A Skeptical Faith In Humanity

Welcome to my recently relaunched blog! DISCLAIMER: As of writing this it is two years since I have been on this blog. I cannot guarantee that any posts predating 2016 still reflect my opinions or views. Please bear that in mind if you decide to look through my archives. Many many years ago, as a teenager, I started this page as somewhere to document my journey in losing my Christian faith. As I grew older my my interests and opinions broadend, and I used this as a platform to talk about a range of things that interested me, including feminism, equality, politics and science. Now I am a real legit adult, and a teacher, and will be writing about my perspectives and experiences as a teacher. Any questions or criticisms on my posts are welcome. I shall write answers to any and all queries, arguments and statements that are sent my way.

[beguiled-again]

Britain, Brexit, and rampant racism

In the wake of the brexit vote there has been an unprecedented wave of racist aggression and harassment across the entire country. Racist protests in the streets, posters being put up outside schools and sent through letter boxes. New stories of horrific scenes keep flooding in and there doesn’t appear to be an end in sight.

Obviously the perpetrators of this racism and bigotry make up the tiniest minority of Leave voters, and it would be offensive to suggest that the majority would even sit silently if they were to witness this. However, we must acknowledge the reasons for this sudden change.

The Brexit vote has not suddenly created racists. These people have been there all along. However, their sentiments have now been legitimised. They have been legitimised by powerful men spouting rhetoric carefully designed to appeal to and fuel bigotry, whilst retaining an air of social acceptability. They have been legitimised by elements of the media, who have gleefully stoked the fires of this bubbling anger for reasons of profit. And lastly, they have been legitimised by well meaning and convicted voters. Voters who wanted to leave for reasons of economy or sovereignty. Voters who wanted reasonable reforms to immigration. Voters who just wanted to voice their frustrations with the perceived disconnect between the working class and the ruling elite. But these voters turned a blind eye to the rampant anti-immigrant, xenophobic trends within the Leave campaign, because that propaganda worked towards their goal. That is where it went wrong.

Because of the blind eye turned by so many of the population, that small minority of racist bigots now believe that 51.9% of the voting population secretly agree with them. They believe that everyone who stands silently and watches is secretly cheering them on.

This is the state of our country. We have overt racists walking the streets, feeling empowered to spread hatred and abuse to all they see without fear of retribution.

Our greatest responsibility now is to show them that this is not the case. To show that we as a nation, regardless of how we voted, are a compassionate diverse and accepting people. To show them that racism, xenophobia and fascism will never, ever be accepted in our modern society.

[beguiled-again]

The UK, the EU, and the future of the planet.

I think my main reasoning (though not my only one) behind my vote in the EU referendum is an argument which I have not seen appear in any of the party propaganda. My argument is not one of sovereignty, or trade agreements or economies, but one of the future. I’m not looking at the economy over the next 5 years, or the state of immigration in 10, I’m thinking of the state of the planet, in 20, 50, 100 years. Maybe it’s the scientist in me talking, but I believe that the issues we will face as a nation in 50 years time will not be related to the fears of polish immigrants, nor even of ISIS attacks. The issues we will face will be global ones. Global warming, climate change, food shortages, an energy crisis. The issues of the future are not the same as the issues of the past. We are approaching a new era the likes of which we have never seen. It is an era when progress, science, and above all, global cooperation will be key. The EU is a vital piece in the preparation for the rapidly changing future of this planet. The EU has already set in motion a huge number of initiatives to help protect our futures. And importantly, this is an EU in which we, as a nation, retain a huge amount of power. While it is true there are small areas in which we may lose control over small aspects of our nation, we must remember the bigger picture. By remaining in the EU we have the power to significantly influence the direction of a huge conglomeration of nations. The EU has the power to enact legislation that could save the future of our planet, and we must be a part of that. I believe we have a responsibility to be a part of that. Regardless of the intricacies of trade agreements and immigration, we must see the bigger picture. We must look beyond the pretty squabbling that has dominated the media. This is not an issue of sovereignty, it is an issue of global responsibility. The effects of this decision will echo long into the future, and so that is what we must look to. We must move towards cooperation. Only then will we be ready for the long ignored challenges that the future holds.

[beguiled-again]

A 'strong economy' does not equal a happy one

We often hear in the press about the state of our economy, although we rarely understand what that means. Many key players boast about the strength of an economy, but why do we feel so little of its effects?

