naturally averse to change.

There remains a plethora of examples that can be used as a case study for this assertion. The whole idea of the Tragedy of the Commons would attest to this position. The fact that we have organizations, people and even nations that will commit to releasing hazardous waste without regulation is a perfect example of this. Instead of incurring the cost to properly dispose of waste, companies and people will side step the process and dispose waste for free in unregulated areas. This in-turn will negatively effect our community and environment, which we all have to pay for. This issue is not only engrained in the idea of greed but it is also institutionalized in many places. The global conscious movement has only been around for several decades and has only made real change within the last few decades. The idea of changing old habits disturbs many people and businesses that do not understand the risk that is being placed on our planet.

If you applied this idea to the overarching idea of climate change, it can easily be seen. We now, due to technical advancements, have been able to understand our brain and the way it operates at a much deeper level. Taking this fact, we can see the people are actually against the idea of change and would rather maintain with the status quo. The only real way to get out of this mindset is to push against our natural inclinations and realize that we have an issue that is putting us and frankly humanity at risk. Further, the issue presented needs to be scaled to entire populations who believe and understand this. One person is able to make a change but together, we can accomplish much more and much faster. I believe that this talk was very productive and gave a lot of insight on the issue of change. I would like to hear more talks like this and highly recommend including this in the lecture circuit in the future.

The Assistant Professor of Biology, Professor Suegene Noh, gave us a talk on the evolution of genome shape through the observance of the social amoeba dicoideum. Professor Noh referred to them as “dicty” for short and explained them as unicellular organisms. These amoebas have the ability to aggregate and form mounds, this process allows the amoeba to then take form and eat bacteria. The organisms that have singular and muticellular life stages have the ability to bond together with other singular organisms to become stronger and more resilient. The bonding just described can also have some detriments to the organisms. When two genetically different cells inhabit the same body, the interest of each cell is inherently different and thus causes a conflict of sorts. Unlike Human cells, which are identical, these cells behave differently then the normally developed cells. The fruiting bodies that Professor Noh describes all contain multiple types of dicty, all of which she used in her research.

Professor Noh talked about the work that she did in her lab like comparing the dicty genes to those of fruiting bodies made up of one strain of dicty, also known as clonal genes. Noh was able to use an Illumina Cell machine to sequence the entire genome of dicty mounds by pairing wild dicty strains. She used 4 different pairs to conduct this sequence and found that in the chimeric samples, they would produce more or less of a gene compared to the clonal samples. There were a few regulated genes within the chimera samples that were involved in the creation of the fruiting body and larger, the AMP response, which is vital to the life of the dicty. The changes that were observed during the study show that the chimeric genes ultimately helped the fruiting body to survive due to its higher fitness when compared tot he clonal samples.

The next example that Professor Noh used to observe the effects of social conflicts between the dicty and their evolution. In this observation, Noh discussed three different types of microbes that infect the dicty. Once infected, the dicty can no longer form into the fruiting bodies that are crucial for their survival. The three microbes, agricolaris, bonniea, and hayleyella all interact and affect the dicty in different ways. However, over time, the dicty have been able to evolve through social conflict with these microbes. I thought that this talk was very interesting and really dove into the depths of cellular research. Because this is quite a complex topic, I found it difficult to follow along with everything going on but nonetheless enjoyed the things that I did understand. If I could provide some constructive criticism, I would try to simplify a topic like dicty and microbe interaction to the most basic form ever. If the audience isn’t able to grasp what is being talked about from the beginning, it becomes increasingly harder to understand the intricacies and inner-workings of the topics being described. I wished I understood the talk more but I did enjoy the parts that I understood.

 

 

 

 

 

Last week we had (probably one of my favorite) an extremely interesting talk with Dr. Carin Berkowitz who spoke on the anatomy and how it relates to art. Dr. Berkowitz referenced and used works of art that incorporated anatomy, all works of Charles Bell. Through his art, Bell was able to incorporate the meticulous details of the human anatomy while using emotion to bring life to the organs. These pieces of art were all apart of a theme of the human body and its innate expressions through human emotion. A rare mixture of art and science that captures artistic beauty within anatomically accurate human organs.

