Nature as Eden

I found it really interesting that in John McPhee's piece "Los Angeles Against the Mountains" the residents of those risking areas see nature as Eden. Mel, one of the residents living in the dangerous area, states that she lives there for 'freedom' and '[the feeling of being] removed from a sense being surrounded [in the city]' (237). The people who live in these areas would rather 'defy nature than live without it' (236). I feel that this goes back to the point that Cronan was trying to make about how we see nature as this untouched, earthly place that is uncontaminated by human technologies (which is somewhat ironic since houses are built around there).

I also find it interesting how McPhee juxtaposes nature as an avenging angel against nature as eden. McPhee gives narratives of what it felt like for families that survived the devastations such as the debris flow and then having residents like Mel describing how its place for serenity, away from the bustle of the city.

Mary Austin "The Scavengers

I wanted to comment on an interesting connection that Austin makes in this chapter. In the second paragraph of page 17 she notes that as the number of dead creatures rises, so too does the number of living creatures. These living creatures are the scavengers. It is interesting to see, through this connection, the balance of life. The death of a living animal serves to sustain the life of a scavenger. Nothing is wasted, for the scavengers pick the carrion clean, and the cycle of life continues.

I also find her comparison of the scavengers to the plague as interesting. In the same paragraph that was discussed above, she says "the scavengers were as black as the plague..." I think that it is interesting that these scavengers, so essential to the balance of life, are characterized in such a way. The scavengers do not cause death, they merely clean up after it. It seems that throughout the chapter she has a certain respect for the scavengers and what they do; she does not shy away from discussing death and the scavengers' way of life. Yet, she also links them to disease and death by making this comparison to the plague.

What Would it be Like to Live in a Time in which We Didn't Have Technology?

I am not used to posting on a blog, but after reviewing the posts from my fellow classmates, I have deduced that this is a place for thought and questions so here are my thoughts and question on this weeks readings from Mary Austin's The Land Of Little Rain After having read the series of short stories and biographies from Mary Austin's The Land of Little Rain, I found myself asking: "What would it be like to live in a land or a time in which there was no technology?" Now I know those of you who are reading this would probably instantly reply to this rhetorical question with another question of your own; "what constitutes technology?" That question is a good one and to be honest i DO NOT honestly think I could provide all of you with an adequate answer in this short of an essay; however the thoughts and conclusions which trying to determine what the word "technology" provoke are something which, after having read these stories, I feel obligated to pursue and discuss. I ultimately hope to change the ways in which your think of technology: DOES TECHNOLOGY HELP OR HINDER MANKIND? WHAT ROLES SHOULD MANKIND PLAY IN SOCIETY AND DOES TECHNOLOGY HELP OR HINDER THAT? IF TOMORROW ALL FORMS OF MODERN TECHNOLOGY; I.E. CELLPHONES, CARS, PLANES, GUNS, COMPUTERS, ETC., JUST DISAPPEARED AND ALL YOU HAD TO PROTECT YOURSELF WAS YOUR OWN HANDS, NATURE AND YOUR INSTINCTS, HOW LONG DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD SURVIVE?

So, what is technology, and what does it have to do with Austin's stores? Well to start off, I would like to first explain a little about some of the connections between each of the short stories starting with the first one we read: "The Land of Little Rain", and ending with "Other Water Borders". As these stories progress, Austin appears to be painting modern humans as being very separate from nature; something which I believe has been caused by the spread of technology. The first story we read gives us a very broad view of the Country of Lost Borders. Throughout the pages we get very vivid depictions of the many beauties of nature in this country, however; humans are almost absent from the image save the slight mentions at the end of Salty Williams and his mules. As the stores progress, humans start popping up more and more. First, in the section on scavengers, Austin makes sly references to modern humans and how poor their instincts have become. She ends her this section on page 22 by stating that "Man is a great blunderer going about in the woods... " as noisy as a bear, but laking the power and instinct. In her later section on the basket weaver, however, she paints the woman Seyavi as a pure, simple and kind person who is in touch with nature. Before Seyavi, Austin also speaks very highly of of a man named Winnenap and the beautiful lands in which he once lived and now longed for. What is the difference between this Seyavi/ Winnenap and us? Technology. Technology is what defines our culture and the cultures of many other modern societies; without it, we would be lost and with it we have lost something far worse.

So as you are reading these beautiful scences which Austin very poetically describes I want you to try envisioning yourself in them; whether it be on a mountain top, amongst the deserts or on the streets of the mountains. Do you fit in? In the image I create I would have to say no. There is no room for me and the shiny little laptop on which I am writing this post atop a mountain with a view that could take your breath away. Similarily, my cool cellphone and my 21 inch monitor just don't seem like the best addition to my mental painting of the coyotes in their caves. Actually very little of what I own would blend in with the images which Austin illustrates. It seems to me that technology has created a barrier between us and nature; consequently, in her opinion, stripping us of our instincts. Is this a good thing, or a bad thing?"What would it be like to live in a time of place where there was no technology?" I don't know all of the answers to these questions, so i will leave them to you guys to ponder and comment on.

