Extra Credit 1: The UP Series (in response to Roger Ebert interview with Michael Apted)

The UP Series, directed and narrated by Michael Apted, was created to show how the British class system impacts a child’s upbringing from the very beginning of their lives. The documentary interviews fourteen children at the age of seven (in 1964), and then interviews them again at seven year intervals until the age of 56. These interviews give a snapshot into the progress of their lives, in their schooling, careers, and families. The first series (UP 7) focuses mainly on aspects such as where they were from, their family’s income (wealthy, middle class, or poor), education, and thoughts about what they will do in the future. Later we get to know about their choice of careers, love life, and future plans. As demonstrated by the children at seven, Britain was divided by the “haves” and the “have-nots.” At the time, it was a widely accepted belief that class is a good predictor of success. It is interesting how the seven-year olds display their feelings about the class system, even at such an early age. Some of the better-off boys and girls even say (to summarize) that we ought to treat the less fortunate as people too, and not look down upon them. Tony (the East End boy), on the other hand, says that the rich kids just need a good beating.

Nearly all of those who were bound to succeed ended up being successful. Those who grew up poor start families early and relinquish themselves to working low wage jobs, complacent with living a “simple life” (although all “lower class” individuals were most likely making more money than their parents). One conclusion that can be made from the UP Series is that the individuals born into wealth tended to have children later in life, having prioritized completing university and having a career. The UP Series shows how some of their ideas about the world change as they enter into adulthood (between UP 21 and UP 28). Suzy, for instance, consistently states that she does want anything to do with kids, yet at age 28, she is happily married with kids. In contrast, Tony admits at 21 that he wishes to be a father. It is apparent that there are different ideas of marriage, not necessarily within the class structure. There is much emphasis on how growing up rich or poor affects one’s outcome.  One of the questions is whether they feel they have had more or less opportunities than other participants in the UP series. Most have the same opinion that a good education is critical. More subtly, the UP Series questions the impact of not having a mother (i.e. Paul) or a father (i.e. Bruce) during adolescence. Apted says there is “something universal,” that people all over the world somehow relate to (suffering- the human condition).

Michael Apted’s questions regard their happiness, satisfaction at work, views on love and marriage, and whether they would have done things differently in retrospect. For the most part, the interviewees answer with honesty and sincerity, in other words, attempting to tell their individual stories. There is hostility to the interviews from some of the participants themselves. Some outright questioned the show’s intentions, and said that it was not a fair representation or an accurate portrayal of them. For instance, Jackie openly requests that the questions respect her privacy, and not focus on her private life. In the Roger Ebert interview, Apted talks about how important it was to have a good relationship with the people on camera, in order to be able to ask the right questions without offending anyone. He says too that the ones who are reluctant to talk have an altruistic sense that they are part of something greater than themselves.

In the last UP series Apted asks a question along the lines of “When you see yourself at seven years of age, do you recognize the person that you are now?” Because of his experience, the director is compelled to believe that the “essence” of the person is present in the 7-year old boy or girl. That “essence” is the core of what becomes the adult personality. He touches on a concept that as we grow up we lose ourselves, and have to spend the rest of our lives trying to return to the inner-child. Perhaps the opening aphorism is true: “Give me until child he is seven, and I will give you the man.” The most relevant quote in the UP series comes from Bruce, when he says, “I think we sort of live without our dreams.”

Works Cited

56 UP. Dir. Michael Apted. YouTube. ITV, n.d. Web.

Apted and Ebert. Perf. Roger Ebert and Michael Apted. POV. PBS, n.d. Web. 30 Apr. 2013.             <http://www.pbs.org/pov/fortynineup/video_ebert1.php>.

Comm 100 Speech: How Drugs Facilitated Human Evolution

DISCLAIMER: This is not advocating the use of drugs or alcohol. And yes, alcohol is a drug…

One might ask the question: Why are we here? That is not a very easy question to answer (although, the anthropic principle answers the question through backwards reasoning: we are here, simply because). There is a question though that we can answer, and that is: How did we get here? That is: How did humans evolve to use and make tools, form languages, create civilizations, invent writing systems: Everything that has brought us to this moment in time? That is primarily a question for an evolutionary biologist, although its implications can be seen in all fields of study, especially that of psychology. The fundamental question is: How did humans evolve to have bigger brains? The human brain grew twice its size in approximately one million years- the fastest growing organ in the history of the fossil record. Scientists ask: How did that come be?

Our brains are more efficient processing machines than the world’s fastest supercomputer. It is sometimes considered the “eighth wonder of the world.” It would be more appropriate to call it the “first wonder of the world,” since the brain is in effect what built the other “seven wonders”. That brings up some other big questions: How is our evolutionary past evident in our current day civilization? Are we capable of being agents of our own species’ evolution? When people hear of ‘evolution,’ most people think of the physical features (opposable thumbs, leftover hair from the Ice Age). We’re not going to grow tails in the future (reminiscient of the Overmind in Arthur C. Clarke’s Childhood’s End). Now (in 2013), it's our brains that are changing.

