To understand the foregoing phrase, it would be best fit if we try to describe the variables involved: the term ‘reality construction’. The words may seem contradicting because according to a realist, real cannot be constructed since it is already ‘out there’, given, concrete or it is a finite thing. Others may argue that to perceive something ‘real’ one should accept that fact that it is a product of human social interaction thus, we came out with a term ‘socially constructed reality’ as pointed out by Berger and Luckmann. This social constructed reality is the biggest influence on what we perceive as reality and how we perceive it, especially in the world as we know it today. The main vehicles which convey this meaning: symbols, including language, cultural myths -- larger social meanings of objects, actions, signs, episodes, the structure and practice of our institutions, our rules for congruent action. These vehicles of meaning together construct: our world-view -- our sense of how the world works, what is valuable, why things are the way they are.
To view reality is something that is also universally accepted knowledge, ideas, actions, events and situation. One classical example is that if all Christians believe that God really exist then He is ‘real’. But this doesn’t hold true if only one person or even group of person would claim that they’d seen Jesus.
But how are these viewed realities become universally acceptable? There must be an agent that affirm or reinforced people’s view towards reality. Is this agent serves only to depict what is real or is it an effective vehicle to construct reality?
The agent that I am talking here refers to the media who serves as an active player in the process of constructing reality. According to John Pungente, the media do not present simple reflections of external reality. Rather, they present carefully crafted constructions that reflect many decisions and result from many determining actors. In his paper Media and the Construction of Reality, Stefan Weber highlighted variations in constructivism: the ontological and empirical approaches, which to him are important basis to understand more how media constructs reality. The common thread between all forms of constructivism is that they do not focus on an ontological reality but instead on a constructed reality. The ontological constructivism presupposes the ‘constructed nature of the world as an unalterable fact’. It means that construction of reality is not something made by a man because it is ‘always there, whether one wants it or not’ or simply Reality-As-It-Is-In-Itself. To apply this in the media context, I look at it as something that media will and will always have construct reality even it is not told to do so. On the other hand, the empirical constructivism as what has been proposed for instance by Walter Benjamin, is concerned with ‘constructiveness as an empirically measurable trend on the basis of a non-dualistic epistemology’. This form of constructivism asserts that media is consciously and deliberately constructs reality to the extent of turning a fiction thing to a ‘real’ thing. However, I will not set an argument between these two forms of constructivism but I will be looking more if it is really possible that media can really present the exact reality or it just merely construct for a human to perceive what is ‘real’.
To some extent I agree with the perspective of constructivism. Its foundation is analytically useful as it focuses on the processes of media’s construction of reality. However, to doubt the possibility of experiencing reality sensually would seem futile. No concrete evidences could deny the fact that reality can indeed be experienced by human beings. But to the level of extent on how media presents reality is that which I am not keen to defend. Therefore, it would be safe to say that media serves dual purposes: to present what is only ‘out there’ – the absolute reality and to re-present ‘something’ to make it real - constructed reality. To illustrate the first function, media include or cover genuine events as newsworthy items. Genuine events are independent from mass media and their reporting, they take place whether the media notices them or not and do not change in character if they do. Such events are natural disasters, crime or incidents of every day life (Scherer et.al). These particular events are reported objectively since media is beyond its control to alter anything while these things unfold and therefore it has to present only the ‘absolute reality’ of the event. On the other hand, all media products such as news and advertisements are said to be a construction of reality. Lang and Lang expose the media’s image of reality as artificial and not at all similar to what witnesses on site observe. This is particularly true in news which is difficult to be a true reflection of reality, due to many factors involved in the production of news. Human error, human interest and the fallacies of management all conspire to blur the line between truth and friction. Potter (1998) stated that “news is not something that happens; instead, news is what gets presented. We almost never see news events as they happen. Instead, we are shown the media’s manufactured construction of the events.” Moreover, the media being an agent of socialization can affect our way of thinking and change our perception of reality. We tend to believe that drinking a certain brand of alcoholic beverages as projected in advertisement can bring us real fun and enjoyment and that acquiring a unit of cellphone makes us to believe that we are “in” a society. All of these perceived realities are reflected by this powerful and influential agent – the media.