I must be clear, this is not an argument about the current EU referendum being held in the UK, but it was inspired by it. Recently, a prominent spokesperson for the leave campaign (Michael Gove) urged the UK to listen to the “industrialists, manufacturers and entrepreneurs” with regards to the future of the country. Because they benefit from a strong economy, and all of us want a strong economy.

The argument is that these corporations desire a strong economy, because if there is a strong economy, they do better. Obviously we all want a strong economy, therefore we’ve all got the same interests at heart, so we can all agree with each other. Hooray, let’s all go to the pub and celebrate how our strong economy made everyone happy.

Well, not so much. Because like in most things, the world doesn’t divide neatly into two categories. We cannot define ourselves as having ‘strong economies’ or 'weak economies’. These issues are far more complex, and a strong economy which benefits large corporations is not necessarily one which benefits the population. For example an economy can be strong while having horrific wealth disparity (America), or be strong while having incredibly wealth equality (Norway). I know that personally I would much rather live in a strong economy where 1% of the population does not control the majority of the wealth.

An economy which favours industry profits may well result in greater total wealth, and could result in a huge number of people, already living comfortable lives, gaining greater wealth and quality of life (potentially myself included). However, if that results in worse conditions for those already living in suffering, or results in harsher circumstances for the impoverished or disadvantaged amount us, then that is something I want no part in.

I would hope that our country would want no part in that either.

[skepticallyhopeful]

The problem with 'progress' in education

Have you heard about progress? Progress is the new education buzzword. Progress is the new measure by which schools are judged. Progress is, in theory, the only thing that Ofsted are looking for when they step into your classroom. In short, progress is The Shit™.

Now, I have a confession.

It’s a confession that would appal some of my colleagues. It may straight out terrify my management. It will send our esteemed Department of Education into a panic of bewildered confusion.

Progress is not my only priority.

I’m sorry but it simply isn’t. Don’t get me wrong; ensuring my students make progress is incredibly important to me. It is that progress which translates to good grades, which in turn translates to greater opportunity, greater choice and greater freedom in their future life. To the pupils I teach that is invaluable. Providing that scope of opportunity was my motivation in becoming a teacher.

But ‘progress’ is not the only measure of an education. And ‘progress’ is not the only measure of my worth as a teacher, despite what the powers that be may try to convince me of.

Children spend about 7 hours each day in school. For many of my pupils this is the only time when they can interact with their peers. Hell, for some of them that is the only time the get any human interaction at all. With that in mind do my ethical responsibilities not extend beyond giving them a better grade after their 5 years in our care?

I think this may be where I come to odds with my colleagues who rebel against ideas of cooperative learning and the development of ‘soft skills’. I would not argue that every lesson I teach that relies on cooperative learning or group work is the best way to teach that certain topic. I wouldn’t argue that these methods would teach a topic more effectively than a more traditionalist didactic approach. However, I strongly believe that as a teacher I should be aiming to impart more than a mastery of the one subject I teach. To care only about that would seem to me to be selfish; an obsession with only that which would progress my own prestige as a teacher.

As a teacher I believe my remit extends beyond ensuring my pupils get good grades. I want to create an environment where pupils feel entirely safe and secure. I want an environment where pupils are free to question and critique themselves, their peers, and even their teacher. I want an environment where curiosity, empathy, and independence are as important and as celebrated as getting an A in a test. I don’t want to create a generation of high achieving yet stressed and performance obsessed teens. I want a generation that is open minded and empathetic; intelligent in their interactions as well as their IQ tests. I want my students to grow and develop; to become young adults before my eyes. To become young people I will be proud of.

As a teacher I have goals beyond ‘progress’. Some have called this naive, or idealistic. But hell, I have the opportunity to literally shape the world for some of these children. I’m going to take that role seriously. We’re teachers, and we can teach far more than just knowledge.

[skepticallyhopeful]

Guess who's back!

I know, you have no idea. Hell you forgot you even followed this blog.

But hey, it is two years to the day (by some incredible coincidence) since I last posted on this page, and I am once again open for business.

Since I was last on here I became a teacher, and having spent a year and a half in the profession I have developed a whole range of wildly uninformed opinions on the subject of education, which I cannot wait to inflict upon an audience.

