A recent article on The Guardian‘s website by one Tracy Van Slyke has stirred up controversy among parents and culture critics as to whether or not Thomas and Friends is a suitable television program for children. Van Slyke slates the show, claiming that it’s authoritarian, sexist, anti-environmentalist, and even racist. Van Slyke says that she is thankful her son “never went through a manic train fascination like so many other children.” I’m 22. I don’t have any children. But Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends originally came out in the 1980s–unlike so many of the people writing about this show, I remember what it’s like to have “manic train fascination”. I still have the old episodes on VHS, I still have my wooden magnet trains, and once in a great long while, I even get them out and play with them. So here follows a defense of Thomas from someone who knows what it’s like to be a kid who loves Thomas and loves trains.
Tag: Environment
Science Gandalf: When Technology is Indistinguishable from Magic
As human technology develops, the way our gadgetry operates grows steadily less accessible to laypeople. Before the industrial revolution, it was relatively easy to understand how most human tools worked. Hammers hammer, hoes hoe, plows plow. As we’ve industrialized, we’ve begun to rely on more complicated scientific principles. Chemistry, electricity, non-Newtonian physics, computing, these things all grow steadily more important, yet only a very small portion of the population truly understands how any portion of these things operate, much less all of them. The rest of us live largely in the dark, and this has a curious effect–we increasingly blur the conceptual distinction between science and magic.
Continue reading “Science Gandalf: When Technology is Indistinguishable from Magic”
Considering Extinctionism
I recently found out that one of my professors is a self-described extinctionist. He believes that we have a moral duty to bring about the extinction of most, if not all, animal life. What makes this more interesting is that this particular professor is a vegetarian, and that he is an extinctionist for animal welfare reasons. I realise that the reader is probably not predisposed to agree with such a radical view, but I think for that very reason it is worth examining and thinking about. So today, I aim to take up, without prejudice, the question of whether or not the extinctionists are correct. Continue reading “Considering Extinctionism”
Fight Climate Change with Tax Cuts
A few days ago, I wrote a rather depressing post about climate change. There was, I concluded, very little that can be done to reduce emissions short of a comprehensive international treaty (which the signatories actually abide by) or the creation of a superstate to enforce strict emission regulations. Then yesterday, I had this idea. We can actually help business and fight climate change simultaneously. Here’s how.
The Soylent Revolution: Eliminating Food with Science
There’s a fellow named Rob Rhinehart who has a fascinating idea–he wants to eliminate food. Rhinehart takes our modern nutritional knowledge and puts it to work, synthesising a cocktail of nutrients he calls “Soylent” that he eats in place of his daily meals (for those readers who count themselves among the foodies, he does still eat and drink socially at say, restaurants, or for special occasions–it’s having to do the cooking himself on a day to day basis that irks Rhinehart). Assuming that this, or something like it, one day proves safe, I would like to speculate as to the potential social changes and ethical obligations brought on by this kind of scientific food minimalism.
Continue reading “The Soylent Revolution: Eliminating Food with Science”
Benjamin Studebaker 