References:
1) Berger P.L & Luckmann T. (1967). The Social Construction of Reality; a treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Penguin, Harmondsworth
(2) Pungente, S.J. From Barry Duncan et al. Media Literacy Resource Guide, Ontario Ministry of Education, Toronto, ON. Canada, 1989.
(3) Scherer, Helmut., Arnold, Anne-Katrin. and Schltz, Daniela . Media’s Creating Reality: Construction as a Social Process. (Available online at www.allacademic .com)
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Second Orality
I. THE SECOND ORALITY
In his book, Orality and Literacy: Technologizing the Word, Walter J. Ong examines the transformation in consciousness which occurs when oral cultures become chirographic or writing based. By oral culture, we mean, a culture that rely on communicating purely an oral-based and has not been exposed to written communication. It has two forms: primary orality and residual orality. Primary orality refers to language and its use in both thought and speech that exists completely outside of the knowledge of writing. Residual orality, on the other hand, refers to a language that has been exposed to writing but has not completely incorporated it into daily use. Ong had put emphasis more on primary oral culture on the aspect on how human consciousness reacts when oral cultures are shifted to chirographic-based form of language. He took side on oral culture by defending its value and importance as compared to that of written-based language. In addition to pinpointing fundamental differences in the thought of processes of the two types of culture, Ong also had mentioned an emerging form of language culture he dubbed as ‘second orality’. This second orality combines the elements of chirographic (i.e writing) and orality modes but practically uses new technologies in communicating. According to him, the arrival of electronic media has led to a change in our thinking. He has foreseen a society that is more engross in spoken words than written words. Ong had drawn his conclusion primarily on the non-linear structure of an oral culture, which is also to be found in the structure of the internet, for instance. What is also interesting to note here is that Ong made a presumption that the 21st century will become a market of ‘interactivity’ – a place where words (spoken, read, and thought) stream from the screen to the page, from virtual to actual and whose information speed is by far exceeding what McLuhan predicted more than forty years ago. Ong also added that the ‘second orality’ will be a period in which the principles of both and literary culture will coalesce.
This Second Orality also provides us a handful of implications from the human individual thinking and his social interaction to the development of his languages. With the growing opportunities provided to us by the electronic and mainstream media, people are becoming more independent in terms of acquiring new learning, in sharing information and expanding its horizon through its active involvement in different virtual activities. In other words, second orality liberates human from his ideals and actions. Meanwhile, Ong also suggested that people in oral cultures live in close, intimate connection with their environment and with each other. This ‘collectivism’ way of thinking in oral culture was later transformed to ‘individualism’ as reading or writing is commonly an individual activity. Second Orality likewise will generate a strong group sense but will be much more global oriented. This is a case where internet chatting, email, voicemail and social networking become a commonplace for everybody to communicate and to social interact and also to identify themselves as active member in this ‘global village.’ What is also interesting to note here is the way people interact with the spoken and written word now that second orality prevails in the modern world. In print culture we gather news at distance, in an oral tradition people tell about happenings in person. In second orality, people are not a passive player but “contributes to the work in performance. The listener is author, scarcely less than the performer is author (Paul Zumthor, in Fowler 1994). It goes to show that people can freely interact and to intervene in a discourse albeit written or spoken. Since it is participatory, people can verify, add or question information in any forms (documents or video) that will be included in a body of knowledge thus, making it more reliable and accurate. On the other hand, second orality will not only bring positive development in human thinking and to society but as well as the negative consequences. Since people are now immersed with using modern technologies, too much exposure & consumption in it could lead to a destructive effect. It is feared that more people (even literate people) will not engage into reading anymore since it is replaced with modern mode of learning (books versus audio-books and classroom vs. virtual setting). There is a contention also that second orality changes the uses of our language. I am referring those languages that are used in the Internet that for some are quite difficult to comprehend. And lastly, second orality is castigated because it promotes gap to individual member of society since more will be convenient to communicate via phone or email instead of a face-to-face contact which is more personal and intimate than communicating virtually.
