"We Are What We Eat", Woolly mammoths and Neanderthals

"Woolly mammoths and Neanderthals may have shared genetic traits. Findings point to the molecular resemblance in climate adaptation traits of the two species" (Tel Aviv University, 2019).

"We are what we eat". It sounds somewhat creepy. Unfortunately, it happened to Homo sapiens, our human beings.

Specifically, our ancestors, Neanderthals, hunted Woolly mammoths for food. It would be completely normal if these species have nothing in common. However, according to the study of Professor Ran Barkai and Meidad Kislev, Neanderthals and Woolly mammoths have the same "thermogenesis and the regulation of adipose tissue and fat storage throughout the body", keratin protein activity and the genes MC1R and SLC7A11. Another hypothesis also supposes that these species might have " genetic similarities between evolutionary adaptation paths" (Tel Aviv University, 2019).

Thermogenesis is the heat production within a living organism (Busbridge & Rothwell, 1993). Adipose tissue's function is "store energy in the form of fat, although it also cushions and insulates the body". Keratin is a structural protein that makes up hair, nails, or horns (Bragulla & Homberger, 2009). MC1R gene helps to build up melanocortin 1 receptor whose role involves pigmentation which is the natural coloring of a living organism (U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2019). Lastly, SLC7A11 "encodes a member of a heteromeric, sodium-independent, anionic amino acid transport system that is highly specific for cysteine and glutamate" (HGNC, 2019).

If the Neanderthals acknowledged this fact, would they find another food source? In Ice Age, mammoths seemed to be the biggest threat to humans because of their size. Also with that reason, mammoths the ideal target for humans. Since then, humans would have a larger amount of food than hunting other species. Plus, the living condition in Ice Age is limited. With these reasons, even if they had been aware of the similarities between them and mammoths, they could hardly replace their habits and food choices.

If the Neanderthals and Woolly mammoths share the same genetic traits, will Homo sapiens has anything in common with Loxodonta africana, elephants?

Eurus Thach.

References:

American Friends of Tel Aviv University. (2019, April 8). Woolly mammoths and Neanderthals may have shared genetic traits: Findings point to molecular resemblance in climate adaptation traits of the two species. ScienceDaily. Retrieved April 28, 2019 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190408123240.htm

Bragulla, H., & Homberger, D. (2009). Structure and functions of keratin proteins in simple, stratified, keratinized and cornified epithelia. Journal of Anatomy, 214(4), pp. 516–559. Retrieved from PMC. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7580.2009.01066.x.

Busbridge, N., Rothwell, N. (1993). 6 - Thermogenic Effects of Cytokines: Methods and Mechanisms. Methods in Neurosciences,17(B), pp. 96-110. Retrieved 2013 from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043947113700119.

HGNC. (2019). SLC7A11 solute carrier family 7 member 11 [Homo sapiens (human)]. Gene. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/23657.

U.S. National Library of Medicine. (2019). MC1R gene, melanocortin 1 receptor. Genetics Home Reference. Retrieved from https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene/MC1R.

Wikipedia. (n. d). Adipose tissue. The free encyclopedia. Retrieved from ScienceDaily.

Our Beliefs, Religions, and Morality

     People do things by their beliefs. What is the origin of belief? Imagine that at early ages, we learn things from the people we meet and interact without clear interpretations. With a lack of experience, a child can innocently take what he or she learns as "gospel", especially things that satisfy his or her wants and help him or her overcome obstacles. Imagine a sick child who is given sweet treats during his or her ill time. He or she might end up believing that sweet treats can make his or her sickness better. In further walks of age, we step out of the community where people have different notions and judgments. Our “gospel” is now questioned. At that time, the notions that we have been carrying throughout ages are challenged. Till this point, we can either choose to open our mind to correct the “gospel” or fight to protect it. If one chooses the second option, arguments will take place.

     The moment the belief is built-up is the moment the morality is created. In case that a person chooses a religion to be his or her reliable core, morality is set up by the bible. The religious believe in the existence of heaven, the help they might get from the magic of God, etc. They also believe in karma, which motivates them to be a nice individual. Each religion has its own style of bibles and coherence. Despite that, all religions heading in a direction: giving people reliances.

     Throughout human history, religious wars occurred. People have fought for what they believe. They were doing the right thing as they were trying their best to protect their gods, who to them, were the most respectful ones in the world. They have acknowledged it as their human right. However, solving personal problems by causing conflicts with others might make people want to question their morality again.