Touching the Magic at California Academy of Sciences

During spring break I visited the California Academy of Sciences, often called the "San Fransisco Science Museum." The visit was a nice opportunity for me to compare the articles "Touch the Magic" and "Teddy Bear Patriarchy," both which treat how nature is represented in museums and other similar facilities. I wanted to compare the articles' accuracies in regards to the museum itself. Although my visit to this particular museum certainly isn't exhaustive in terms of the properties of all natural museums, I did find that many of the aspects Donna Haraway and Susan Davis wrote about in their articles were incorporated and present in the museum, and that certain, subtle details implemented in the museum's design were reflected on the material in the essays.

For example, the first part of the museum we chose to visit, a rain forest simulation, was easily comparable to the rhetorical elements found in "Touch the Magic." Visitors are suggested to (gently) interact with the roaming butterflies, which are both plentiful and easy to spot. Small birds and macaws are physically nearby the trail upwards and can get as close as a few feet to visitors. The roomy and open property of the walk subtly suggests a close connection to the natural elements around you, reinforced by the "get in touch with nature" narratives from the surrounding placards. Yet, as Davis suggests in her essay, a feeling of simulation and "out-of-place" hangs over the attraction. Airlocks are installed to prevent butterflies from escaping, and one is reminded to gently brush off any butterflies before leaving the trail. The macaws are fed by bright, plastic bowls containing fruits, seeds and water rather than being let find their own source of nourishment. The sprinklers spraying simulated rain forest moist are both audible and visible. In short, there are clear "setups" for unnatural human interaction hidden under the simulated peaceful human interaction that the attraction is supposed to infer. Like Davis suggests in her analysis of the "Touch the Magic" commercial, it is unclear whether this "touching" or proximity to nature makes it appear more natural or not.

However, the resemblance between text and reality does not stop here. The subsequent attraction, the "African Hall," demonstrates a story of evolution in the depths of Africa through the means of stuffed animal exhibits. The similarities between the features found in this exhibit and the Akeley African Hall features described by Donna Haraway are significant. She notes in her essay, regarding the Akeley African Hall dioramas, that "a diorama is eminently a story, a part of natural history," which is the basis for the entire exhibit at the museum I visited - to demonstrate the natural evolution through these stuffed animals. Placards, each associated with a particular animal, explains its importance to the natural development of species in Africa. The animals progress chronologically from the entrance to the exit, reinforcing the emotions the exhibit wants to infer. Part of Haraway's analysis became clear in this setting - through the use of stuffed animal dioramas, the museum can interactively and easily portray the story of natural development.

In conclusion, I was happy to find that many of the elements described in each essay were represented in reality as well, confirming, for me, the evidence demonstrated in them.

More games with a message

I thought I would link a few more examples of games with clear procedural rhetoric--that is, games that make an argument through their very mechanics.  One is "Darfur is Dying," which won the mtvU Darfur Digital Activist Contest a couple of years ago:

Darfur is Dying

The other is a game called "September 12th" that makes the point that retaliation is not the answer:

September 12th

I'll let you guys figure out how these games make their arguments.  Remember, pay close attention to the consequences of player action (and inaction), difficulty, and types of operations.

Lastly, I want to also say that a game does not have to have an explicit political message, like these, to make some kind of argument.  I would argue that sometimes even the most seemingly inconsequential games make startling arguments about the way our society should be, including gender roles, race relations, etc.

Reflections on Video Games and Such

I'm sure a lot of people would agree with me on this: until Thursday's class, I never gave much thought to how much video games actually communicate to the player. That said, the genres of video games I've experienced the most are sports games and cheap online flash games. And it's really hard to argue that NBA 2K9 really says much politically or tries to persuade the player to believe or change something in real life, except possibly for the opinion that LeBron James is leagues better than Kobe Bryant. But anyways, after Thursday's discussion of rhetoric in video games and seeing the gameplay of Flower and the McDonald's game really opened my eyes to see just what messages could be embedded in certain video games.
I thought back to some of the flash games I used to play a lot, most of them mindless RPGs and tower defense games, and I tried to think of a game that exemplified this idea of "procedural rhetoric." And then I remembered this third-world farmer game. In it, you control a third-world family trying to survive in a community by farming, planting crops, and raising livestock. While most of the mechanics of the game you can figure out easily by playing for a few seconds, the one aspect of the game I wanted to point out the most was this: you "win" the game when you purchase all the advancements--a health clinic, a school, a political representative, a communications system, insurance, and roadways. It's not too hard to see that this game calls for players to take action and get involved in supporting the advancement of civilization in third world countries. Another interesting point is that when you finish the game, whether win or lose, you are notified with a message that says something to effect of "you survived in the harsh third-world community for an astonishing [emphasis added] X turns," as if living in a third-world community for any length of time is so amazingly unbearable.
The point of all this is, video games CAN have an impact on the gamer beyond just entertainment value, and even more profound, it pops up (or hides) in ways that we just don't notice unless we take the time to analyze. I don't think I'll ever look at video games the same way again.