To recapitulate and to give light to the topic, second orality seemed to be in effect today and indeed the changes that Ong had mentioned are now taking place. Second Orality emerged because we anticipate it to happen but more so because human continue to embrace to many changes of his environment brought about by cultural and technological developments.
Second Orality
(1) Dekker, Annet. Language in Art. (Available online at http://www.montevideo.nl/en/nieuws/detail.php?id=1&archief=ja&showjaar=2002&beginjaar)
(2) Fowler, Robert M., 'How the Secondary Orality of the Electronic Age Can
Awaken Us to the Primary Orality of Antiquity or What Hypertext Can Teach Us About the Bible with Reflections on the Ethical and Political Issues of the Electronic Frontier', http://www2.bw.edu/~fowler, 1994
(3) Ong, Walter, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word,
Methuen &Co. Ltd., 1982 (reprinted by Routlegde, London & New York)
In his book, Orality and Literacy: Technologizing the Word, Walter J. Ong examines the transformation in consciousness which occurs when oral cultures become chirographic or writing based. By oral culture, we mean, a culture that rely on communicating purely an oral-based and has not been exposed to written communication. It has two forms: primary orality and residual orality. Primary orality refers to language and its use in both thought and speech that exists completely outside of the knowledge of writing. Residual orality, on the other hand, refers to a language that has been exposed to writing but has not completely incorporated it into daily use. Ong had put emphasis more on primary oral culture on the aspect on how human consciousness reacts when oral cultures are shifted to chirographic-based form of language. He took side on oral culture by defending its value and importance as compared to that of written-based language. In addition to pinpointing fundamental differences in the thought of processes of the two types of culture, Ong also had mentioned an emerging form of language culture he dubbed as ‘second orality’. This second orality combines the elements of chirographic (i.e writing) and orality modes but practically uses new technologies in communicating. According to him, the arrival of electronic media has led to a change in our thinking. He has foreseen a society that is more engross in spoken words than written words. Ong had drawn his conclusion primarily on the non-linear structure of an oral culture, which is also to be found in the structure of the internet, for instance. What is also interesting to note here is that Ong made a presumption that the 21st century will become a market of ‘interactivity’ – a place where words (spoken, read, and thought) stream from the screen to the page, from virtual to actual and whose information speed is by far exceeding what McLuhan predicted more than forty years ago. Ong also added that the ‘second orality’ will be a period in which the principles of both and literary culture will coalesce.
This Second Orality also provides us a handful of implications from the human individual thinking and his social interaction to the development of his languages. With the growing opportunities provided to us by the electronic and mainstream media, people are becoming more independent in terms of acquiring new learning, in sharing information and expanding its horizon through its active involvement in different virtual activities. In other words, second orality liberates human from his ideals and actions. Meanwhile, Ong also suggested that people in oral cultures live in close, intimate connection with their environment and with each other. This ‘collectivism’ way of thinking in oral culture was later transformed to ‘individualism’ as reading or writing is commonly an individual activity. Second Orality likewise will generate a strong group sense but will be much more global oriented. This is a case where internet chatting, email, voicemail and social networking become a commonplace for everybody to communicate and to social interact and also to identify themselves as active member in this ‘global village.’ What is also interesting to note here is the way people interact with the spoken and written word now that second orality prevails in the modern world. In print culture we gather news at distance, in an oral tradition people tell about happenings in person. In second orality, people are not a passive player but “contributes to the work in performance. The listener is author, scarcely less than the performer is author (Paul Zumthor, in Fowler 1994). It goes to show that people can freely interact and to intervene in a discourse albeit written or spoken. Since it is participatory, people can verify, add or question information in any forms (documents or video) that will be included in a body of knowledge thus, making it more reliable and accurate. On the other hand, second orality will not only bring positive development in human thinking and to society but as well as the negative consequences. Since people are now immersed with using modern technologies, too much exposure & consumption in it could lead to a destructive effect. It is feared that more people (even literate people) will not engage into reading anymore since it is replaced with modern mode of learning (books versus audio-books and classroom vs. virtual setting). There is a contention also that second orality changes the uses of our language. I am referring those languages that are used in the Internet that for some are quite difficult to comprehend. And lastly, second orality is castigated because it promotes gap to individual member of society since more will be convenient to communicate via phone or email instead of a face-to-face contact which is more personal and intimate than communicating virtually.
