Friday, March 1, 2024

IVF is different

[Note: I edited this post substantially on March 8, 2024]

You may have heard of the recent Alabama Supreme Court case that identifies embryos, created through the in-vitro fertilization process (IVF) and then frozen, as children. At least, that's how the Washington Post describes the decision [paywall]. I haven't read the actual case and am prepared for it to have said something a little different. But the gist appears to be that the court recognizes IVF embryos as human and states people can be sued for wrongful death if they mishandle the embryos.

With that decision comes the usual concern about the courts' ever stronger restrictions against abortion rights. I understand that concern. But I see an important distinction here. In cases of unwanted pregnancies, the zygote/embryo is enmeshed with the body of the woman. Whether it is a human life or not, its existence is so implicated with the woman's body, that it is a part of her body. 

I believe someone can accept that view and can believe that therefore the woman has the moral prerogative to abort and ought to have the legal right to do so--all the while believing, as I do, that life begins at conception. One can hold both those views consistently.

IVF is different.

Saturday, January 20, 2024

I don't like Dr. Strangelove (the film)

(Note: I edited this post on January 23, 2024. Most of my edits were to clarify or fix typos or bad phrasings. But I also added an explanatory sentence to one of my paragraphs.)

I'm not a fan of the film Dr. Strangelove. I don't like it. I'm supposed to like it. I'm supposed to find it hilarious. But I don't like it. 

I don't find it funny, certainly not laugh-out-loud funny. To be clear, when I saw it, I chuckled at a few things. But I didn't find any of the jokes "side-splitting" and I didn't start "crying with laughter" (those quotations are from Simon Dillon's review of the film, but characteristic of how I hear most fans describe it).

I understand the jokes. I know why I'm supposed to laugh. I just don't want to. Yes, I get the irony and satire. I know, for example, why "peace is our profession" is supposed to be a ridiculous motto for a branch of the military. (However, it doesn't take much effort to understand the argument that a strong military is necessary to ensure peace. Understanding the argument doesn't mean you have to agree with it, but it can temper the supposed hilarity.)

Maybe satire is what's intended when Slim Pickens's character jumps on the bomb at the end of the film and rides it down from the plane howling like a cowboy. I don't know. Maybe the message is that bomber pilots are ridiculously crazy? Again, I know that it's supposed to be a funny but also a "man, that's a deep critique" scene. But I find it more annoying than humorous.

Dr. Strangelove the character isn't all that funny. Again, I get the satire. The U.S. (and probably the Soviet Union) used former Nazi scientists to advise them on weapons systems. And Dr. Strangelove is a former Nazi scientist who has a hard time preventing his hand from springing up in a Hitler salute. I get the humor, but frankly I don't find it "weeping-with-laughter hysterical," to again quote Simon Dillon.

People who know the film know that Peter Sellers plays three of the characters, including Dr. Strangelove. You know Peter Sellers, right? He's a very, very talented actor who we're all supposed to like. I'm just not super impressed by him. Granted, he probably really is a great actor, but to me he's just an actor. And three roles? Maybe in 1964 that was a new thing. But in 1997, when I saw the film, it was a tired old ploy. And even in 1964, it was just the same guy playing three roles.

What's the argument of the film? That nuclear war is bad? Who doesn't believe that? Who didn't believe that in 1964? Okay, maybe Curtis LeMay. Maybe a few others who aren't actually disturbed individuals. But even most of those who advocate for Nuclear Utilization Target Selection don't look forward to what the world will look like when it's put into practice. They probably see it as a grim tactic for a grim situation and a grim time.

Another potential argument for the film: Defense systems and plans might have a logic of their own and start a war even when those responsible don't want that to happen. Or related: One rogue person might make decisions that activates those systems and starts a war that world leaders don't want. As arguments go, those are good ones, I guess. They're worth thinking about. But I can think about it without pretending to laugh at the fact that one character is named "Bat Guano" and another is named "Rex Turgidson."

Look, too many people like the film for me to be confident that it's as bad as I think it is. Maybe the emperor really has clothes. (I dislike the "emperor no clothes" aphorism, but I'm using it now.) But maybe, just maybe, others feel as I do, that they're expected to like the movie but that they don't really find it funny or even a good film. 