Eurus Thach.

The Religious and The Box theory

Are we being controlled by the religions? As people keep trying to state the rightfulness of their religions, there is no reason to believe that they are not. However, they choose to follow our Gods and to learn bibles so generally, they choose to be controlled by their most respectful ones. Hence, they might be seen to be controlled by religions but they have their free will to choose to be so.       

In the psychological point of view, religions help people to simplify their lives, which specifically, through the Box theory. The Box theory, which I would like to call, states that we should spend a place in our mind, which is considered as a “box”, for limited amounts of questions of our lives like where we come from or what our purposes of lives are and try to answer them all. The Box theory helps us stay out of distraction when we think about too many or too few things in life. In religious people’s “boxes”, all questions are easily linked to the existence of god. By that way, they don’t have to think hard about the answers. But that doesn’t mean they are lackadaisical. In other words, they just simply answer some of their questions quicker than people who aren’t religious. They also have to give great consideration to their decisions in life. On the other hand, people who aren’t religious would likely to have more various answers to a question as they have no particular reliance, which asks them to be more open-minded than the religious.

Eurus Thach.

A Report About "Manliness & Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in the United States, 1880-1917"

   By the time “whiteness”, “manliness” and “civilization” united and became the popular, standard link in the society, the war of humanity was triggered. Bringing the echo of such dark time to modern life, Gail Bederman released her work "Manliness and Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender And Race In the United States, 1880-1917". The book investigates the connection between civilization and manliness in Victorian Era and Progressive Era, which was the “turn-of-century”, through the important, historical events and the life events of four main Americans: G. Stanley Hall, Theodore Roosevelt, Ida B. Wells, and Charlotte Perkins Gilman.  Back at that time, fighting for who we are was the battle that could hardly go out with the win. The difference of colors might remind people that many of us were born “losers”: “between 1980 and 1917 as white middle-class men actively worked to reinforce male power, their race became a factor which was crucial to their gender” (4).

    In 1910,  the public went outraged. The first reason was that Jim Jeffries, the “White Hope”, was defeated; and the man who won that historical battle was Jack Johnson, “the first African American world heavyweight boxing champion”. This victory, Bederman claimed, strengthened the masculinity of the African American, which challenged the notion of the whole “civilized”, "white" community (42). The notion of "manhood" did not consist of only "masculinity" but also of the “sexual self-restraint, a powerful will, a strong character”. Last but not least, the brighter skin a man had, the more possibilities he got the social recognition of being "manly" (18). In order to change the narrow view of "manhood", Johnson tried his best to be “too good”. He became a successful self-made man and dressed his wives in furs, jewels and “paraded them in front of the press” (18). However, his wish would never come true when “the horrified residents took steps to prevent him” (8). In Johnson’s case, the contradictions and inconsistencies were shaped purposely (24). 

    Another remarkable event in Bederman's book was the 1893 Columbian Exposition. This tribute was to appreciate the glorification of civilization by representing the “highest scientific, artistic, and technological achievements- Manufactures, Mines, Agriculture, Art, Administrations, Machinery, and Electricity” (31). Its aim was showing the world how right human civilization had been put on the track. However, it turned out not to be close to the humane perfection. In other words, the 1893 Columbian Exposition would have been more grateful to all human history if the borderline of racist and sexist had been hidden more carefully. According to Gail Bederman, “all were presented as the domain of civilized white men” (31). The women’s position, however, was not highlighted for this theme of “civilization”. Obviously, this position would be higher than any colored citizen. After “the seven huge buildings framing the Court of Honor”, there came the women’s work. Although the Lady Managers worked tirelessly to qualify women’s civilization to men’s, they finally had to end up understanding the message that “white women’s place in civilization might be marginal, but at least it was moral and safe” (36). Hence, the Columbian Exposition in 1893 is the milestone that creates  “an illusion of white male supremacy”.

    In order to support her view, Bederman presented Ida B. Wells’s work, pointed out the privileges in genders and races. By the time lynching was common, Ida B. Wells made an overturn on what society had defined as “civilization” and “manliness”. She brilliantly threatened white Northerners by stating that lynching was extremely harmful to “both American civilization and American manhood” (46). In response, the white Southerners claimed that lynching is a form of punishment for the African American and that they were in fact “patriarchs, avengers, righteous protectors” of the society (47). It was always tough at the beginning. After the hard battle, Wells's effort to put “the white man’s civilization on trial” was responded positively. This is when the discourses of manliness and civilization took place. Finally, the white men had no other choice but making the argument that the combination of savagery and civilization made an ideal man. 