To recapitulate and to give light to the topic, second orality seemed to be in effect today and indeed the changes that Ong had mentioned are now taking place. Second Orality emerged because we anticipate it to happen but more so because human continue to embrace to many changes of his environment brought about by cultural and technological developments.
Second Orality
(1) Dekker, Annet. Language in Art. (Available online at http://www.montevideo.nl/en/nieuws/detail.php?id=1&archief=ja&showjaar=2002&beginjaar)
(2) Fowler, Robert M., 'How the Secondary Orality of the Electronic Age Can
Awaken Us to the Primary Orality of Antiquity or What Hypertext Can Teach Us About the Bible with Reflections on the Ethical and Political Issues of the Electronic Frontier', http://www2.bw.edu/~fowler, 1994
(3) Ong, Walter, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word,
Methuen &Co. Ltd., 1982 (reprinted by Routlegde, London & New York)
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
My Cue on News Blackout
Who wouldn’t forget the Manila hostage crisis which had taken the lives of nine individuals who were gruesomely killed by a policeman in that fateful day of September 2010? This has made our country one of the most dangerous places in the world to live in, which is at par to that of war-stricken nations including Iraq and Afghanistan as viewed by some tourists all over the world. This pathetic event had caused much trouble on the part of Philippine government because it cannot directly pointed out on whose going to be punished for the failure negotiation. Our police authorities are pointing fingers to all those who directly and indirectly interfered to the failed negotiation including the media, saying that the media’s live coverage during that deadly hostage-taking incident may have jeopardized the police operation. Then there is a proposed news blackout during a hostage crisis and similar incidence. Let us try to analyze both sides. On one hand, media should have set limitations as to what extent should they cover such as delicate event especially when a life is in danger. I personally believe that media is partly should be blamed for this mess. P/Insp. Mendoza went berserk when he saw his brother on television forcefully drag by police authority for allegedly with the latter’s concealed contact to him, making his brother an accessory of the crime. While the media was putting emphasis on this, nobody had anticipated to the perpetrator’s raged reaction. He counter attacked his captives by firing his guns to the victim’s body. All of them had sustained more than two gun wounds, an indication that he was totally dismal and fury for what he saw on television. On the other side of the coin, the media who are used to covering all kinds of obnoxious events from a war to massacre to pity crimes should not be told as to what kind of material they will be published/broadcast or not worth to be published or broadcasted. This is a curtailment of press freedom. It is our credo that media people has responsibility to deliver reports to all sorts worthy of public interest including to what had happened in manila. The public has the right to know to what is happening to his surroundings and that what media is owed to its public – free yet accurate information. But the question will rise again on what if? Should the media continue to deliver news reports while unfolding a sensitive event such as hostage drama where the perpetrators have access to television? My cue here is not for the government to pass a bill just to legislate with has supposed to be an organization’s internal standards in conducting such kind of an event. It is not necessary because I perceived it as something which government tries to control to the undertakings of the media. It would simply mean that they can impose on what the media has or has not to do. We are not anymore under authoritarian government wherein anything that is reported by the media against government shenanigans is restrained. Media serves as the fourth state in a free government apart from executive, legislative and judiciary governments. Each has specific function and cannot therefore encroach to the work of another. What I specifically would like to share is for each news organization to review its existing guidelines on how to deal with this matter. I want that guidelines not media centric, meaning, to what is only perceived good for the organization but most importantly it should be people-centered and that is, lives should not be compromised in favor to a good lead or exclusive coverage. We have moral obligation to the people to disclose all vital information that affects our well-being but we also have social responsibility to exercise utmost care to sensitive issue. This should always bear in mind to all our journalists.