Cooking Mama Loves to Kill Baby Animals

http://www.dressup247.com/game/601/Cooking-Mama:-Mama-Kills-Animals.html

My sister showed this game to me a while ago (She is prone to finding bizarre things on the internet), and it reminded me of the McDonalds game we played in class. The game was created by PETA as a disgusting parody of the game Cooking Mama. If you are not familiar with Cooking Mama, it is just a game where you follow various recipes to make different meals.
I'm not sure if this game would really change anyone's mind about eating meat but I thought it was pretty funny.

Climate Change, Carbon Dioxide, & Coffee

After becoming exposed to the rhetorical video game world in class on Thursday, I took it upon myself to delve deeper into some of the games that we played hoping to acquire a better understanding of the different devices used by the video games with the intention to get a certain message across. The game that struck me the most was Starbuck’s Planet Green Game and not because it was the most fun to play but because it was the least entertaining game we encountered in class. Despite this off putting aspect, I returned to the Starbucks website and unwillingly gave it another shot. After entering my name, choosing the character that best represented my physical appearance and picking my (hybrid) car, I reentered the town of Evergreen with a mission to reduce its carbon footprint.

Starbucks collaborated with Global Green USA on the Planet Green Game to “educate the public about climate change through engaging and informative play while encouraging individuals to become part of the solution in their own lives.” My problem with the game initially was that I felt like it was less of a video game and more of a Global Warming informative powerpoint (Al Gore style). A successful video game interacts with its player in a stimulating and fun way and educates individuals in an obscure manner. When we first played in class, we only tackled 1 out of the 6 destinations needed to complete the game and the one that we chose happened to be (in my personal opinion) the least entertaining and informative one. After playing the game for a second time and completing all 6 destinations, the game surprisingly became fun despite being excessively educational. By transforming Evergreen into a sustainable town, I played a fun matching game that spewed facts about sustainable products. I constructed a town park and learned that by building green, we can assist in preserving natural habitats, watersheds, and ecosystems, protect air and water quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and solid waste, all while conserving natural resources and creating healthier indoor and outdoor environments. I spoke with Evergreen’s Mayor and had an enlightening conversation about increasing the use of clean, renewable sources of power and also identified common mistakes that increase carbon emissions within the household. My reward for completing a destination was a tidbit about a project that Global Green USA is currently working on to make the world a little more sustainable.

Overall, Starbucks constructed a game that could abort boredom for a half hour and educate the average Joe on living a greener lifestyle. If Starbucks feels so inclined to help combat global warming, I think that it would personally be more effective for them to print sustainable facts on their cups to reach a broader audience, but if the online computer game approach suits their fancy, Planet Green Game is not a terrible medium to do the job.

Dead Flower

Flowers was the game that we played in class on Thursday. It consisted of the player being the wind carrying petals and navigating them to flowers to restore life on the wild terrain. This small explanation is my own take on the point of the game since there were no clear objectives or rules to the game that I was told to follow. This ambiguity of the so called game is what made me wonder if it was a video game at all.

Other than nice visuals, I deem Flowers to not be a video game for its lack of player interaction or any plot. Without it being a video game, I pose that it must not have rhetoric regarding nature. Although Flowers did make me wonder about aspects of nature like its emptiness and how certain human structures affect the land, it only did so for a millisecond. I continued to be bored and noticing how slowly the clock was moving. Flower fails in its persuasion because it did not lure me in and truly make me wonder what it is trying to say without it being forced out of me in my Rhetoric 1B class in Berkeley.

I believe that to have the power to persuade, in other words power of rhetoric, you must be able to engage your audience deeply with you message, especially in a competitive media world in which many opinions are thrown at once. Flowers does not have any persuasion power because it does not demand attention or even much brain ability since it has been used to just relax. Moreover, Flowers does not take a stand, which in many cases is the most important aspect of rhetoric. I have no clue as to what it is trying to say in regard to nature. Should we be more environmentally aware? Should we not interfere with nature? Certainly this “game” does not compel me to find out or care. It only makes me wish that somewhere far in the hills of the landscape of Flowers was a shooter hiding, aiming at the small petal in the wind.

