Bio 103, week 5

 I would like to bring up our conversation regarding hierarchy. I feel that, as humans, we've developed to the point where we can survive by manipulating other living things-- we eat other animals, we kill bacteria and parasites to stay healthy, we radiate cancer cells. Other animals fight and do primarily for their survival. Why is it unethical for us but not for other species? We do have the ability to assign value and emotion to death and to life, whereas other living things do not. But, which is more important? Our survival or humanity towards the non-human? Is it immoral simply because we have the power of knowledge and the products of that knowledge-- the tools of technology?If we are all stardust and we will return to stardust, value of life is a social construct and hierarchy seems to be the luck of the draw. The more improbable the assembly, the higher up in the chain. Or so it seems. 

This week we talked so much about how everything is always changing. The part that I am most interested in isn't so much the whole constant change/motion part, but more how we're adapting to these changes. I guess what I mean is how we're choosing when to adapt and when to react. How are we choosing when there's a need to recognize change and when we can ignore it? I think it's interesting because then it's almost like we're limiting the existence of certain motion even when it's so present that it seems unlikely that we'd be able to stop it.

The idea that everything is made up primarily of space as you go down the size scale is hard to conceive of, since we typically think of ourselves and other bounded "improbable assemblies" as solid. The idea that these particles are constantly moving and changing components of what seems like an unyielding surface is harder to grasp still. What is it that keeps these particles in an improbable assembly, then, if the movement is random? I'm also curious about the idea of "random" motion. Not to be overly deterministic, but couldn't "random movement" just mean that we haven't discovered the purpose behind the movement yet? Here, we're taking other people's observations (perhaps lack thereof) for granted. After all, the movement of the sun and the moon would have seemed random too, before we discovered the setup of our galaxy and the rules of gravity. I think that the lab on Wednesday for instance, demonstrated that although there is only one widely accepted scientific explanation for certain things, there are still other stories that are interesting and worth at least thinking about.

Of all the topics discussed this week, I am most interested in the idea of motion as a first principle. If the world is in constant motion (and it is increasingly apparent that it is) then we certainly don't notice it. We see a table as a stable object. Indeed, we base our notion of physicality (a large part of our identity) on the relative stability of the world around us. I propose that this sense of stability is a story that originates entirely in the brain so as to facilitate our day to day lives. Were the brain to process every instance of motion we would be constantly occupied, rendered helpless in a world constantly changing. In other words, the brain only accounts for motion that it deems necessary (i.e. a dodgeball careening toward your nose... objects in motion that pose an imminent threat to our environment or our body).

This idea speaks to our general aversion to change. Though we exhibit an unparalleled ability to adapt to harsh climates, for example, we strive for continuity and stability within these climates.

This week we discussed evolution, motion, and constant change. What I find interesting is that our discussions this week were really discussions of constant change at different scales. Evolution represents constant change on a large scale, while the idea that "everything is in constant motion" (even things we perceive as still, or not in motion) represents constant change on a small scale. I am really fascinated by the fact that almost everything we observe is related to the scale at which we observe it. Sort of obvious, I know, but I think the act of finding similarities an differences in the different scales at which we view life will be key in defining it.

My first lab experience in this class made me think about what our class witnessed with the food coloring and water based on temperature. I thought about how the Earth itself has layers. Some things are visible at the top and others are arranged at the bottom. When the Earth first formed it went through the Ice Age. The sun eventually melted the ice and the increase in temperature allowed certain sediments and meteorite compositions to arrange within the Earth, thereby forming the Earth's core, mantle and crust. This change was introduced through random events and therefore the continuous creation of life is a product of randomness. The diversity on Earth that we as humans wish to organize is probably never ending. I think it says more about humanity in terms of our need to find a place for everything and feeling the need to explain it.