    In conclusion, Gail Bederman successfully provided readers with closer views on the link between manliness and civilization from 1880 to 1917. Throughout history, the “manliness” and “civilization” identities were turned into messy concepts. From the work, we could see that Gail Bederman was trying to prove that because of the selfishness of the privileges, people even conflicted themselves.

Eurus Thach

Gail Bederman, Manliness & Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in the United States, 1880-1917, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995).

Sigmund Freud, Plato, Homer, and The Views of Civilization [Brief Summary]

Evolution of civilization has been developing throughout human history. In fact, Freud (n.d.) claims, that is the product of the development of guilt or shame: lying under our skin of civilization was a fire of instinctual satisfaction which was patiently waiting for the trigger of provocation to spread out. People have to bottle up their satisfaction for the common benefit of the community. Therefore, the more groups people are in, the more identities they have. If so, would morality likely to be a sense or a rule? Moreover, would it be right that “happiness is a matter of acting in society in particular ways”? To Homer, there is no morality. The moral sense is technically society’s standard acting (Ian, 1999). In his view, people avoid the shame of being a misfit due to society’s archetype. Homer’s theory does reflect our majority lately, people are afraid of standing out especially the young generation since the nervousness of being so different from others.

On the other hand, Plato’s theory states that social arrangements are made due to the agreement of people, which creates exchanges between people to build up common benefits. To Plato, society is built based on the harmony between people. This is familiar to Homeric theory, people have to put a limit on their instinctual satisfaction (Ian, 1999).

References:

Johnston, Ian. (June, 1999). On Freud’s Civilization and Its Discontents. Retrieved from http://johnstoniatexts.x10host.com/lectures/freudlecture.htm.

Freud, Sigmund. (1930). Civilization and Its Discontents. Retrived from https://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/FreudS-CIVILIZATION-AND-ITS-DISCONTENTS-text-final.pdf.

Phubbing

Thanks to the myriad advances of technology, we have chances to open our mind and reveal our thinking to the world. This benefit has brought the world closer to each other. We get to know people from around the world, know their cultures, their wonders, amazing stories and pieces of interesting information. All it takes are just a few touches on the screen. Sadly, that is also the reason people are turning their faces to their phones instead of each other’s faces.

If you have problem resist staring at your smartphone, congratulations, you are not alone! “Phubbing”, the behavior of focusing on digital devices like smartphones and ignoring others’ presence, is no longer an unfamiliar phenomenon around us. No matter we do it on purpose or it happens to be just an irresistible habit, we trading the attention on the surrounding to the exciting things appear on the “digital rectangles”.

Phubbing in a normal conversation with acquaintances costs us a bad reputation and poor social interaction. Phubbing in a conversation with the beloved one costs us a relationship. Obviously, no one wants to ignore the presence of the beloved ones. However, resistance is never the first decision that reaches our mind. Emma M. Seppälä (2017) shares the following:

There’s an irony in phubbing: When we’re staring at our phones, we’re often connecting with someone on social media or through texting. Sometimes, we’re flipping through our pictures the way we once turned the pages of photo albums, remembering moments with people we love. Unfortunately, however, this can severely disrupt our present-moment, in-person relationships, which also tend to be our most important ones. (para. 2)

The reason we are the phone at such level, Seppälä (2018) explains, is that we are properly “looking for inclusion”. However, the consequences can never be replaced once they happen. Conflicts and decreased satisfaction in a relationship, which phubbing leads to, are hard to avoid. People who are patient enough will gently remind us to put a limit on our addiction. Vice versa, people will just walk out of your life.

With such consequences, it might be time for us to reconsider our lifestyle. As long as we realize our inappropriate behavior, we can still change to be better. Imaging your time with the loved ones is limited, will it wiser to focusing on your digital devices or making memories with them? 

References:

Ducharme, J. (2018). ‘Phubbing’ Is Hurting Your Relationships. Here’s What It Is. Time. Retrieved from http://time.com/5216853/what-is-phubbing/.

Seppälä, E. (2017). Phubbing—The #1 Phone Habit to Drop For Better Relationships. Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/feeling-it/201711/phubbing-the-1-phone-habit-drop-better-relationships.