Post script: In the above blog post, I pull a lot of quotations from Simon Dillon's review of Dr. Strangelove. I obviously don't share his enthusiasm for that movie. I used his review because it is emblematic of the type of praise I hear about that film. But I want to say that Dillon is worth reading, and I enjoy his blog very much and recommend it.


Saturday, December 2, 2023

Teach us to sit still [UPDATED]

[UPDATE Dec. 4, 2023: I've decided to buy another fitbit tracker. Even so, I'll keep this post up.]

I'm taking a pause from my fitness tracker. (I'm not disclosing the brand name of the tracker I use. Just think of Bart Simpson calling his frisbee a "novelty flying disk," and you can probably guess which tracker it is.) 

The reasons are many.

Friday, November 10, 2023

Maybe not the best tactic?

While walking home from work yesterday, I encountered a crowd of people protesting US policies in Israel and Palestine.The protestors called themselves pro-Palestine and wanted a "free Palestine." 

One of the protestors was screaming at a police officer. I didn't witness the entire interaction, so there may be something I'm missing, but I did hear the protestor say something like the following to the officer:

You should be on our side. You're just service the white cishet male power structure.

That's a paraphrase because I don't have a perfect phonographic memory--but as far as paraphrases go it's pretty exact, I believe.

That's probably not the best tactic. As a non-activist, I'm in the cheap seats, but it seems to me the campaign for a "free Palestine" faces a lot of hurdles. One of the most important hurdles is to get people to care about it and endorse it.

I suspect that using the campaign to combat the "white cishet male" power structure doesn't do much to bring about that end. For one thing, a very large majority of people are "cishet," A smaller, but in the US still significant, number of people (maybe still a majority?) are white. A large number, maybe 50% or maybe a little less, are male. I don't think baiting them for their identities is the way to win them over. 

And for what it's worth, I suspect the male cishet population of Palestine is robustly represented. "White" may be another story, depending on how you define whiteness. But while admitting I'm not expert, I venture that "whiteness" operates differently in Israel and Palestine from how it does in the US. Unlike some people, apparently, I'm not inclined to impose my western imperialist framing of whiteness onto other peoples about whom I know little.

Yes, I realize the "white male cishet" power structure is different from "white male cishet." You can be "white male cishet" and yet not support the current power structure or at the very least see the way things currently are as problematic. Someone might even argue that "white male cishet normativity" is in some way the basis of the world's problems with violence. (Add something about patriarchy, too, I guess. But I suppose that term "privileges" men somehow.)

But c'mon. The immediate problems facing Palestinians aren't the "white cishet male" power structure. That power structure, if it exists and if it's at all implicated in what's going on, is at least secondary. 

I offer no comment here on my stance on the issue of "free Palestine" or Israel's response to the Oct. 7, 2023 attacks or what the response of the US should be. I have conflicted feelings. I'm all over the place. 

I do hope for peace.

Sunday, October 22, 2023

iPhone SE looks just like you

About 2 months ago, after years of resistance, I succumbed and bought my first smartphone.

Before that, I had the standard flip phone. I liked it. It worked well for me. But two important reasons prompted me to change.

First, I wasn't sure that the flip phone was all that durable. I didn't know when it would break, and I didn't know how to quickly (within a week or so) get a replacement when it broke. So at least a smartphone is supposedly supported and in the (big) city I live in, it's easy to find an outlet to get a replacement. Add to all that the fact I can afford a smartphone and the data costs associated with them.

Also, smartphones have a couple features I might need. The chief feature is ride share apps. I\m not enthusiastic about ride sharing, but I'd like to have the option if or when I need one. There are fewer and fewer taxi options, and I'm getting old enough that I need a plan B if the bus isn't coming for a while and 1) it doesn't feel safe to walk or 2) it's too far to walk. 