Welcome back, me.

[thegendercritic]

“The bottom line is that saying there are differences in male and female brains is just not true. There is pretty compelling evidence that any differences are tiny and are the result of environment not biology,” said Prof Rippon. “You can’t pick up a brain and say ‘that’s a girls brain, or that’s a boys brain’ in the same way you can with the skeleton. They look the same.” Prof Rippon points to earlier studies that showed the brains of London black cab drivers physically changed after they had acquired The Knowledge – an encyclopaedic recall of the capital’s streets. She believes differences in male and female brains are due to similar cultural stimuli. A women’s brain may therefore become ‘wired’ for multi-tasking simply because society expects that of her and so she uses that part of her brain more often. The brain adapts in the same way as a muscle gets larger with extra use. “What often isn’t picked up on is how plastic and permeable the brain is. It is changing throughout out lifetime “The world is full of stereotypical attitudes and unconscious bias. It is full of the drip, drip, drip of the gendered environment.” Prof Rippon believes that gender differences appear early in western societies and are based on traditional stereotypes of how boys and girls should behave and which toys they should play with.

Men and Women Do Not Have Different Brains, Claims Neuroscientist (via featherframe)

THAT’S WHAT I’VE BEEN SAYING.  Glad to see even more research to back it up, though.  ;-)

[skepticallyhopeful]

So you're going to be teaching biology to ninth graders?

Yep! (I had to google what ninth graders were). I'll be teaching everything from sixth to twelfth grade (only the English version, so years 7 to 13). I'll actually be teaching science as a whole for the lower years, and biology and physics for ninth and tenth grade (GCSE). And, if I'm lucky, just be teaching biology to the eldest two years.

[skepticallyhopeful]

One thing I would change is the fact the they push kids forward. When I was in kindergarten I had trouble reading and speaking. The school didn't care, and said they wouldn't hold me back because they would loose funding. Luckily my mom made me redo kindergarten in a different school.

Yes! This is a really good point. A huge number of the problems with education is the way schools are so focused on funding and their appearance that the students themselves suffer. They want good grades, and kids that go into good schools, just so the school looks better. And kids being held back reflects badly on them, even if the students need it. This isn't really just the fault of the schools though, it's the fault of how the education system works. If headteachers don't focus on these things they don't get enough money to actually have a functioning school. So yeah, you're very right. Thanks for the comment!

[skepticallyhopeful]

If you could change or modify the American school system what would you do?

Thanks for this, it’s a really brilliant question! Although unfortunately I’m not really qualified to answer it, seeing as I don’t know much about the American school system, having never been through it. All I know about it I’ve learnt through TV shows and tumblr, so I can’t really comment on which aspects work which don’t.

Speaking very generally, I think education should have less focus on homework and standardised testing. I also think there should be less focus on memorisation and knowledge recall, and more on applying knowledge, critical thinking, and inspiring interest in acquiring knowledge. I’m afraid without knowing anything about how American education works I can’t be any more specific than that.

Oh, and it should be free. All of it should be free.

[skepticallyhopeful]

Are gm foods good for the environment? Also, do you think it's wise to genetically modify all foods?

There’s not really a straight answer to the first question. I mean GM is a technology, it’s not inherently good or bad for the environment, it depends on how it’s used. There are many ways in which its use can be good for the environment. As I’ve mentioned earlier it can dramatically reduce the need for pesticides. It can also result in growing larger quantities of food in smaller areas. This is hugely beneficial for the environment, and in parts of the world this has significantly decreased the rate of deforestation (which in my opinion is one of the biggest threats to the environment we currently face). However, like I said before there can be downsides, in particular the increased use of herbicides on the Roundup Ready crop. What it comes down to is how the technology is used, rather than the technology itself. This is why I keep repeating the importance of monitoring what companies like Monsanto get up to, and what they try to get away with in their pursuit of more money.

I don’t really understand your second question. I mean there’s no point in genetically modifying foods if there’s no reason to. And GM’ing a food isn’t like a blanket process that you could just apply to everything. Each GM food is specifically designed for a certain purpose. Some modification is so plants can be grown in different climates than their natural ones, some is to increase yield, some is to make food more nutritious, like in the case of Golden Rice. Food is modified to counter specific problems, not just for the sake of it. But hypothetically I have no issue with a far flung future where every food has been modified in some way. Generally GM is no different from the selective breeding that has been carried out for millennia. (However, if all crops were replaced with GM foods, there  would be a great deal of importance in preserving samples of all current crop species and varieties in seed banks or similar, so that they could be grown again in the future. Although this isn’t really connected to GM)

Thanks for the questions! Feel free to keep them coming.