Friday, October 1, 2010
MY HOPE
Is there still hope for the Philippines?
Poverty, greed, inequality..the list is endless, we could all talk for hours or type for hours about it, but everyday, when we step out of our doorsteps all of those hit us in the face. But i am not a pessimist. I have high hopes for this country that one day we will try to rise from the mud and make ourselves stand to its own feet. Nobody would dare to laugh at us again by other nations invented name tags on our country such as the land of indolent people, land of helpers, land of slaves and many more name calling that are truly far from reality. the tragic death of those tourists in the manila hostage taking had brought us in the international limelight again. the shameful response of our authority caused much hatred from our neighbor country china. We cannot help but just to accept their negative comments making our ears open for their obnoxious remarks. There would be revenge and clash back but i remain optimistic that sooner or later, the two would make appease and eventually heal its wounds. Let bygones be bygones as the old cliche goes. But i hope this bad dream wont happen again. I just hope also that our people will not be forgetful about that fateful day of sept 27 2009 wherein hundreds of people were drowned caused by bagyong ondoy. a lesson learned is to be caring to its environment. let there be no waste in our sorroundings although this is close to impossible. Let everybody has it own good caused for the benefit of mankind.
Is there still hope for this country? A big YES.
I think what everyone needs is opportunity.
The government needs our cooperation.
A non-governmental organization wants our supports.
A poor needs an opportunity to get a job to provide something for himself and his family.
For every person, faith in God.
Poverty, greed, inequality..the list is endless, we could all talk for hours or type for hours about it, but everyday, when we step out of our doorsteps all of those hit us in the face. But i am not a pessimist. I have high hopes for this country that one day we will try to rise from the mud and make ourselves stand to its own feet. Nobody would dare to laugh at us again by other nations invented name tags on our country such as the land of indolent people, land of helpers, land of slaves and many more name calling that are truly far from reality. the tragic death of those tourists in the manila hostage taking had brought us in the international limelight again. the shameful response of our authority caused much hatred from our neighbor country china. We cannot help but just to accept their negative comments making our ears open for their obnoxious remarks. There would be revenge and clash back but i remain optimistic that sooner or later, the two would make appease and eventually heal its wounds. Let bygones be bygones as the old cliche goes. But i hope this bad dream wont happen again. I just hope also that our people will not be forgetful about that fateful day of sept 27 2009 wherein hundreds of people were drowned caused by bagyong ondoy. a lesson learned is to be caring to its environment. let there be no waste in our sorroundings although this is close to impossible. Let everybody has it own good caused for the benefit of mankind.
Is there still hope for this country? A big YES.
I think what everyone needs is opportunity.
The government needs our cooperation.
A non-governmental organization wants our supports.
A poor needs an opportunity to get a job to provide something for himself and his family.
For every person, faith in God.
Monday, August 30, 2010
**********Comment on Dr. Delaney’s “WIRING AN INTERACTIVE OCEAN”****************
In this fast-pace changing world, new and new discoveries are introduced to mankind. Many of these great inventions of our time have long been an important part of our daily existence, from the discovery of a miracle medicine of antibiotics that cure and prolong the life of sick people, down to the most sophisticated micro chips that gave rise to the invention of today’s most valuable device – the computer system. In other words, all of these are attributed to the ingenuity of no other than - the man himself. If without those scientific brains such as the likes of Einstein, Alexander Fleming, George Mendel and Charles Babbage, we are probably living in discomfort, pain and extreme poverty. The world must be completely and forever be grateful for their intelligence, dedication and compassion for making this world a better place to live in.
Meanwhile, it’s been a while since we have heard and seen a person which can truly follow the same path or level of our great scientists such as those which I have mentioned above, not just in terms of popularity but more so of the quality of invention created. It’s hardly to assume that there is almost nothing, if not, little to be discovered nowadays. That is obviously not true. It is safer to say, that some scientists are probably afraid that their inventions would not be recognized or much worse, infringe their patent rights when someone is claiming their original works. But here’s a deal. A new set of scientists from the University of Washington is stealing a limelight in the world of discovery. They might be an answer to the long years of drought of a scientist or a group of scientists who can actually make valuable contributions in science and technology. Although they could not tap or surpass the great works of our great scientists, they may be at least at par in terms of the complexity of their works, significance of their inventions, as well as the attitude of a real scientist.
