The Story of Evolution and the Evolution of Stories: EvoLit

            On Thursday in Professor Grobstein’s class, we discussed science vs.

Earlier in the semester, I was delighted to hear that we would be watching the theatrical adaptation of Orchid Thief. I read the novel back in the ‘90s and remember really enjoying it. (I’m not usually one to read about flowers, but I read an excerpt and got reeled in). I should have known better, however, than to look forward to the film. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a movie that was better than the book. If they make a hit movie from a novel, it makes me want to read the book, not see the movie.

In Anne Dalke’s discussion section, we discussed the role of humor in Adaptation and in evolution as a whole. We started off with the idea that maybe Adaptation is telling us that humor is key in evolution because it makes us more resilient. Charlie Kaufman is depicted as anxiety-ridden, miserable, constantly suffering from an existential crisis, and unsuccessful. He is obsessed with creating the perfect movie and drives himself nuts with it. Donald Kaufman is depicted as a much more carefree, fly-by-the-seat-of-his-pants guy, and (ironically?) it is his ridiculous screenplay that is successful. Perhaps it is Donald’s humor that helps him be so much happier and more resilient than his brother.

 The film is quite bizarre. There is Susan Orlean's story in the book and then there is Charlie's story of how he is trying to incorporate her written work into the screenplay. On top of that, there is Susan's story that extends beyond her book. Adaptation is similar to the other literary works that we have read in class because of the multiple layers in the story. In Generosity, there are the characters and the storyline and beyond that, the ever present narrator reminding the reader of his/her role in constructing and deconstructing the story. In the Plague, the readers are told of a narrator who lies within the story and plot but whose identity is unknown.

 While watching an episode of the television show “Community” over the weekend, there was a portion of the episode that reminded me of concepts we are talking about in this class. Here is the link to the scene, just watch the first minute: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUI4klkNMOs Jeff, the main character, is having a conversation with his friend Abed, who is an “unusual” person. Abed is trying to be more “normal”, but Jeff tells Abed that there is no such thing as normal, and there is no “right” way to act. In fact,   Jeff tells Abed that the way we act is just lying to others, and that much of the lying we do is actually to ourselves. This struck me as an interesting concept, and how we

 On Thursday, in Professor Grobstein's section, we spent a nice amount of time discussing the difference between private journaling and the tendency of people to post their journals online - for example, we talked about the ways in which Facebook or Livejournal have come to function as online, public journals for many people. I've been thinking about it, though, and I disagree; we concluded that Facebook/Livejournal/etc. have essentially replaced the private, paper journal, but I'm not certain that these things are comparable at all. We had considered the changing boundary between that which is public and that which is private, but I think that the difference between Livejournal and a traditional journal is more significant than the public/private dichotomy.

In Professor Dalke’s section on Thursday, we discussed the difference between generosity and justice. The concept of generosity includes the idea of string-less gifts. Justice, on the other hand, requires accommodation to address inequality. In my belief, I think that an individual or a system should be rational and emotional when dealing with justice. I don’t think that justice should be witless or algorithmic, as also discussed in class. Justice can’t both be algorithmic and emotional, which are opposing ideas in this sense. We talked about various scenarios and how to form a perfectly just classroom or environment. I don’t think that pure justice can be plausible in a given situation because it is likely that at least one person would not find some aspect unfair.

 Time was a central topic in our discussion on Thursday, and is crucial to evolution. Change takes time. Not only is the passage of time important, but so is the point in time and place.

I just happened upon this article that claims that scientists have found a mutated gene that allows people to be "short sleepers", meaning they can naturally run on only a few hours of sleep with no harmful side effects. These people are also more upbeat, ambitious, thinner, and dare I say it, "happier". The scientists are currently thinking about how to manipulate this gene so everyone could potentially have this opportunity. Sound familiar? Here's the link.

http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/112502/why-people-can-run-on-little-sleep-wsj