As a reference guide to the stages of our human evolution, there is Timothy Leary’s 8-circuit model of consciousness, adapted by Robert Anton Wilson who made it correspond with Piaget’s Four Stages of Development, Erik Erikson’s Stages of Psychosocial Development, Freud’s Stages of Psycho-Sexual Development (Oral, Anal, Phallic, Latency period, and Genital Stage), the Jungian model (Sensation, Feeling, Reason), and Gurdjieff’s model of personality (Movement center, false emotional center, false rational center, false personality center). The model of consciousness is unfortunately not widely accepted as being “scientific." Leary was criticized for using the word “circuit,” which connoted a static quality, similar to the circuits of a computer. They preferred the term “systems,” which connotes a natural process. The 8-circuit model can be understood subjectively (as used in developmental psychology), or objectively (as used in evolutionary psychology).

The first circuit (initiated by the first invertebrate brain) coincides with what is commonly known as the “Drunken Monkey Hypothesis”. It is a theory that early tree-dwelling animals ate fermented fruit (fermentation is the fruit’s natural way of staying fresh longer). The name of the theory is misleading since all tree-dwelling animals (not only “monkeys,” or in the case of humans, apes) would have eaten fruit that has fermented into alcohol. This activated the 2^nd circuit (approx. 500 million years ago).

Evolution is a gradual process, but something drastic must have happened for us to begin using tools (the third circuit (Dexterity-Symbolism) activated 2.5-3 million years ago). At first (~50 years ago), scientists believed that the switch from being herbivores/insectivores to omnivores made sense as to why our brains grew as large as they did. Meat (protein) gave these primates/apes more energy, and thus more time to think (in other words, use their brains), as opposed to defending territory/searching for food/mating, etc. There is a new (and more widely accepted) theory that the evolution of the overhand throwing arm had a bigger impact. The human arm’s propensity to use and build tools evolved out natural self-defense, throwing rocks at an attacker. Being able to throw rocks allowed these human ancestors to hunt animals from a distance. More importantly, hunting animals and following herds caused humans to migrate out of Africa, spreading north and east into Eurasia.

Ethnobotanist Terence McKenna’s introduced the “Stoned Ape” Theory which proposed that psychedelics (namely hallucinogenic mushrooms) caused the divergence of the Homo species from what we now call chimpanzees. His theory was that early hominids ate bugs found under cow manure, where they must have also found psilocybin mushrooms growing. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to make the connection between eating something, and feeling its effects. The psychoactive properties of the mushrooms caused improved visual acuity, which means that it made them better hunters. It also caused “glossolalia,” which is the vocalization of sounds (known today as “speaking in tongues”). These mushrooms (as McKenna argued) could be what created language- or the attaching of meaning (concepts) to sounds (words) [third-circuit].

Evolution is not a process of “chance”. It is possible to say that critical events in our human evolution were “accidents,” but that does not mean things happened by chance. As Richard Dawkins explains in “The Fifth Ape,” evolution is a process of non-random selection. It is not “survival of the fittest” per se, but rather survival of the fittest genes- the genes that are passed on. Just like the alpha-males who could use their over-arm to hunt/defend were more likely to find mates and reproduce, the groups eating psychoactives would have more bonding in groups in the same way. There is evidence that early humans created social networks (real interaction, not like Facebook), and that this interconnectedness gave way to a whole new species (which became our closest Homo ancestor).            According to the theory, this was a “chance” mutation 200,000 years ago (activated fourth circuit).

The fourth circuit is associated with domestication, and the use of agriculture. More and more evidence suggests that marijuana (which was discovered about 20,00 years ago) had a role in the Neolithic Revolution. Cannabis was one of the first plants brought to the Fertile Crescent to be cultivated. Scientists have found peptides in the brain which activate cannabinoid receptors naturally. These receptors are, in biologist terms, conserved in the DNA (BBC documentary). Joan Bello writes, “CX5 [a cannabinoid receptor] was an evolving companion to human evolution”. Our brains have evolved to use mind-altering drugs, so it makes it easy to understand why they facilitated our evolution as a species. The co-evolution of plants and humans (like corn, barley, cannabis, potatoes) by artificial selection is a fascinating subject.