The Revolutionary Method of Exploration
Dr. John Delaney presented about an innovative research project that would change the course of exploration – that is, wiring an interactive ocean. Specifically, together with his team from the University of Washington, it aims to build “a cable network of deep ocean sensors that will study, over time and space, the way the ocean’s complex process interact. By networking the ocean to gather data, he’s helping to revolutionize ocean science.”I did say it is innovative. For the past few decades, super power countries such as America, Russia and Japan are battling over whose going to lead in launching a spacecraft in the outer space. It was through this ordeal that gauged the superiority and greatness of a nation over the other countries; a battle that had led to invent not just machines used for space exploration but as well as nuclear artillery. Throughout these years, the same countries are continuously doing the efforts and tirelessly make some space discovery even it would mean costing billions of money. Admittedly, it’s all worth the effort. Not because we are amazed when Neil Armstrong was the first man to set on foot the moon nor we are fascinated every time an astronaut makes fun of himself while doing the 360 degrees turn inside the spacecraft. But the beauty of it all is that, news around the globe is quickly relayed and much more accessible at the confine of our homes. Thanks to the satellite that has been set up in the outer space. It wasn’t just that because in reality, everybody seemed to benefit the many good things that were brought to us by space discoveries. But is this all what we’ve got? Scientists are preoccupied of producing sophisticated inventions with little value of improving the lives of its people. Time, effort and money have been extravagantly consumed to search what could still be left valuable in the outer space. But little has been improved in the life of its people since then. Space exploration is not the end solution of the human planetary crisis. We cannot afford to lose hope at this point in time. Though this world is full of problems, the solutions are also just right here in this world.
How about an exploration in the ocean? There is a paradigm shift that is taking place in the area of exploration. This time, a group of scientists from University of Washington, is spearheading a new method of exploration that could probably answers what other exploration has failed to provide solutions to diverse human problems. Dr. Delaney pointed out on his lecture of the possibility to emerge to a new wave of discoveries through ocean exploration. His main emphasis of his presentation is to give us an understanding that ocean is central to all natural activities that is happening around us. For instance, Delaney pointed out that “oceans control correlate with the growth patterns, and the drought pattern and the rain patterns on the continents.” This means that plant growth could be linked to oceanic activity. For the longest period of time, people don’t know about this thing. They are used to believe that everything what they see and what they do to their environment are only the things that matter to them. They lost with the idea that something beneath the earth’s surface could probably give more of an impact to save their lives and improve the quality of their life’s existence.
Its Implication
With the new approach of exploration, we have here much something to gain than lose. The study to be conducted can offer insights to the scientists and to us –the nature’s consumers, on how to deal better with our ocean. Let me again reiterate as what has been hypothesized by Dr. Delaney, that oceans are linked to nature’s activities. That it is ‘central to the quality of life on earth’. A farmer who is aware that plant life is linked to oceanic activity will decide when the appropriate planting time is or when to harvest better based on the oceans’ current. This is beneficial to the farmers to augment their farming production. The project might also conduct a monitoring system that will determine the number of sea species that would still be made available for human consumption until the next generation. The implication for this outcome would make our people to be more conscious to their actions and attitudes towards our water environment. Another perceived outcome of this experiment is that, seismic activities would earlier be forecasted such as when and where an Earthquake will hit a certain place and what time does a volcano will erupt so that people will take precautionary measures before these things to happen. It is also close to certainty that the said project may result to the discovery of new variety of medicines that will emerge from the ocean. Hopeless patients inflicted with incurable illnesses and diseases can catch now a sigh of relief if these things would be made possible. And lastly, the effect of this grandiose project will finally put to an end to the never ending hearsays as well as the made up stories capitalized by the media and other unscientific minds, that our planet Earth will be dissolved by that year and so on, just like what was portrayed in the movies Doomsday and 2012. Though it’s too early to predict the outcome of this exploration, I am very much hopeful that findings of this experiment will lead us to find out what’s really at stake in our planet in the future.