[skepticallyhopeful]

If gm foods are really as great as you think they are, then customers should be able to choose. If they labeled the gm products people might flee away, but at least we can test ourselves to see if gm products are completely safe to us. So, not labeling is complete bullshit.

This is pretty much what I said in my response hereI completely support the consumers right to choose what they eat, if they want to know how their food was grown they have every right to know. So if they want labelling they should get labelling.

But it would be nice if they took the effort to actually learn about how the food was grown, rather than reactively responding to buzzwords.

[skepticallyhopeful]

What happens if you inhale some liquid nitrogen gas? I had a birthmark removed and like 1 minute after leaving I feel a headache kind of, but it's not really a headache. Idk maybe I'm just overreacting.

It’s like helium, but instead of making your voice high pitched, it makes you sound like Frozone.

[skepticallyhopeful]

How can you be for sure that somebody won't be allergic to the extra protein?

Excellent question! This is actually one of the few more legitimate concerns put forward by anti-GM groups.

In short, by being really careful, and by doing extensive testing, and being sure of the effects of every protein or chemical that is being affected in the plant. This is perfectly doable, and not difficult, although some companies, like with everything health and safety related, will try to cut corners. This is why government regulation and organisations like the FDA are very important in this type of thing.

As far as I’m aware there is only one big case where this has happened, and it was caught before the product was ever put on the market (thanks to the extensive testing that is rightly required. Not to mention this was back in the 1990’s where there was less understanding on the topic. These days we have databases of all known genes that provoke allergic responses). This was when genes from the brazil nut were copied into soybeans, which resulted in people who were allergic to nuts also being allergic to the GM soy. Basically this was the result of poor research. Generally if you copy genes from a nut into something else, then it shouldn’t make people allergic to the new product. In this instance it just so happened that the protein being transferred was the one that provoked the allergic reaction. They should have realised this earlier, and should absolutely be held accountable. Basically they messed up and it was all their fault because they weren’t doing their jobs properly.

I want to be clear that when I advocate for GM technology I don’t want companies to be able to throw genes around wherever they want and then stick on shelves for us to buy. Like with any new technology it is important to ensure it is being used carefully and responsibly.

[skepticallyhopeful]

How can you support GMO's when there seems to be such a lack of evidence of it's long-term effects? I feel like as the first generation consuming GMO's (I'm pretty sure?) the companies are using US as the guinea pigs to this. Forgive me, but modifying the DNA of corn to kill off insects that eat it and the fact that it requires a full body suit and oxygen tank to spray on the crops.. That's not something I want inside of me.

Thanks for the question! Of course to are welcome to your own opinions on the subject, not forgiveness necessary. But I’m afraid this is an example of the misinformation and lack of understanding that is so common.

In terms of long term effects, there are none. We know this because we know what changing the DNA does to the plant. GM isn’t like spraying a chemical on a plant, or just randomly mutating it. By eating GM foods we’re not getting a slow build up of some toxic chemical that will slowly poison us. If you insert a gene into a plants DNA, all that will happen is that the plant will start producing one specific protein that it wasn’t before. It is very easy to track what the protein does in the plant, and how it effects the plant. Or, often they insert genes that mean that certain proteins that were all ready being made, get made more frequently. Again, we know what these proteins do, both in the plant and in our bodies. The truth is genetic modification is no different in its ‘risk’ than the selective breeding and hybridisation that’s been happening for millennia.

Now modifying corn so insects don’t eat it actually has a huge benefit to the environment, as it means that farmers no longer need to spray huge amounts of toxic insecticides on the crops. Insecticides that are toxic to humans, that leach into the soil and destroy pond and river ecosystems, that kill many other non-pest animals such as birds. Instead you can make a tiny change to the genome so that insects that eat it cant enter diapause, so they die out. This tiny change has zero impact on humans. Mostly because humans don’t enter diapause. When you’re working at the genetic level it is far easier to find something you can change that will affect one species but not others. (assuming the scientists involved are remotely proficient.)