The fifth circuit was activated 4,000-5,000 years ago in “leisure-class civilizations” (in India) with marijuana and yoga. Of course, there are plenty of examples in human history that show evidence that the use of mushrooms were integral to the birth of religion. One of the earliest known written texts is the Rigveda which refers to Soma, which is thought to be a psilocybin ‘mushroom soup,’ drank by “the gods” (Huxley uses the word ‘soma’ for his fictional drug in 'A Brave New World'). The Mesoamerican tradition with Ayahuasca rituals and the Peyote cactus are also well-known.

Drugs not only brought us into behavioral modernity (signaled by the first cave art) but they were the basis for the first agriculture, and thus the first civilizations. In the animal kingdom, DNA evolves for species survival. We sometimes forget that we are a part of the animal kingdom. Dawkins says “there is no goal [for evolution].” Leary said that the outcome would be space migration, increased intelligence, and life extension (longevity) [SM+I²+LE, in equation form]. It makes one look to the future. One might ask: Does DNA control the reins of our species’ evolution? Or do we?

Works Cited 

Bello, Joan. "The Benefits of Marijuana." Google Books. Lifeservice Press, n.d. Web. 30 Apr. 2013.   <http://books.google.com/books?id=J0cdQ_yn9aEC>.

The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Fifth Ape. Dir. Russell Barnes and Dan Hillman. Perf. Richard Dawkins. IWC Media, 2008. DVD. YouTube. 14 Jan. 2009. Web. 30 Apr. 2013. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8kTMxfpLng>.

Hornsey, Ian S. "Alcohol and Its Role in the Evolution of Human Society." Google Books. Royal Society of Chemistry, n.d. Web. 30 Apr. 2013. <http://books.google.com/books?id=v6xF3jfA7xoC>.

Leary, Timothy. The Game of Life. Culver City: Peace, n.d. Internet Archive. Web. <http://ia600302.us.archive.org/18/items/learygameoflife00learrich/learygameoflife00learrich.pdf>.

Leary, Timothy. Info-psychology. Los Angeles: Falcon, 1987. Internet Archive. Web. <http://archive.org/download/mainfopsychology00learrich/mainfopsychology00learrich.pdf>.

Wilson, Robert Anton. Cosmic Trigger. Scottsdale, AZ: New Falcon Publications, 1991. Principia Discordia. Web. 30 Apr. 2013. <http://www.principiadiscordia.com/downloads/00%20Cosmic%20Trigger%20Vol%20I.pdf>.

Young, Richard W. "Evolution of the Human Hand: The Role of Throwing and Clubbing." Journal of Anatomy (2003): 165-74. National Center for Biotechnology Information. Anatomical Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Web. 30 Apr. 2013. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1571064/>.

Debate Blog: Does Religion Make the World a Better Place?

       In the Communication 101 class debate I argued for the motion “This House Believes that Organized Religion Makes the World a Better Place.” My first main point was that religion is here to stay, and there’s no getting rid of it. If anything, religion is only getting stronger in the world and we ought to accept those who are religious. I addressed how it is a myth that secularization is a necessary product of modernity. The continent of Europe is the exception – the only place where religion is not getting stronger. We must include the entire world if we are to get a full scope on religion. 84% of the world is religious (and a good number of the other 16% still hold “religious beliefs”, i.e. belief in a higher power. I cited the origins of religion, as well as a few historical figures that were heavily influenced by their religion (Francis of Assisi, Mother Theresa, Muhammed Yunus, Gandhi). Both my partner and I discussed the power of self-healing prayer in medicine, and how “positive thinking” often derives from people’s faith. I argued that we cannot deny people the right to believe in a religion. One does not have to be religious in order to see how it ties communities together and does good deeds for people all over the world.

       I thought that the debate was fun as well as a learning experience. I think we had some strong points that hopefully made the audience question their preconception of religion. Considering the amount of time we had to make out arguments, I would have changed some of my last points for a stronger conclusion statement. I thought that my partner and I did a good job of dividing the labor, not stepping on each other’s shoes, so to speak, in the debate. Our research and preparation was vital and helped us develop each of our arguments (which often did not conform to our personal opinions). I thought that my partner in the debate, Derek, was very well prepared. His speech was informative (full of statistics), and persuasive at showing the positive side of religion.

Bibliography

Davis, Jeanie Lerche DavisWebMD. "Can Prayer Heal?" WebMD. WebMD, n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2013. <http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/can-prayer-heal>.

"The Global Religious Landscape - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life." The Global Religious Landscape - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Pew Research Center, 18 Dec. 2012. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. <http://www.pewforum.org/global-religious-landscape-exec.aspx>.

Hawkins, David R. Power vs. Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior. Carlsbad, CA: Hay House, 2002. Print.

Science Refutes God. Perf. Lawrence Krauss, Michael Shermer, Ian Hutchinson, Dinesh D'Souza. Science Refutes God. Intelligence Squared Debates, 5 Dec. 2012. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. <http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/728-science-refutes-god>.