On campus

For my on campus event I went to a lecture given by Dr. Pierce on his research with the Georgetown Salamander. The talk itself was somewhat technical, with an overview of the various research conducted. Basically, they’re using dyes and photography to identify and count the population of Georgetown salamanders at two locations nearby. The research was conducted in order to gain information to more accurately determine whether or not it the Georgetown salamander should be placed on the endangered species list. This made me realize, reaffirmed really, that science is goal oriented. There is a purpose to all this data—to all the experiment—that determines human action. Placement on the endangered species list is a political issue, with, for example, private property owners often wanting species’ to stay off such a list as it decreases what you can do to your land.
Moreover, science is not as distant as it seems. This is all occurring in Georgetown, by individuals whom I interact with on a day to day basis. Over the summer, I may volunteer doing some research on the salamander. Science, even for a philosophy major, is in reach. You don’t need a phd or particularly fancy equipment. We have much of that at Southwestern, and that’s great, but not necessary for science. All it takes is some initiative and an understanding of the process, of what it means to think scientifically. Science, in this light, is merely people looking at the world and observing, all within the framework of objectivity. You can’t really say that science loses anything as far as the absence of the scientist’s subjectivity because it is precisely this absence which gives science its power.
Going to the lecture and reflecting upon it made me think about the relationship of human beings to animals in general. We are so within these specific projects that often times we fail to see the forest for the trees. So what are we actually doing in such a project as Dr. Pierce’s research with the Georgetown salamander? In so much of what we do, we separate ourselves from the animal world. Our reason separates us. As the rational animal, however, it seems we have a choice to make. Work at conserving ecology with a minimum amount of human intrusion, or not give a shit either way. I’ve always found this dynamic interesting. To be fair, the dynamic is one which is fairly recently formed—for most of human history we as a species haven’t given a shit. There has been a recent attitude change recently. Rarely do individuals, at least in the states, wear fur. It is now certainly seen as taboo. And yet, when keeping such a large reference frame, human beings have been wearing fur for the entirety of their existence. Where is the shift from survival to fashion? From keeping warm to keeping “cool” in the hip sense of the word. Indeed, from necessary to luxury. And what does it mean now that we seem to be “beyond” this? What is the next step in the process?