|
|
.jpg)
He had  approached the window looking like everyone else: wrinkled, dry and leathered from the sun. He was hunched from sleeping in some urban crevice – a stairway, a doorway, maybe two or three in the same night. But his tired eyes were unblinking. He asked me again.
“Why are you here?”
I didn’t know what else to do, so I smiled, and offered him a plate. He didn’t take it; he pressed again.
“Why are you here? Are you having fun?”
“Um,” I replied, intelligently. After an eternity, he accepted his plate and moved away. He tossed his final thoughts over a withered shoulder. “This is not a fun place. Don’t have fun. I don’t know why you’re here.”
No one else at the shelter asked me any questions that night. Nothing more than the usual what’s your name, where are you from, can I have mine with no sauce, please. But his question would not quit. Would not SIT DOWN. Kept spinning and reeling and dancing in my head.
To be honest, it scared me. By the end of the night, I scared me. Mind you, I was no stranger to soup kitchens; a large portion of my adolescence was spent cheerfully racking up community service points by playing “Restaurant” at my church’s monthly feed. I donned my favorite apron and circulated the seminary room, doling out hot bowls of chili, refilling glasses of punch, and serving up seconds on cornbread and thirds on smiles. I smiled because this work made me happy – I was near food, I was feeding people, I was having fun. And THAT – that last bit – that was his question, and my fear. The fun-ness of all this. And whether I should be having fun.
It took a week of brain-racking and soul-searching, but I think I made peace with my friend’s question. He just wanted me to remember that those community service hours were serious, too. Those extra points on my pretty pink card may have been someone’s only meal that day, and after they turned in their plate, and I turned in my card, they went on to deal with problems bigger than I could ever hope to understand, and I just went to go home and wash my apron.
And now, even though I am long out of high school, and I return to shelters because I still like being near food and feeding people and doling out cornbread and smiles – despite all of these reasons for being here, I have to remember that what I am actually doing is something real and important. At its core, service is not something fun; it is something necessary.
Last night at the shelter, I smiled a little less, but stood a little taller and moved a little faster. My friend returned. “Back again, Crazy?” His eyes were unblinking, but this time I think I detected a smile. “Why are you here?”
Okay, this is perhaps too geeky of a spin from the classic green eggs and ham, but I thought it might get some nerdy biologists’ attention.
My intention is not to talk about Dr. Seuss in this entry but on genetically modified food. I read an interesting article the other day on New York Times about genetically modified food and its influence on the developing countries.
The article included several perspectives from well-known scholars of various fields. As young professionals with extensive and rigorous scientific training, we should be able to chime into the discussion as well.
The statistics on world hunger is quite grim (yet not hopeless!) According to UN estimate, the number of hungry people in the world will rise to over 1 billion this year. That is 1 in 6 people. Think about it. (If the lab in which I work is the world, that will mean about 3.5 people in my lab will go to bed hungry this year. I’m imagining how the conversation will go down. “Hi, Nate. you are not going to get enough to eat for the next six months. Deal with it;” or “Hi, Anusuya, your stomach is growling again.” Okay, my point is not to starve Nate or Anusuya but to stress the point that when we talk about the number of hungry people, we are talking about real people – as real as you and me and Nate and Anusuya.)
So back to my point, as rational thinkers, we need to confront the challenge to drastically increase food production in the next decade to feed the world whose population is still increasing. How do we do it?
Ms. Shiva, the founder of Navdanya, is an opponent of genetically modified foods. According to her, “The claim by the genetic engineering industry that without genetically modified food we cannot respond to climate change is simply false….The green revolution that we are building through Navdanya is based on conserving biodiversity and conserving water while increasing food production per acre. What we need is biodiversity intensification, not chemical intensification. What we need is to work with nature’s nutrient cycles and hydrological cycle, not against them. It is time to put small farmers, especially women, at the heart of this process.” Many argue against big industrious farming practices.
While shopping at farmer’s markets is indeed a pleasant experience, I personally believe that’s a rich world luxury. I don’t believe there is any chance to feed the entire world in such fashion. Besides, if we only rely on local/regional produce, instead of enjoying biodiversity, we actually will be very limited in our food choices. However, I’m again digressing. I’m not attempting to discuss operations and transportation of food. I’m talking about the need for science and technology to create high-yield food and climate-change adaptive crops. I don’t claim to be an expert in this field at all, but I’m actually really puzzled by why people are so terrified of genetically-modified foods. We have been eating fortified cereals without any problems and taking synthesized small molecules medications with an ease of mind. So why all the fuss about genetically modified foods?