As for the spray thing, I’m not sure what you’re talking about? GM foods aren’t created by spraying crops with anything. The plants are created in laboratories, and then the seeds are sold to farmers, to be grown like any other plant. The scary images of people in full-body suits spraying crops are people using herbicides to kill weeds etc. This is something that is done to nearly all crops, it’s not GM specific (those guys in suits are spraying the same stuff on a lot of other things you’re eating, but it makes a great scary image to stick on a poster though, right?). However, there has been an increase in usage of herbicides with one specific GM crop strain: Roudup Ready crops. These were produced by Monsanto to be resistant to a certain herbicide (one that has been used for decades), meaning that you can spray that herbicide all over it to kill any annoying weeds without hurting your crop. This increases your total yield. Now I’m not a huge fan of this particular crop, not because of any effect on human health, but because with an increase in herbicide use before too long it may have an impact of natural environment near to the farms using it (not a major one, but enough for me, with my environmentalist principles, but be worried). I think that there should be better government regulation over the amount of herbicides farmers can use, and there should be better regulation over what greedy moneygrabbing companies like Monsanto can get away with. But the republicans seem set on doing anything they can to stop limitations on company freedoms (while royally screwing with any personal freedom that they don’t personally understand, but that’s another topic entirely)

Cheers for the question though! Please feel free to respond to anything I’ve said here, or fire away with other questions.

[skepticallyhopeful]

Is it true that the little numbers on the stickers tell you if the food was sprayed with chemicals, was gm, or is organic?

I'm afraid I have no idea. Partly because I have no idea what country you're from, and therefore what stickers are used in that country. I guess Google is your friend for this one? :)

[skepticallyhopeful]

I like the idea of gm foods, but I think they should label their product. They say they don't put labels on the food because it'll scare people away. To me that's kind of red flag.

Personally it wouldn’t bother me if GM foods were labelled, but I don’t think there is a big enough difference between GM and non-GM foods to make it worthwhile. It’s kind of like labelling whether a plant was grown in a field or in a greenhouse. However, in theory I would have no objection to labelling being enforced, I mean consumers have the right to make their own decisions over what they want to eat, right? Even if in my opinion choosing to avoid GM crops is as pointless as choosing to avoid stuff grown in greenhouses.

Now the companies that sell GM foods in supermarkets only care about making money, and they are correct when they say labelling will scare customers away, so their opposition makes sense. But the fact that customers are reluctant to buy GM foods does not mean there’s anything wrong with the food, it simply means much of the public is misinformed on the topic of GM. Similarly, just because companies don’t want to label their products it doesn’t mean they’re trying to hide anything, they just want to make more money. As far as they’re concerned they’ve produced really great products, with high yields, and it’s all FDA approved, and they want to make money off it. And stats show that they make more money when it’s unlabelled, it’s no more devious than that.

This is where I get a little unsure of myself. As I stated earlier labelling is fine in concept, and people have a right to know. However, my concern is that if products were labelled, then less people would buy them, so there would be less commercial interest in GM, so less money would be invested in future GM research. And basically that would suck for pretty much everyone. GM technology has saved countless lives, and it seems like it will be a vital technology for the future of the human race.

That said, if there was better education on the topic, and consumers actually knew what GM was, then labelling would not be an issue, and would not hurt sales enough to make a significant difference. Everyone wins. Maybe if companies like Monsanto spent a little money on educating the public, instead of desperately trying to influence legislation and generally being dicks to everyone, then we wouldn’t have this problem.

TLDR: I think labelling is good because if people wanna know then they should be able to, but also labelling is bad because everything comes down to money and capitalism sucks. Also, if scientific knowledge and literacy was better we wouldn’t have this problem.

[skepticallyhopeful]

Are you ok with gm foods?

Yes. I’m a huge huge proponent of GM foods! I think they are a really important part of future food security, they have already saved countless lives, and is generally just really cool science. It’s something I’ve studied a fair bit at University, so every time someone talks about Frankenfoods, or putting fish genes into corn, I die a little inside. There is a shocking amount of misinformation and poor understanding surrounding the issue. That said I feel I should say I do not like Monsanto at all.

If you want me to expand on anything then ask away :)

What’s your opinion on gm foods, anon?