After showcasing and explaining many of Bells’s works, Dr. Berkowitz switched focus to the comparison between the work of Bell’s and the work of Henry Gray. These two artists both depicted their essence of the human body through starkly different styles. Gray’s work lacked any semblance of emotion and chose to create his pieces as scientifically accurate as possible. Completely void of emotion or bias, what you see is what you get. Nonetheless each artist chose to focus on the human anatomy but diverged  through their expression of art. Gray’s work focusing on accuracies and dehumanization, Bell adding more humanity through his inclusion of life and emotion. Medical school textbook that deal with accurate anatomies of the human body are more aligned with the works of Gray. The interesting use of anatomically correct pictures in textbooks work on two different levels. The academic level being the first, you need accurate images so future doctors and medical professionals are able to understand exactly what they are working with and what it looks like. However, this more prevalent style seems to focus only on the meticulous nature of the human body and treats it more like a piece of meat, no different from animals or plants seen in other scientific textbooks. In reality, the rational for the use of these accurate pictures is obvious. Only when compared to other works of art that gear their modes more towards emotion and life that is depicted in humans.

This lecture was different from most other lectures in that it represented a theme that we as Colby students are fortunate to realize. Colby, a liberal arts  school, allows us to and even encourages us to take a plethora of courses that are in all different fields of study. These courses include science heavy courses as well as artistic courses that allow students to explore other forms of education. The importance of offering a curriculum that offers a multidisciplinary approach to education can make all the difference between a student following a hard discipline and exploring all different types of courses that allows the student to figure out what they actually have interest in.

I enjoyed hearing some of the questions from the audience, especially the question that was asked surrounding the ethics of using human bodies for science. Obviously this is for scientific purposes to improve our overall understanding of the human body and how it works. The response that was given was that medical professionals are taught to try to keep emotion out of their work because it complicates things further than they need to be. I think it is rather hard to keep human emotion out of your mind when you’re directly working with human bodies. Nonetheless i enjoyed this talk a lot and thought that it had some very important themes that would be useful for Colby students to hear.

 

Literature and Science to Understand Climate Change

I enjoyed the part of Professor Dimock’s presentation about vegetarianism because I have converted to vegetarianism in the past for similar reasons that were outline by Peter Singer. Mr. Singer spoke about all of the common ways in which vegetarianism was presented to the general public and all of the usual selling points that were given to people. These selling points would work in some cases, but there were still swathes of people who did not agree with him and his idea that all humans and animals should be held in the same regard. However, Singer presented the idea of approaching vegetarianism through the lens of climate change. The idea behind this was that the consumption of meat largely contributed to the greenhouse gasses that were being released and trapped within the ozone layer. This was an issue that was effecting everyone everywhere so it held a more appealing meaning than the latter methods used to persuade.

One of the biggest takeaways from this talk, similar to Professor Henley’s talk, is the need for us to take literature and science and find a better coexistence between the two. Climate changes is a highly complex issue that should not be approached through only one or two means. Up until this point, we as a global community has made huge strides and bounds in terms of our awareness and understanding of climate change. This trend will need to continue progressing if we want to hopefully bolster our efforts to mitigate climate change. In order to do this, we are going to have to start looking to other sources for understanding, one of which should be literature. Science is important in the context of climate change, however, the jargon used in science makes it difficult for the average consumer to understand and therefore find interest in. By making literature another facet through which average consumers can read and understand climate change, we will be one step closer to ameliorating this issue that is effecting us all. While we stand to improve in many areas pertaining to climate change, literature and science being combined more would definitely be a step in the right direction.

I must begin by saying that I was expecting a different focus for this talk by Nathan. Action After Nature: Climate Crisis & the Force of Literature seemed like a pretty exciting title but I was expecting a typical ES driven talk that looked at anthropogenic effects on climate and our Earth then an outline of how and what we can do to ameliorate this issue. However, to my surprise, Mr. Hensley approached the topic of climate by pairing studies on climate change with literature. I was quite happy with this turnout because I had just taken a ES literature course over Jan Plan and felt like I was perfectly in tune with this pairing.