Is genetically-modified food ideal? No. Just like taking supplemental vitamins in pill forms isn’t perfect either. Perhaps food scientists need to de-mystify genetically-modified food and tell people what it actually is. Secondly, I believe we have the responsibility to think pragmatically. The rate required to increase food production is way higher than natural evolution. When millions and millions of children go blind from vitamin A deficiency, is it not a good idea to enhance the natural production of vitamin A in common foods that people eat in developing countries?
I can’t help but wonder if the resistance comes from ignorance or naivety. The huge increase in hunger is real. Incremental changes in farming habits are not enough to combat the rapid increase of child malnutrition. Instead of an irrational debate based on fictitious claims, science, technology, facts and, above all, open and logical minds should enable us to truly solve the problem with world hunger. Science alone will not solve the problem, but without it we will only be paralyzed in a world of meaningless arguments. And 1 in 6 people will go to bed hungry tonight.
I’m going to break out of my normal ranting state and talk about something actually important here. Below is the text of a press release we’re spreading around about our recent jaunt to Capitol Hill, as well as pictures of us with Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI, owner of the Milwaukee Bucks and former president of Kohl’s Department Stores) as well as Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH).
On October 1st and 2nd, 2009, three members of the MIT Graduate Student Council (GSC) traveled to Washington, D.C. to speak with U.S. senators’ and representatives’ offices about specific graduate student issues. Before their visit, Alex Hamilton Chan, Alex Evans, and Kevin McComber prepared extensively on the topics of open access to federally-funded published research, raising the cap on H1-B visas for advanced-degree holders, and tax exemption of graduate student stipends. The trip was part of the Legislative Action Days of the National Association of Graduate-Professional Students (NAGPS), of which the MIT GSC is a member. NAGPS is a nationwide organization of graduate and professional student governments that aims to connect the governments and lobby for their concerns.
The three students met with the offices of eleven senators and congressmen who hold spots on committees relevant to the issues of interest. With their data-backed knowledge of the issues and the support of both the MIT GSC and NAGPS, the three students found their arguments to be well-received. To their pleasant surprise, a few offices expressed interest in pursuing possible legislation on the issue of graduate student stipend tax exemption.
Chan, Evans, and McComber are now working with MIT’s Washington, D.C. office to draft wording for a possible bill on graduate student stipend tax exemption, and they are continuing to spread awareness of the issues at MIT and to other schools in the Boston area.
The President’s visit to MIT on Friday is one of the most exciting events to have happened to MIT in years. As everybody celebrated and shared their story about how they caught a glimpse of the president (or in my friend Zenzile’s case, jumped over dozens of people to shake his hand  ), I couldn’t help but wonder what this visit by the President of the United States meant.
On the surface, Obama came to talk about energy innovation and policy. So, one way to look at it is exactly as how I was quoted in the Daily Free Press, “the President’s visit was an exciting acknowledgement of MIT’s role in energy innovation.” (http://www.dailyfreepress.com/obama-calls-for-u-s-to-become-the-world-s-energy-leader-1.2035198) But I think it is more than that. Obama did not choose any school, not even his Alma Mater, that second most prestigious school in Cambridge – he picked MIT, the iconic institute of science, technology and innovation.
This message is consistent with Michelle Obama’s speech in the UK. She said how making good grades is cool. This country and this world had adopted a definition of “cool” that treats nerds or smart as weird. The “cool” is some sort of combination of a lack or despise of self-discipline and hard-work, the cool kids demonstrate a general indifference about the world and knowledge. What the Obamas are saying is that being smart, getting good grades, doing great in school is the new “cool” – reminding us that the world is improving because we have moved beyond a group of jock-ish cavemen into a species that respect and accumulate knowledge relentlessly, that we have evolved into a group of humans who cares and works for the ideals of the betterment of humanity.
So, the President’s message is clear, smart is the new cool, and nerdy is the new sexy. And a president who chooses to be at MIT rather than a president who talks about how you can be a head of state while getting all C’s in college symbolizes the re-activation of the collective brain of humanity and the path to a better earth.
“You look tired.” This definitely tops the list of “Ways Not To Start A Conversation With A Grad Student”. Other favorites include, “How’s your research going?”, “What year are you?”, and my personal nemesis, “So, when will you finish?”
