In other news, my mind has been hovering in some foreign terrain post-SATs.
Going through material for SAT Biology, particularly the evolution and diversity section has been a refreshing experience. It is admittedly not something I'd find myself typically interested in. Nonetheless, it seemed some of things I learnt, or at least the fundamental concepts have left lasting impressions. Color me fascinated, they have been steering me into a lot of thoughts about the way we are as humans. Now, I'd explain, if you'd excuse the awkward existentialist moment.
All the principles of evolution and diversity proved eerily reminiscent of Buddhist philosophy. Of change being constant, or every experience being transient. The concept of evolution shares some startling parallels. We see a lot of our experiences in permanence - yet it is the very concept of transience that made possible the survival of the human species. Take for example oxygen. Today oxygen is indispensible to life. Yet innumerable years ago, oxygen was toxic to life on earth and the catastrophic rise of oxygen levels was responsible for the greatest extinction on Earth. Of course, that mass of extinction eventually led to life today, and humans today.
It also made me think about this quote I posted many weeks ago. Indeed we are speaking of survival of our own species; life on earth may very well proceed sanshomo sapiens, scary as the thought may be.
In evolutionary biology, existence is the survival of the fittest. But we're constantly reminded that this concept is not a matter of deliberate adaptation. Like how multi-resistant bacteria we see today is not a product of supremely intelligent bacteria, but rather a matter of survival of mutants that "just happened" to possess traits that allowed them to such stresses and circumstances, then proliferate.
There is so much about the chance and coincidences of life on earth that has been lingering in my head, coupled with the Buddhist philosophy I have been trying to understand more of. Strange isn't it, that survival isn't deliberate, but a summation of coincidences and random events?
I really shouldn't be thinking so much. LOL. Especially with such geeky-sciencey undertones, but yes, I think the overdose of all these all at the same time really got to me. And I admit I was at once fascinated - although it was more like a "WHAT THE SHIT. Oxygen was toxic, you must be totally shitting me." kind of fascination. HAHAHA. OKAY. The extent of geekyness inside me freaks myself out. There shall be better things to occupy this boredom.
6.“The mind is a strange machine which can combine the materials offered to it in the most astonishing ways, but without material from the external world it is powerless, and unlike the sausage machine it must seize its material for itself, since events only become experiences through the interest we take in them; if they do not interest us, we are making nothing of them.
The man, therefore, whose attention is turned within finds nothing worthy of his notice, whereas the man whose attention is turned outward can find within, in those rare moments when he examines his soul, the most varied and interesting assortment of ingredients being dissected and recombined into beautiful and instructive patterns.” - Bertrand Russell
Meritocracy has always been a concept that strikes my interest. Here is another brief batch of what I've been reading.
Enraging: You have met the bare minimum academic requirements for your course of choice in Cambridge - unfortunately, by other metrics of merit, you have failed to make the cut (the cut-off grade was also more demanding than the minimum requirements) and have been denied a place. But that's alright. You've got money, and the government may be formulating a plan to encourage your entry into your dream school since you've got money. Screw merit, right? Money is the new merit. - Richest students to pay for extra places in Britain's best universities, The Guardian, 9th May 2011. This is ridiculous and disappointing. If education is to remain a key driver to social mobility, this policy shall be the epitome of this ideal's erosion.
Curious:Dr Ng Eng Hen's speech (7th March), while certainly PR and not sufficiently wholesome a representation of education & social mobility, presents some interesting figures that is worth further exploration. One figure in particular - that the top 5% PSLE scorers consistently do not come just from top schools - is at first comforting, but frankly not surprising. I can't agree much about having sufficient teachers across all subjects though (I don't see that particularly as a fault of the Ministry, given this issue is much more multi-faceted). The role of education, to me, is opening doors. Sam's brother, Nicholas excels in Literature but unfortunately cannot take the subject for O levels in his own school because they do not have Literature teachers for that level. As such, he has to take the subject as a private candidate. If you have taken pure literature, you will empathise; it is not an easy subject to grasp without guidance. Why should the lack of teachers close doors for students? Most of the autonomous and independent schools in Singapore have greater breadth of options because they have the resources to provide these opportunities. But alas, you do have to first make the cut for these schools. In Singapore, meritocracy is life-long; with few exceptions, "academic mobility" is challenging.
The Smurfette Principle was first raised in 1991 by Katha Pollitt in NY Times, speaking of the tendency of mass media to include only just one female character amongst their leads, citing The Smurfs as example. Interestingly this tendency is little but subdued in modern media today. The following video by Anita Sarkeesian takes us through more.
Truth be told, I am ashamed I never noticed the trend so starkly until raised by the video. Now here's to urging us to open our eyes to more.
“Humans have a tendency to fall prey to the illusion that their economy is at the very center of the universe, forgetting that the biosphere is what ultimately sustains all systems, both man-made and natural. In this sense, ‘environmental issues’ are not about saving the planet—it will always survive and evolve with new combinations of atom—but about the prosperous development of our own species.” - Carl Folke