Another feature (if we can call it that) is that it generally has better roaming capabilities and can be used outside the US. I travel to other countries very rarely, but it's nice to be able to have a way to call and do things. I know that theoretically a flip phone can be used out of the country if the plan is changed and something something something SIM card. But I've never once successfully managed to do that. It's easier (though still not easy) to arrange for a smartphone to do the trick abroad.

Smartphones have their disadvantages. 

An obvious one is they're more of a they're more of a theft risk. Flip phones may be having their moment as a kitschy, ironic, and anti-commercialism toy. That is, in fact, one reason I'm not confident I could get a new one. Places probably don't carry them and those that do are probably out of them because of the kitsch fans. That said, I was  never all that worried someone would steal the one I had. I was worried I might lose it. But that challenge comes with smartphones, too.

Smartphones are addictive. I see the temptation. I browse as much online (on my desktop) computer as anyone, and I have a video/strategy game that I can play for hours at a time, zoning out all outside encumbrances, if I'm not careful. Both browsing and gaming are fine when done in moderation and (in the case of browsing) with purpose. I don't do those in moderation. I don't need one more thing to be addicted to. 

Smartphones can be socially isolating. I recall one academic event I was at about six months ago (well before I got my smartphone). I was there to judge the work of junior researchers at a fair my university was putting on. I sat at a round table with maybe 5 or 6 others, one of whom I actually knew. And they were all focused on their smartphones. Now, I'm as socially anxious and avoidant as most people, and even more avoidant than some. And I was grateful not to have to make small talk. I'm not sure how much different avoiding people by staring at a smartphone is from avoiding people by reading a book I've brought with me. But it just seemed wrong to me in a way that's different and hard to explain. (And for what it's worth, I had forgotten to bring a book to that event.)

There's another disadvantage to smartphones that's hard to explain, something malign and almost evil. Smartphones are almost like the reverse televisions from Orwell's 1984 that people were required by law to keep on. As I said in a post at Hit Coffee several years ago (A Voluntary Surveillance):

In 1984, the narrator mentions screens that enable the government to observe citizens in their own homes. Citizens were not permitted to turn these screens off. For quite a while I’ve seen a correlation between these surveillance screens and internet access, cell phones, and now i-phone technology, the main difference being that we choose to use them. We can turn them off, and we do, but we depend on them nevertheless.

These devices make us “observable” to others, not necessarily or only to the state, but in a way that potentially guides our actions and maybe even the way we think.

We are more and more legible to others. The legibility is not only to the state, but also to others: employers and vendors, for example.

And it's not just about legibility. It's also control. Smartphone technology is a system. And like most (all?) technological systems, it guides us along certain pathways. And while we can often deviate from those pathways, it's difficult to do so. In a formal sense, that problem has been around as long as there have been pathways. Thoreau discovered it at Walden pond when he noted he had worn a trampled path on a walk he took regularly around his abode. Whatever the problem is, it certainly didn't start with smartphones. The internet (the subject of my Hit Coffee post), preceded by drivers licenses, selective service enrollment--you'd have to go back pretty far to find no controls of that sort. In fact, you'd probably be forced to hypothesize some unattested state of nature.

But smartphones and the "social media" technology of which they're a part seem different. Maybe the difference is only in degree and not in kind, but the difference is in such a degree that it's almost a difference in kind. Or if it's "only" a difference in degree, then it's still a pretty big degree.


 


Saturday, September 2, 2023

On vegetable prescriptions

An article in the Washington Post highlights a study that supposedly shows doctors should prescribe vegetables to address cardiovascular conditions, like high blood pressure and what not. (The link, it's probably paywalled but not worth paying for if you're not already a subscriber.) 

You can say the usual thing about media reporting on scientific studies. Namely, the conclusion stated or implied in the headline oversells what the study, on closer inspection, actually tells us. The study had no control group. The good health outcomes may have been from eating vegetables, but also may have been from alleviating food insecurity because the study's subjects were poorer people who were given vouchers for farmers' markets. And the doctors interviewed make the unsurprising claim that vegetables are probably good for you but we need more research (and more money for more research) in order to explore precisely why and how that's the case.

In that way, it's an unremarkable article. But I clicked on it and read it because the "vegetable prescription" seems to have worked for me. 