One of my favorite parallel that Nathan made was with the popular novel “Alice in Wonderland”. He used Alice’s story to identify a similar story going on on Earth. Alice became lost in this whimsical world where she didn’t understand where she was and how things worked…..this is becoming more and more similar to our planet and how we view it. Through the vast amount of land-mass change and resource use that we as a species have caused, we are starting to realize that our surrounding are becoming to look more unfamiliar and the dynamic that we all grew to know so well is changing at a faster and more unpredictable way. This parallel to me was a great way to connect an audience with something that we all know and draw parallels through that mode.

After listening to this talk I realized that literature is an ingenious way to cater to a larger audience, one that may not be as keen on environmentally related issues. Literature provides context and ideology of different times depending on when they are set and published. In this same way, we are able to look at literature from the past and take our knowledge of the ideology at that time to understand the perspective and ideas that were prominent during that era. This is especially important for environmental literature because we are at a point in time where the environment is being disrupted and changed at an alarming rate. This is then causing a cascading effect that has innumerable consequence, some of which we know and some of which we don’t. In order to move forward with effective policy and ideology, we need to look into the past to understand and analyze mistakes so that we do not become worse off than we were in the past. In Wonderland, Alice was confused and disoriented and continued to try to apply the rules that she knew to this new world…it did not work out. This is eerily similar to the situation that we live in. We are past the point where we need to start “raising awareness” on climate change. We are even past the stage of making action. We need to have made substantial action years ago but instead we are stuck making the same mistakes again, trying to fully understand every issue going on before we can act and taking our self interests above the global collective.  We now live in a new world than our parents and grandparents. We will probably see this world change time and time again, even if we decide to change our environmental trajectory. Change is just a byproduct of time, but adapting to that change is what is most important to understanding and maintaining life as we know it.

Sonja Thomas and her talk on Missionary Priests from India was both insightful and compelling. My previous knowledge on missionary priests was confined to my catholic upbringing which largely focused on the bible and messages/principles conveyed through it. Before the talk had started, I read the title of her presentation: Indians on the Reservation: Missionary Priests from India and Catholic Settler Colonialism. I thought about what this presentation would focus on, either colonialism through the perspective of Indian priests or Native American Indians, taken from the use of the word reservation, and their relationship with missionary priests. I figured that this talk was going to highlight some mistreatment of Native American missionary priests, given our past history with Native American relations and reparations. I was wrong. The biggest takeaway for me was the ambiguity surrounding the true purpose of Indian priests migrating to the states to preach their religion. The fact that this was in question was ironic in my eyes. Aren’t priests of all religions supposed to uphold all of the highest principles and morals? And here we were talking about Indian Missionaries scamming the system to make money and live a better life than their previous lives back in India. Ms. Thomas focused on this topic among others and presented with a lighthearted discourse which engaged the audience and helped me to feel more interested in the topic at hand.

One of the topics that Sonja focused on was the Catholic Settler Colonialism. This topic has been extensively reviewed both in past and present settings and all point towards a unanimous understanding: it was horrible. Whether you received this history disguised through euphemisms (as I did when I was in primary school) or were taught through more accurate accounts, the resounding conclusion is that settler colonialism was ironically plagued with some of the most immoral and unethical principles in our entire history. We came to live in the US through our forefathers who killed off populations of people who were the rightful owner to the land. The inception of providing the truth about colonialism is starting to gain more prevalence in academic literature and academic curriculums which I think is an enormous step forward. Without proper context and history, it is harder to appreciate and understand where we are and how we got here. Keeping in mind that we have committed our fair share of atrocities as a nation, this allows us to move forward and apply our new perspectives to current issues of discrimination and inequality. I really enjoyed hearing Sonja speak and her topic was especially compelling. It provided a background in history that can be applied to present time. This is important when presenting because it allows the audience members, some of which could be less inclined to find this specific topic interesting, to draw parallels to contemporary time and apply the same perspective to their own social-political interests.