Looking for Nature at the Mall

In this essay, Jennifer Price explores the paradox of corporations that sell nature to its consumers, particularly, one situated in high-end malls. Nature in this case is marketed to upper middle class citizens who are too busy to experience nature in the wild and instead opt for nature in the form of CDs and anatomically correct toys. Price argues that what the affluent class looks for is not nature itself but what it stands for- “a modern palliative for materialism” and emotional development. She urges for the recognition that the price of such products include not only money from the consumers but also valuable natural resources.

It is worthy of note that she ends her discussion with the question of whether she should buy products like inflatable penguins and answers, “Those turn out to be extraordinarily spacious, complicated questions”. She asserts that often times we become so immersed in artificial nature that we forget the reality of nature, allowing the continued over-exploitation of resources to satisfy the craving for artificial products. However, she does concede that consuming and enjoying these products is not necessarily an evil, because it brings about a certain connection between humans and nature nonetheless. At the conclusion, she still seems torn between the two reactions.

DisneyNature

http://disney.go.com/disneynature

Recently, the Walt Disney Company has come out with a new film label to their company's repertoire, called DisneyNature. Last Earth Day, they released the movie Earth, and this year they are coming out with Oceans, the next installment in their nature documentaries. Oceans is advertised to journey through our planet's 5 oceans and to "discover never-before-seen worlds, through the eyes of the creatures that who live there." A Planet Earth style picture, the trailer for the movie also promises to "connect their world to ours."

Many in the class will react to this sort of information with cynicism, but I fail to see the problem with Disney giving more information out to the general public about nature. Though I agree that people should be going outside for themselves and getting that "authentic" relationship with nature that we all need, most people will not take the time to do so. With the hectic lifestyle that so many have today, it is difficult to remember the bigger things in nature that are going on around us. These DisneyNature films, along with the True-Life Adventure series from the past, are continuing to teach the public about "the beauty and fragility of the world." These films allow people to see parts of nature that they would otherwise never get to experience, and therefore build their relationship with this nature which then gives them incentive to want to help to conserve it.

Disney is known as a company of family fun, and incorporating a larger theme of nature into the company will reach out to many families, especially children. In other aspects of the company, besides film, they are trying to reach out to the youth - the next generation that will be taking care of our planet. The Disney Company has also started a new campaign called Friends for Change through the Disney Channel utilizing their current teen stars to spread a message to children that they really can make a difference. Disneyland as well has started using environmentally friendly resources and selling "eco-friendly" and "organic" souvenirs. This trend of being friends with our environment, though it may still be a bit shallow, can only be beneficial to our earth. Capitalization of corporate culture on marketing the importance of nature to the public shouldn't be considered such a bad thing -- the actual awareness is what's important.

McDonald's Video Game

After, I got back from class today, I wanted to explore the McDonald's simulation game a bit more. I started off by reading their instructions to see how to be "successful"... they use pretty strong written rhetoric in addition to the procedural rhetoric we find throughout the game:

"Agricultural sector:
If we had to rear all the cattle we need in our part of the world, our cities would drown in an ocean of cow shit. Pastures and soy culture need a lot of land and South America is one of the best places for it. Obviously you have to conquer your land as our forefathers did. Remember the old saying:
'under every forest there is a lawn. "'

On tonight's episode of The Colbert Report the guest of the episode is a woman who wrote a book all about Henrietta Lacks and the HeLa cells, you can watch the episode online if anyone is interested.

Justin

Winged Migration vs. Wild Kingdom

I was astonished after viewing both Winged Migration as well as Wild Kingdom at the vast differences between the two seemingly similar documentaries based on animals in their natural elements. Winged Migration captures a much more authentic perspective of the lives of the animals than does Wild Kingdom.

Winged Migration successfully illustrates to the viewer an accurate portrayal of the life of several species of birds. Winged Migration begins with awe-inspiring views, encapsulating the viewer and making them feel as if they are apart of the scene, as if they are flying with birds. The viewer can almost feel the wind upon their face or smell the saltiness of the sea below them because of the film's effective aerial footage. There is minimal distraction from the birds; they are obviously the main focus of the film. Narration or music only comes into play a few times. The narrator is not assumptive and does not persuade the viewer to form opinions one way or another; they simply just state fact. Quiet, classical music is only played to keep the viewer engaged and does not disturb the ambience that the film honors so well. Overall, Winged Migration is a correct depiction of the lives of birds.