About two and a half years ago, I was diagnosed with high blood pressure. My doctor advised me to eat more vegetables. I did. My blood pressure seems to have improved, all without medication.

I'll knock on wood and maybe throw a hefty dose of salt over my shoulder. I should focus on the "seems" when I say my blood pressure improved. My home monitoring device says it's improved, but it doesn't usually seem to be all that better when I visit the doctor. I also distrust that device and my ability not to influence its score. (I'm not sure how I might influence it, but I'm just putting it out there that I might be affecting the outcome by how I measure it.) Also, I read somewhere (I forget the exact title, but it was actually a book and not a website) that even though diet can improve the blood pressure score, it doesn't fix blood pressure in the way that medication can and that therefore hypertensive people should probably still take medication.

Still, the vegetables seem to have helped. To be clear, I've also cut my sodium intake quite dramatically. And before I was diagnosed, I ate almost no vegetables. Now, I try to force feed myself 3 to 4 servings a day, along with whole grains and fruit.

I realize I'm only an N of 1, and a very privileged N at that. I've never known food insecurity and feel I don't have the standing to lecture poorer people on their dietary choices. But it all seems, so far, to work for me.

Friday, September 1, 2023

Jonathan Zimmerman has an AI policy

There's a certain kind of argument academics-qua-instructors use, where they boldly announce a policy and then act in contradiction to that policy. In this blog post, I'll relate one example.

In a recent (August 29, 2023) Washington Post column, Jonathan Zimmerman, a college professor, announces he has no AI policy for his students [pay walled, probably]. His university--i.e., his employer--requires him to make a policy, and his response: 

So here's my AI policy: I don't have one.

Instead, he offers his student a version of the "if you cheat, you're only cheating yourselves" argument. An excerpt of what he tells his students:

I want you to be intelligent. I want you to stare at a blank page or screen for hours, trying to decide how to start. I want to you to write draft after draft and develop a stronger version of your own ideas. I want you to be proud of what you accomplished, not ashamed that you cut corners.

After writing a bit more on this theme, he finishes with the assertion that AI 

will never do: make you into a fully autonomous human being, with your own ideas, feelings and goals. I want that to be your ambition.

And if that’s what you want, too, then avoid the bots.

As far as "reasons not to cheat with AI" goes, his argument is pretty good. I do suspect that something like AI has crept into the way we (the royal we) have been thinking and writing about things for a long time, and that even Mr. Zimmerman relies on it sometimes. But he's right, and good for him.

But I'd bet a small, yet undisclosed amount of money that he actually does have an AI policy. Some students will use some AI programs to write their papers, and a subset of those will be so embarrassingly and obviously AI-produced that Mr. Zimmerman will report those situation to whoever is the academic honesty czar at his college and the student will be appropriately punished.

In that, I suspect AI will be a lot like student plagiarism. Some students, when they plagiarize, might lift a phrase here or there form Wikiepedia or the class-assigned textbook and fail to attribute it. (I personally don't think that practice should entail the intense opprobrium and swift and sure punishment it commands when discovered, but most university policies and plagiarism hunters I've seen seem to disagree.) There are some edge examples, where we know the student probably plagiarized, but we can't prove it. And then there are the obvious examples, where the student uses an entire paper or encyclopedia article or whatever that is very easy to find.

I bring up that distinction because when I was a TA and adjunct, I knew a lot of people who claimed that they didn't worry about plagiarism, because plagiarized papers were so bad that grading on the merits would be punishment enough for the student. But even those instructors would "bust" the student for obvious plagiarism.

Back to Mr. Zimmerman. He'll almost definitely punish the obvious examples. I suspect his college requires it. Maybe he has tenure and can therefore write columns explaining how he is defying the work rules his employer sets. And remember: professors cannot fail, they can only be failed. But there is almost definitely a "shall be punished" (not "may be punished") policy at his college, and if he openly defies that policy, even tenure might not protect him.

So yes, he can give the "don't cheat yourselves" lecture without sanction. But a student would be foolish to take that lecture at face value and go about AI'ing on the assumption that they're only cheating themselves.