All of which that I have mentioned so far are still remain to be seen. But more appropriate question now is to ask if the project is doable. How could the project be materialized? As Delaney himself noted, his team will be using robotic equipments, applying the so-called nanotechnology to get for instance a sample of fluid of microbes deep below the sea floor (which have never been to the surface of the earth) using autonomous vehicles. Specimens taken from the sea floor will then be transferred to the laboratory for examination. The good thing about this is that all operations can be done live “bringing an entirely new telepresence to the world, throughout the ocean.”
Just like anybody else, who knows very little about the works of scientists, I am not in authority to doubt and oppose their capability to hold such a huge project. My concern goes primarily to the expenses that will be incurred from its operation and maintenance. We are talking here not just a million bucks of money but billion of dollars just for the single project alone. We cannot afford to put the money into waste again because in reality there are numerous problems in the world that need to be prioritized. The bottom line here is to question whether the benefits derived from this project could tap or answer to the growing problems of humanity. If not, let us drop down the case and back to square one again. But looking at the intent and desire of this pool of scientists to conduct a new approach of exploration, and not to mention, what has been emphasized on the data during Dr. Delaney’s lecture, I am convinced that with proper preparation, extensive analysis of the project and the continuous support of its government then there is no way for it to fail and be realized. This is indeed a feasible project. Everybody can’t wait to see and experience what our oceans can provide more other than just home of variety of sea species as well as the route for sea vessels. It’s too early to tell but more so I would like to predict, it’s going to be more exciting to live in a place that is full of endless possibilities.
References:
Meanwhile, it’s been a while since we have heard and seen a person which can truly follow the same path or level of our great scientists such as those which I have mentioned above, not just in terms of popularity but more so of the quality of invention created. It’s hardly to assume that there is almost nothing, if not, little to be discovered nowadays. That is obviously not true. It is safer to say, that some scientists are probably afraid that their inventions would not be recognized or much worse, infringe their patent rights when someone is claiming their original works. But here’s a deal. A new set of scientists from the University of Washington is stealing a limelight in the world of discovery. They might be an answer to the long years of drought of a scientist or a group of scientists who can actually make valuable contributions in science and technology. Although they could not tap or surpass the great works of our great scientists, they may be at least at par in terms of the complexity of their works, significance of their inventions, as well as the attitude of a real scientist.
The Revolutionary Method of Exploration
Dr. John Delaney presented about an innovative research project that would change the course of exploration – that is, wiring an interactive ocean. Specifically, together with his team from the University of Washington, it aims to build “a cable network of deep ocean sensors that will study, over time and space, the way the ocean’s complex process interact. By networking the ocean to gather data, he’s helping to revolutionize ocean science.”I did say it is innovative. For the past few decades, super power countries such as America, Russia and Japan are battling over whose going to lead in launching a spacecraft in the outer space. It was through this ordeal that gauged the superiority and greatness of a nation over the other countries; a battle that had led to invent not just machines used for space exploration but as well as nuclear artillery. Throughout these years, the same countries are continuously doing the efforts and tirelessly make some space discovery even it would mean costing billions of money. Admittedly, it’s all worth the effort. Not because we are amazed when Neil Armstrong was the first man to set on foot the moon nor we are fascinated every time an astronaut makes fun of himself while doing the 360 degrees turn inside the spacecraft. But the beauty of it all is that, news around the globe is quickly relayed and much more accessible at the confine of our homes. Thanks to the satellite that has been set up in the outer space. It wasn’t just that because in reality, everybody seemed to benefit the many good things that were brought to us by space discoveries. But is this all what we’ve got? Scientists are preoccupied of producing sophisticated inventions with little value of improving the lives of its people. Time, effort and money have been extravagantly consumed to search what could still be left valuable in the outer space. But little has been improved in the life of its people since then. Space exploration is not the end solution of the human planetary crisis. We cannot afford to lose hope at this point in time. Though this world is full of problems, the solutions are also just right here in this world.