In contrast to Winged Migration, Wild Kingdom failed to provide the viewer with a realistic view of animal life. The program begins with human Zoologist Marlin Perkins, who is the narrator, suggesting that the focus is not solely on the animals. He is consistently interrupting the footage of the animals to insert his opinion; he attempts to persuade the viewer to believe what he believes. Unlike Winged Migration, Wild Kingdom’s music is much more unnatural, with man-made sounds attached to animal actions. It is apparent to the viewer that the video footage is taken by an outsider; instead of being one with animals, the viewer feels like they are staring at the animals whose lives are being disrupted by camera crews. In addition, some of the footage that was included was solely for an emotional reaction. Violence and death, although common in animal life, were highlighted in the film in order to engage the viewer.

In conclusion, Wild Kingdom’s Hollywood film does not honor animal life in the same way that Winged Migration does. Hopefully more films will be produced that are more similar to Winged Migration instead of tainted by Hollywood like Wild Kingdom.

Martin and Osa Who?

Since we're thinking about nature at the mall this week, I thought I'd share my experience with the new "Martin and Osa" clothing store to be found at high-end malls like the Westfield in SF.  My first encounter with this store was the giant billboard approaching the Bay Bridge, and at the time, I was completely puzzled by what the billboard was advertising.  It showed a young, well-dressed heterosexual couple and the words "Martin and Osa."  Were these Martin and Osa themselves?  The names themselves made me think of Martin and Osa Johnson, friends of Carl Akeley and the American Natural History Museum and some of the first "wildlife filmmakers," if we can call safari films and expedition films and travelogues wildlife film.

I was at the Westfield mall on Saturday and my friend and I went into the store to ask if the store was named after the Johnsons, and lo and behold, it was!  This began to make an eerie kind of sense, as the store was marketing clothing that is chic but rugged, something someone might wear in the Outback or on safari if one wanted to impress the animals with a sense of style.  The store featured a large-screen projection of natural scenes, e.g. crashing waves on a rocky seashore, travel books, and various bric-a-brac that called to the urban traveler.

So think about the historical Martin and Osa (check out their museum here).

Then think about the new store and what it's selling to you, the consumer.

Commercialized Nature 2 (Whoops!)

(I accidentally hit enter before I had written anything on my last post. Sorry!)

My sisters and I used to love going to the Discovery Channel store in the mall. We were not the Claire's or Macy's type and our matching brown eyes were instantly drawn to the bright globes, the stuffed giraffes, and the lightning orbs. I had never heard of the Nature Company but upon reading "Looking for Nature at the Mall" by Jennifer Price, I was instantly reminded of my own experiences, raking sand in the mini zen garden and staring in awe at the sparkling geodes on the shelves. Jennifer Price examines my, and many other consumers reactions to stores like the Nature Company and attempts to determine if commercializing nature is a way of celebrating it, or just a waste of resources and an attempt to capitalize on human's thirst for the natural.
While I recognize that the Nature Company sells mostly trivial, kitschy gifts that offer little educational value, and I realize that while the Nature Company does offer something different from most of the stores in the mall, its main purpose is to make money, overall, the Nature Company brings something new to the table and is a nice relief from the monotony of the traditional commercialism of the mall. The Nature Company, and stores like it, sell informative books, nature documentaries, and interactive games and toys that serve not only to entertain kids but to educate them as well, instilling an awareness of nature that they most likely will not get from a Tickle-Me-Elmo. And while the idea of consumerism may seem contradictory to the natural, the Nature Company does make efforts to foster responsible, informed consumerism: "You can put a quarter in the Rainforest Meter and sen your money off to a good cause. You can buy a book about tropical deforestation. The company makes serious, extensive efforts to be a place where one can consume responsibly and well." By bringing a commercialized version of nature into the unnatural world of the mall, shoppers are reminded of their love and appreciation of nature and although a mug with a picture of an ostrich printed on it may not serve as a significant symbol of our connection to nature, it does serve as a reminder that nature exists in our homes and in the mall. Although the Nature Company is clearly not a perfect portrayal of how humans should interact with nature (capitalizing off of the elusive dream of nature, using its resources in the process), I think it is safe to say we leave the Nature Company with a stronger awareness of the planet and a little more informed than we would leave a Bath and Body Works.