I’m sure Timmy (names have been changed to protect the identity of the offender) did not mean to ruin my morning. But the fact is, when I hopped on the Northwest Shuttle and ran into Timmy, Timmy had greeted me not with “Hello”, not with “What’s crackin’?”, not with, “Catch that episode of Hell’s Kitchen last night?”, but instead with “You. Look. Tired.”
And as I stepped off the shuttle, and every time I stepped out my office to grab a drink of water, or ran down the hall to grab some notes from the printer, indeed all morning long – I just kept mouthing the words to myself in different ways, trying to impart some positive meaning to them.
“YOU look tired.”
“You LOOK tired.”
“You look TIRED.”
Nope, no two ways about, this is the grad school equivalent of the day someone calls you “Ma’am”.
On one trip to the printer, I caught a glimpse of myself in the glass of the Triaxial Consolidation Test for Cohesiveness of Soil poster hanging in the hallway. I studied my reflection over the faded diagram of a triaxial cell. What had Timmy seen? What had provoked this particular greeting? Bags under my eyes? Brows in need of plucking? Had I gone not far enough, or too far with the cosmetics? Should I have held back on the foundation and mascara? Or added more blush? Was it something bigger? Poor posture? Walking too slow? What, Timmy? What? WHAT?!
I slapped myself and continued towards the printer. Maybe Timmy had meant it as a compliment. MIT is a really special place. Work is kind of social currency around here. If I looked tired – it means I am tired – which means I’ve been doing things at night time – which at MIT means I’ve been working at night time – which means I’ve been working hard – which means Timmy actually respects me – which might mean Timmy even admires my work ethic. Maybe Timmy was simply greeting me with an acknowledgement of my high MIT social status owing to my hours and hours of hard work. Timmy didn’t mean, “You look tired,” he meant, “You look like a hard-working MIT student, the cream of the crop!”
Judging by the looks of the people in the computer lab, I think I actually said, “WELL WHO WANTS TO LOOK LIKE THAT?!” out loud as I snatched my printout from the HP Laserjet. I stormed back to my office with the intent of reading about the Conditional Expectation of Random Variables, but instead I just sat there and thought about Timmy. Timmy hadn’t looked all that hot himself. Timmy had a few bags under his eyes. Timmy could have sat up straighter, could have ironed his shirt that morning. ‘You know what, Timmy?’ I thought. ‘YOU look tired.’
I wanted to run back to Timmy and tell him that. But that would be mean. Instead I opted to turn my anger into good and let all you Timmy’s out there know that “You look tired” is no way to start a conversation. I don’t care if it’s midterm season, I don’t care if quals are coming up, I don’t care if your friend has bags the size of suitcases under her eyes, do not tell her this. Grab her arm and ask her “How’s it goin’?” instead. Take her for a coffee. Tell her a joke. Inquire about the latest episode of Hell’s Kitchen. Just – don’t go there, or you might actually give her a reason to look tired. And for both of y’all’s sake – you don’t want that.
So happy that Brazil gets to host the 2016 Olympics. No offense to the other three great cities but I personally think this is symbolic of the rising importance of emerging markets and developing countries.
Brazil – 2016; Russia – 2014; China – 2008: with all the excitements for the BRIC economies, I might put some money down for India to host an Olympic in the not-so-distant future. how does 2020 Mumbai sound?
(Alex sent a polite email to tell the bloggers to get on with our blogs and bring out the typing fingers, so here I am again expressing my confusions about the world.)
Two recent encounters made me ponder on the question of our responsibilities in managing and handling technologies we have created and how that fits into our society as a whole.
First, I learned on a random TV talk show that now there is a gender-ID device that can tell the gender of the fetus when women are only 2 mths pregnant. They introduced it with such joy and zeal. More time to think about baby names; decorate baby rooms; buy new baby clothes….I was deeply concerned. Imagine the world where sex-selective abortions are already rampant in many countries. Nobel prize winner Amartya Sen pointed out there are likely millions of missing women in the world – women that would’ve existed had there been no gender discrimination at all. I recall a sobering paper I read once with the line “rather pay x rupees (for sex-selective abortion) now than y rupees for dowries later.” and y>>x. (pause for a moment and think about the weight of that.)