People Act by Their Beliefs and Religion Choices

People act by their beliefs. We tend to be influenced by a particular individual when difficulties hit our lives. Now, what is the origin of belief? Imagine that at early ages, we learn things from the people we meet and interact without clear interpretations. With a lack of experience, a child can easily take what he or she learns as "gospel", especially things that satisfy his or her wants and help him or her overcome obstacles. For example, a child might believe that sweet treats can make his or her sickness better. Then we grow up, step out of the community where people have different notions and judgments, our “gospel” is then questioned. At that time, the beliefs we carry on in every situation in life are challenged. We can either choose to open our mind to correct the “gospel” or fight to protect it. If one chooses the second option, arguments will take place.

Morality is a product of one's belief. In case that a person chooses a religion to be his or her reliable core, morality is set up by the bible. They believe in the existence of heaven, the help they might get from the magic of God, etc. According to each religion, bibles are written differently and logically leads to differences in people’s moral senses. Throughout human history, there were religious wars which allows people to fight and supercharge their religious belief. However, it is a nightmare that sometimes charlatans are leaders with lethal aims that drown the followers in racist, sexist and phobia soup. In such situations, it is barely escapable for the followers.

Eurus Thach.

Philadelphia Convention in 1787

What is the best way to deal with a problematic nation? In 1787, to solve the national conflicts, the Philadelphia Convention was founded to improve the Articles of Confederation. In the beginning, the states’ delegates would submit a plan after the meetings. Later, they, who were also called Framers, realized the problems were so serious that a new constitution's creation was necessary. The Philadelphia Convention was an important step in the United States’ history since it solved conflicts that seemed to be never-ending.

The first conflict was the representation issue in the country. While the large states favoured proportional representation, which allowed the numbers of representatives in Congress based on the population of the state, the smaller states favoured equal representation. This is because the small states were afraid of being abused by the power of the larger ones. Consequently, they came up with the idea of the equal representation which allowed each state to have the same number of representatives in Congress. The conflict was getting greater when the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan were created. The Virginia Plan favoured large, popular states by centring people, which was a way to support the proportional representation. Plus, it suggested there should be two houses that were based on the population. On the other hand, the New Jersey Plan favoured small states by giving one vote per state and claimed that there should only be one house. To solve the problem, the committee established the Great Compromise which answered some of the certain needs from two sides. The Great Compromise included two houses in Congress: the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House of Representatives had the number of members based on the population and the Senate had two senators from each state who were elected by the state legislature.

The second conflict was the difference between the Northern and the Southern states. Northern states developed the manufacture, merchants and trades. Vice versa, the Southern states favoured the agriculture, imported goods and British tariffs in retaliation. When the Northern states wanted high tariffs to protect domestic industries, the Southern states disagreed. The slavery issue was also the main problem when the Southern states believed that it was a right to have slaves and the Northern states wanted to abolish slavery. The Southern states, in order to protect their belief, even threatened to leave the union. After a hard time debate, the Framers came up with a compromise which was called the Three-fifths Compromise. The significance of this compromise was that the Southern states agreed to give the slaves the right to vote by counting ⅗ of slaves for the representation and passing a Fugitive Slave Law.

The final conflict I want to present in this essay is the powers of the legislative branch. Under the Articles of Confederation, state governments often decided whether the statements of the national government was important. In order to give more power to Congress, Madison suggested keeping powers from the Articles by rejecting states’ laws. The Framers wanted the government that had the enumerated powers which were clearly listed in a constitution. In Article I, section 8, the enumerated powers consisted of the power of imposing and collecting taxes, declaring wars, raising and supporting an army and navy, etc. Congress also had the general powers of the general welfare clause and the necessary and proper clause. However, Congress was also limited by the writ of habeas corpus, the ex-post facto and the bills of attainder. Congress’s decisions were also checked by the other branches like the two houses of Congress.     
       
In conclusion, the Philadelphia Convention solved extremely problematic conflicts like the slavery issue, the tariffs issue, the representation issue and the power of legislative branch issue mostly by creating compromises between sides which answered and satisfied some of the certain needs for all of them. Although some of the compromises like the Three-fifths one didn’t work smoothly, we can see that it was the best way to prevent a war. Through the problems, the new constitution can be viewed as a brilliant political idea that declares a whole new nation of balances and checks that makes citizens feel secure.

Eurus Thach.