Reality of Reels of Nature

After watching Winged Migration, I found it to represent nature better than Zoo Parade and Wild Kingdom as described in Greg Mitman’s Reel Nature. The French film portrayed the flight of birds in their natural state, and almost even in their bird’s-eye-view. With Perkins’ Zoo Parade and Wild Kingdom, the films showed nature through the perspective of humans, rather than the perspective of the animals. For example, the polar bear scene anthropomorphized the polar bears as playful children with a sense of humor and wit. Also, the Perkins’ films created subjective representations of the animals, describing situations that the audience could take from the film that were not necessarily true. For instance, the video stated the lemmings were in a scurried frenzy while running from their predators, leading them to eventually dive off of a cliff. In this case, the narrator cannot possibly know for sure the motives and thought processes of the lemmings, so the descriptions are surely subjective. In Winged Migration, however, the narrator does not use judgmental language or subjective descriptions of the birds. The facts are mostly true data and there does not seem to me any anthropomorphism when viewing the birds. In fact, humans play a very little part in Winged Migration compared to Zoo Parade and Wild Kingdom. In the French film, the perspective is from the birds in the sky, and humans seem to merely be passersby on the journey of the winged animals. It is not until the middle and end where we see the role of humans, when hunters shoot at the birds and industrial waste sites of Europe kill the migrating birds. In the Perkins’ films, however, it is as though humans are the center of the focus and perspective. For example, the helicopters and narrators on-screen describe and actively participate in the nature being displayed. It is as though they filmers are taking the audience on an adventure with a tour guide.
From this, I make the point that movie-based films and documentaries such as Winged Migration are more successful in portraying the natural state of animals compared to the mass-mediatized versions of nature as seen in the Perkins’ films. This is because the focus is more on the animals and their perspectives rather than how we as humans interact with the natural world. In more current nature films, I have seen that the better technology and removal of the roles of humans have enhanced the “realness” of nature (such as Planet Earth). It is then by having a “bird’s-eye-view” in a sense of the animal that films capture the essence of nature and portray it without bias. Ultimately, however, no matter how much we distance ourselves from the filming and how great the bird’s-eye-view is, we will never really be able to capture the real nature of the world, since through filming, we are essentially creating a selection bias and implementing our own (or the filmer’s own) perspective of nature.

Is Television the Key to a Stronger Family?

In Chapter 6 of Reel Nature, Gregg Mitman goes directly to the heart of the success of so many nature programs by describing the family togetherness promoted by the advent of television. After Marlin Perkins failed a 1944 attempt to spread the treasures of the zoo to the masses over the airwaves, an increase in television ownership five years later allowed his show to reach 11 million Americas each week. This growth spurred the development of many similar shows that all had the same goal of providing entertainment for the entire family. I believe that Mitman correctly identifies the niche filled by nature programs as a way for families to enjoy time together while being entertained and educated by the animal kingdom. Not only did these shows feed the imaginations of a new generation of youth, but they served as a distraction from the terror present in the outside world.

One of the most interesting facts cited in the piece is a study which found “watching Wild Kingdom ranked second in their list of activities involving interaction with animals”. This program had clearly become an American staple as viewers experienced the wonders of the outside world from the comfort of their living room. As stated in a 1944 advertisement, television allowed anyone to become “an armchair Columbus”. This development stretched the imaginations of millions of Americans in the safe, secure confines of the family unit. The best example of this is the Easter episode of Zoo Parade, where Perkins described all the animals as “one big happy family”. Parents knew that by allowing their children to watch Zoo Parade and Wild Kingdom, they were viewing something educational, enjoyable, and free of the perils found in many communities.

Just like the explosion of television ownership, the pet population also underwent a boom in the 1950s, reaching over 200 million. Zoo Parade was one of the first shows to capitalize on their viewer base as they took on sponsors such as Jewel Food Stores and Ken-L-Rations. This represents one of the first examples of the marketing industry we know today. The use of special edition cards that were connected to the show was a very effective way of engaging the youth audience and getting their parents to shop at a certain store or buy a certain product. Families and corporations alike benefitted from this new era of entertainment and expanded the role television would play in our daily lives. Despite the eventual downfall of both Zoo Planet and Wild Kingdom, both shows served as groundbreaking new ways for families to reconnect and displayed the usefulness of technology in modern society.

Commercialized Nature

Domesticating Nature for Home Viewers on the Television

This week’s reading involved the portrayal of nature in television, and the idea of being able to bring something as vast as nature to home viewers. It mainly described two different shows called Zoo Parade and Wild Kingdom both of which were hosted by Martin Perkins, and explained America’s fascination with the variety of animals in the world.

One of the most interesting and rather striking points that was raised when reading the article involved the idea of “wildlife conservation.” The manner in which Perkins and similar nature shows attempted to present the idea of wildlife conservation was through presenting to the world certain aspects of nature that would incite awe or interest among viewers. The idea most likely intended for viewers at home to have was that nature needed to be preserved by humans because of its beauty and uniqueness. An example of such a scene that was viewed in class involved the chasing of the polar bear from the helicopter in Wild Kingdom. The polar bear was seen to be in a harsh yet majestic environment and it allowed humans to witness the interaction of an animal in its environment.