I think in general, we as US citizens who live and enjoy the freedoms and liberties that come with our citizenship, should be more in tune with our history and actions in the past. The point the Sonja made about the assimilation of Native American peoples is only something I know about because of a Native American history class that I took my sophomore year. Some of the things that went on during this time help to contextualize the US’s history in terms of minorities and cultures that are different from their own. It is always important to believe in your own morals and principles but this should be done with perspective and understanding of other morals and principles that may not align with your own.

The talk from Ms. Yoder’s presentation on Angela Merkel provided some unique insights on how Merkel uses rhetoric to convey what is known as memory politics. This very rhetoric is what separates Merkel from past German leaders in how the topic of WW2 is remembered and spoken about. I thoroughly enjoyed this talk as I do not know much about the German political sphere or about Angela Merkel and her beliefs. As the Chancellor of Germany, I understand that Merkel has the great responsibility of governing Germany but she also plays are large role in shaping the discussion surrounding WW2 and the memories, policies, and political ties that are inextricably tied to this event.  

Merkel has received both praise and push-back from her use of memory politics. The remembrance of the past is something that Merkel strongly believes in and continues to reference in her many talks, globally. The importance of this is to keep the events of WW2 in perspective as Germany continues to create policies and attempts to repair the damage that was caused during the Nazi regime. This attempt is well founded in the idea that in order to continue to move forward in history, we must never forget the atrocities of the past so that we will not and cannot make the same mistakes. But this idea does not end there, Merkel feels a sense of responsibility to keep referencing and apologizing for what happened in order to “pay her dues” to what is known as one of the worst, if not the worst, events in human history. It was quite clear that Yoder holds Merkel in high regards, based off of her praise for Merkel and her political career. It was great to hear such a Merkel enthusiast explain the tactics that the German Chancellor uses in her speeches because I feel like that enthusiasm allowed us, the audience, to understand all of the progressive ideas that Germany, a historically conservative country, was pushing to the forefront of their ideology. Yoder’s point about making Germans feel more accountable for the actions of WW2 was perfectly supported with Yoder’s analysis of Merkel’s speeches. In around 2/3rds of Merkel’s speeches, she alluded to the German history and the need to continue to remember this event. Although this may seem like quite a retrospective idea, I agree with Merkel in that this event should not “dealt with” then simply forgotten like other historical events. Raising awareness to this issue and holding the German people and government accountable to this will help progress the country towards stronger relationships with allied nations and continue to keep this thought in the forefront of our minds. I think that constantly recounting the event is a good way for people to understand relationships both domestically and internationally. If we could all understand what happened during the nazi regime, I feel that it would only bring us closer as a human race and help us realize that we are all from the same species and should work to find peace among all people instead of racism, hate and division.

Furthermore, I enjoyed some of the questions that were posed at the end of the talk. One of the questions that was asked, touched on the image that Merkel had created for herself during her Chancellorship. I think that this use of “memory politics” and the idea of holding people accountable, will definitely be tied to Merkel and her overall ideology. Although I do not know what the general German public thinks about Merkel other than the fact that she brought her conventionally republic party towards the center of the political spectrum, I think that this aspect of her leadership role should be accepted by both sides of the political discourse. Merkel’s political discourse was not explicitly mentioned in this talk but I think that this agenda that Merkel is pursuing is one that can be purveyed by the German political system/public as a whole.

Emotion is definitely a tool that is used in politics when a politician is trying to pursue an agenda. In this case, I think that Merkel did a good job of tackling a seemingly unfinished job in terms of giving justice to what happened during the second World War. It was mentioned that the past German leaders did not do the best job of acknowledging the atrocious German history, and I think that Merkel did some justice by reintroducing this topic and constantly reminding people of what happened and how we must never fall for a regime or ideology like this ever again. Merkel with unquestionably go down in history as a leader and a visionary who spoke about Germany’s past in a way that conveyed condolence, empathy, inaction and renumeration.