My point here is not to discuss gender inequality but recognize the existence of it. Furthermore, it’s to examine how a technology like the urine-based gender-ID test will likely to influence the existing situation. A pregnancy terminated at 5-month (when gender is usually determined through visual ultrasound) poses a much higher risk for the women. That risk certainly poses as a cost and serious deterrence for women undergoing sex-selective abortions. With an advanced technology that removes the risk, what will be the consequences? Is this a technology worth having? Do we need more missing girls and women? Will a positive educational campaign be good enough to counter balance any negative outcomes with this technology?
From talking about sex-selective abortion to a totally different topic, I recently learned about high-frequency trading – transactions that happen in fractions of a second with the aide of super computers. I am not an expert in finance but this almost sounds like a scam to me. It’s like insider trading except you are working on the time scale of seconds rather than days. It creates no value to anyone. Period. Maybe except for those people who profit from the system. I can’t help but be a little worked up about this. Somehow, I still naively thought that financial rewards should go to those to create value for the society? Somehow I thought the tax payers just had to save the entire financial system because of the lack of long-term vision on Wall Street?
I can’t help but wonder if our moral compass has improved at the same pace as our technological advances. Yes, we can create regulations to outlaw sex-selective abortions or deter high-frequency trading. But I’m incredulous of the possible effect without our moral buy-ins. We are a bunch of engineers and intelligent young professionals. It is our responsibilities to make certain that technologies are for the betterment of the people and the society. Making a quick buck or potentially exacerbating gender discrimination should not be part of our job descriptions. We are smarter and better than that.
I am only going to make predictions for economics. I think what makes sense is to predict which subfield would be awarded, and from there, we should be able to identify a short list.
Econometrics (Jerry Hausman (MIT), Halbert White (UCSD), Dale Jorgenson(Harvard))
Finance (Stephen Ross (MIT), Eugene Fama (Chicago))
Industrial Organization, Applications of Game theory and Theory of Contracts/Firms (Jean Tirole(Toulouse/MIT), Oliver Hart (Harvard))
Economic History (Paul David (Stanford), Joel Mokyr (Northwestern))
Wild Cards:
Alan Krueger (Princeton), Peter Diamond (MIT)
Reuse is the MIT version of the craigslist “free” section, complete with the feel-good philosophy of using resources more wisely. Except way more interesting and not so many questionable free mattresses and couches an hour away in good traffic.
You can join the mailing list by sending an email to reuse-request@mit.edu
Flickr Video
If you are like me, somehow the conversation every year on this day starts off reminiscing on the day when i was a freshman in college sitting in my physics recitation when the TA announced the news that changed the face of America. This year, it was no exception. On my way to campus, I was repeating for the eighth time of my TA’s anger and shock and listening to a friend talk about the reactions in his dorm room.
It is intriguing that the memory, unlike most, is as fresh as ever. Eight years later, there are still many unresolved challenges, some intelligence breakthroughs and perhaps some exacerbated dangers. We waged a war that actually has nothing to do with 9-11. The war that might actually matter in battling the Taliban and Al Qaeda is generating doubts. I am by no means an expert in foreign policies. This entry only serves as my humble reflection on this sobering day.
President Obama talked about the character of America in his speech to both houses yesterday. I can’t help but wonder what that is. As he eloquently put it, “One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom and our healthy skepticism of government.” However, I was more moved by his mention of the big-heartedness of the American people.
On 9/11, I think it’s this big-heartedness that we should remind ourselves about America and being an American. Americans are generous, compassionate, and patriotic. Private donations for developing countries from the U.S. far exceed any other country. Americans are generous not only with financial assistance for the poor, but also with their time. I can still remember my high school English teacher taking extra time off of her weekend to meet with me to work on my very poorly-written Chinglish essay. Americans are compassionate. That’s why we have heated (and mostly civil) debates. But on this day, Americans are utmost patriotic. It is a country born from a revolution, led by relentless and courageous patriots. It is a country, as it was proven eight years ago, that is able to set aside partisanship and unite together.
It’s heartening to know that this patriotism is within each one of us. Perhaps, today is the day we can once again reinvigorate the characters of America and realize that we are too generous to let our poor go uninsured, too compassionate to allow insurance companies to reject the sick when they need it the most, and too patriotic to sit on our hands and do nothing.
It is on this monumental day we pay our condolences to those who died, respect to those who sacrificed their lives to save others, and remember once again we are big-hearted Americans.
I’d like to conclude this entry with a quote from President Kennedy -
“So let us not be blind to our differences – but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.”
|
|