However, though Perkins did note the importance of wildlife conservation in creating these television series, the production of the episodes required humans to sometimes interact too closely with the animals and disturb their natural living environment. Back to the polar bear scene, as discussed in class, the bear was running because the cameramen were chasing it from the helicopter. In another instance, the production crew had to force feed a snake with pounds of meat. It is instances like these that counter the overall message of “wildlife conservation” that the show is attempting to bring across because of the fact that some animals are placed under duress in order to create the show.

Yet at the same time, the show still encourages the interaction of mankind with the environment. In one part of “Domesticating Nature on the Television Set,” it is stated, “Scientists would help rescue and sustain the world’s vanishing wildlife for the admiration and pleasure of future generations. They had been, all along, important allies in the production of nature as entertainment.” Here, the text suggests the need to help the animals in the world because they are the ones responsible for allowing nature to be brought to the television set for home enjoyment. In a sense, it is able to reveal the idea that humans and animals are able to work with one another to the over benefit of both species.

Moore v. Regents of the University of California

I want to point you all to a landmark California Supreme Court case that we can view in light of our discussion of Henrietta Lacks and the HeLa cell lines.  In this well-known case, a man (John Moore) went to UCLA for leukemia treatment and parts of his cancer were eventually developed into a commercial cell line.  Though Moore sued, the California Supreme Court ruled that he had no entitlement to the profits generated by his body samples:

Wikipedia article

At what point does it get out of hand

Reading the HeLa article inspired me to blog about a big issue of which there should be a certain is the issue of cell cloning. There comes a point where we cannot account for what we produce, and that humanity may become unnatural, and not what we intended to create. I would draw upon a quote that come at the very end of the article.

"There can be more life in its technological form than its original, bounded, mortal container".

Sure cell reproduction sounds great, but who wants to get to the point where you just have no say over what you're creating because some other group has the same control you have and wishes to use it for evil intentions, like creating people who are huge enemies to Humanity such as Adolf Hitler. Most parts of the HeLa system are beneficial to Humanity, and it seems all very well intentioned, just at what point does it cross the barrier from beneficial research to a terrorist weapon? As such I think that cellular cloning should be kept to animals or should be completely governmentally regulated.

Informing and Compensating Patients Involved in Research

In both the New York Times and Hannah Landecker chapter titled HeLa, we are presented with the story of Henrietta Lacks and her popularly know immortal cells, HeLa. The HeLa cell-line has generated quite a buzz since its discovery back in 1951 when Dr. George Gey, a Johns Hopkins researcher, received a sample of her tumor to observe. Over the course of time, the HeLa cell-line has been used in order to produce drugs for polio, leukemia, the flu, and Parkinson’s. However, the cell-line was commercialized and made millions in profits, and the Lacks family did not receive a penny from these profits. There are two major concerns here. First, is it acceptable for doctors to be able to take samples of patients’ bodily materials and hand them over for research without receiving full consent from patients that there is a possibility that their bodily material could be used by researches to produce drugs? Secondly, should patients either well informed or not receive some share of the profits if their bodily materials are in fact used and produce drugs that are sold on the market?

In concern to the first issue of doctors needing to receive full consent from patients to use samples from their body for research, my personal opinion is that doctors should have talks with patients telling them that first they are going to send a sample from the patient to a research facility, and secondly that there is a chance that this sample could be used to produce drugs and could be sold on the market. I think that this would help to give patients and their families more of a say as to whether or not they will allow for research to be done. In the Landecker article, she states that patients do give their permission for research to possibly happen in various forms of paperwork that they must sign. My problem with this that it’s paperwork that must be signed or else a patient is not going to be able to proceed to get treated. This is very much identical to terms of contracts that we see frequently when installing programs on our computers like i-Tunes, and our general mentality is to just click on the I agree to these terms in order to proceed. So I think that doctor and patients having a talk in which the doctor spells out everything for the patient will not only help the patient in making their decision but also to help avoid legal ramifications when patients are not well informed by their doctors.

The next concern is that of patients receiving some percent of profits made from drugs that were produced from their bodily materials. As we already know, HeLa has produced drugs for various diseases and subsequently made millions in profits none of which the Lacks family has received. Another case of this was stated in the New York Times article in which a patient, John Moore was suing his doctor upon finding out that his doctor was trying to receive a patent on Mr. Moore’s cells which created a cell-line called Mo which had generated a “market value estimated at $3 billion.” Both of these are prime examples of patients that have had their cells involuntarily taken from them for the use of research in order to produce drugs that have made massive amounts of money and not a penny going to the patient in which the cells belonged to. I find it very unsettling to read about cases like these in which researches produce drugs to benefit mankind and reap the profits of their creations, but the source of these drugs are not compensated for their contributions. I do not there is specific means as to how we should solve this problem of patients receiving some portion of the profits, but I ardently believe that they are entitled to the money because after all it was their cells that researchers needed in order to produce these drugs, and without them they might not have been able to. If left unresolved, what we will have a major lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies in which patients will be seeking very large sums of money, and we will see many of these cases reach state Supreme Courts.