How about an exploration in the ocean? There is a paradigm shift that is taking place in the area of exploration. This time, a group of scientists from University of Washington, is spearheading a new method of exploration that could probably answers what other exploration has failed to provide solutions to diverse human problems. Dr. Delaney pointed out on his lecture of the possibility to emerge to a new wave of discoveries through ocean exploration. His main emphasis of his presentation is to give us an understanding that ocean is central to all natural activities that is happening around us. For instance, Delaney pointed out that “oceans control correlate with the growth patterns, and the drought pattern and the rain patterns on the continents.” This means that plant growth could be linked to oceanic activity. For the longest period of time, people don’t know about this thing. They are used to believe that everything what they see and what they do to their environment are only the things that matter to them. They lost with the idea that something beneath the earth’s surface could probably give more of an impact to save their lives and improve the quality of their life’s existence.
Its Implication
With the new approach of exploration, we have here much something to gain than lose. The study to be conducted can offer insights to the scientists and to us –the nature’s consumers, on how to deal better with our ocean. Let me again reiterate as what has been hypothesized by Dr. Delaney, that oceans are linked to nature’s activities. That it is ‘central to the quality of life on earth’. A farmer who is aware that plant life is linked to oceanic activity will decide when the appropriate planting time is or when to harvest better based on the oceans’ current. This is beneficial to the farmers to augment their farming production. The project might also conduct a monitoring system that will determine the number of sea species that would still be made available for human consumption until the next generation. The implication for this outcome would make our people to be more conscious to their actions and attitudes towards our water environment. Another perceived outcome of this experiment is that, seismic activities would earlier be forecasted such as when and where an Earthquake will hit a certain place and what time does a volcano will erupt so that people will take precautionary measures before these things to happen. It is also close to certainty that the said project may result to the discovery of new variety of medicines that will emerge from the ocean. Hopeless patients inflicted with incurable illnesses and diseases can catch now a sigh of relief if these things would be made possible. And lastly, the effect of this grandiose project will finally put to an end to the never ending hearsays as well as the made up stories capitalized by the media and other unscientific minds, that our planet Earth will be dissolved by that year and so on, just like what was portrayed in the movies Doomsday and 2012. Though it’s too early to predict the outcome of this exploration, I am very much hopeful that findings of this experiment will lead us to find out what’s really at stake in our planet in the future.
All of which that I have mentioned so far are still remain to be seen. But more appropriate question now is to ask if the project is doable. How could the project be materialized? As Delaney himself noted, his team will be using robotic equipments, applying the so-called nanotechnology to get for instance a sample of fluid of microbes deep below the sea floor (which have never been to the surface of the earth) using autonomous vehicles. Specimens taken from the sea floor will then be transferred to the laboratory for examination. The good thing about this is that all operations can be done live “bringing an entirely new telepresence to the world, throughout the ocean.”
Just like anybody else, who knows very little about the works of scientists, I am not in authority to doubt and oppose their capability to hold such a huge project. My concern goes primarily to the expenses that will be incurred from its operation and maintenance. We are talking here not just a million bucks of money but billion of dollars just for the single project alone. We cannot afford to put the money into waste again because in reality there are numerous problems in the world that need to be prioritized. The bottom line here is to question whether the benefits derived from this project could tap or answer to the growing problems of humanity. If not, let us drop down the case and back to square one again. But looking at the intent and desire of this pool of scientists to conduct a new approach of exploration, and not to mention, what has been emphasized on the data during Dr. Delaney’s lecture, I am convinced that with proper preparation, extensive analysis of the project and the continuous support of its government then there is no way for it to fail and be realized. This is indeed a feasible project. Everybody can’t wait to see and experience what our oceans can provide more other than just home of variety of sea species as well as the route for sea vessels. It’s too early to tell but more so I would like to predict, it’s going to be more exciting to live in a place that is full of endless possibilities.
References:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)