Jordan Rodriguez

Science vs. Popular

Hannah Landecker illustrates the story of Henrietta Lacks and the cells, which made her famous throughout “Hela”. Landecker delves immediately into the scientific explanation of these cells, which were cultured from Henrietta Lacks, with such technicalities as cell lines and cloning. On the other hand, the New York Times article illustrates the story of Henrietta Lacks and her cells, but through a very different lens. This lens allows the reader to be on a more personalized level with Lacks, rather than a scientific level with her cells.

The most interesting thing about these two writings for me was that “Hela” is an attempt at popular style press writing seemingly, but when compared to the New York Times it is clearly lacking essential parts. Popular press writing, as seen in this article, draws on mainly pathos as a rhetorical technique. This technique is highly successful in obtaining large numbers of readers. As most popular press writing, this article begins with the “who”; who are we reading about, who should be concerned, etc. On the other hand, scientific writing, such as “Hela”, appeals more to the logos typically. This piece of writing, therefore, in my opinion is not directly classified as the typical scientific journal writing, which consists of figures and tables, statistics, and methods, but rather of an attempt at more popular style of scientific writing. However, in its attempt to be popular, it is not perfect, because of its lacking in explanation of technical terms and procedures that are not commonly understood by the average person. Therefore, while I do see this as a step toward a more succinct popular scientific style of writing, I do feel that it is missing critical definitions and explanations.

A Piece of HeLa Pie

The story of Henrietta Lacks, the woman whose “immortal” cells would help scientists develop life-changing vaccinations, has been told through a variety of mediums for the past fifty years. In “HeLa” Hannah Landecker provides her own account of the infamous cell line, focusing on the scientific experimentation of Henrietta’s cancerous cells. Although I found the chronology of the scientific processes concerning the cells interesting, I was more struck by the background story of Henrietta Lacks. The New York Times article, “A Lasting Gift to Medicine That Wasn’t Really a Gift” written by Denise Grady satisfied my yearn for biographical information by personifying the ever multiplying cells, ultimately speaking about the Lacks family, and spawning questions concerning fairness, respect and ownership.

The most intriguing portion of the article for me was about the “tissue rights” and how race and social status have become as much a part of the HeLa story as the discoveries made by the medicinal community. I think that it is absolutely mind-blowing that we live in an age where money has become such a driving force that now it is necessary to patent your own removed tissue in the chance that scientists will make new discoveries from it. In the case of the Lacks family, they never generated any profit from their mother’s cells, which could have been greatly beneficial for them because they never knew that their mother had become a scientific golden ticket. The scientific community, like Landecker’s article is more concerned about detaching the face from the science (giving the cells a clean slate) and working towards servicing the greater good. Although this is a valiant effort and I do appreciate everything that medicine has done, it still is unsettling to me that scientists can disregard their patients to experiment. Those cells belong to someone and I feel that it is completely fair if that person and their family receives some of the profits no matter their race or social affluence. People have become more money savvy and scientists need to recognize that although their work is greatly valued, we unfortunately have created a society that only sees dollar signs and will act accordingly to ensure money in their pocket. I am sure that the next Henrietta Lacks is already taking notes because she knows to expect a hefty piece of the pie.

HeLa

The main focus of "Hela" from Hannah Landecker's Culturing Life is the experimentation of living cells obtained from Henrietta Lacks, a woman who died of a malignant tumor on her cervix. Throughout the reading, I could not pinpoint what exactly was Landecker's argument. However, Landecker seems to provide a timeline that describes how the cells of Henrietta surived to the present.

Landecker begins by describing how experiments are being done on living tissue in order to figure out a way to grow cells independent of the human body. The biologists were basically trying to discover a technique for cloning cultured cells that would produce a large population of cells from just one. They were successful in the mid 1950s when Harry Eagle determined the nutrients that were essential to cell division. After this discovery, Landecker shifts to the use of glycerol as a way to preserve living cells. Apparently, we can preserve cultured mammalian cells by freezing them with glycerol and storing them at -70 degrees celcius. Landecker explains that by freezing cells, we are essentially removing the effects of space and time. As a result, the HeLa cells gained "immortality," according to Landecker. These HeLa cells were then distributed by George Gey to his colleagues around the world. Since Gey never thought of patenting or limiting the distribution of HeLa cells, they became widely distributed as well as a commercial item.