Author's Note
Is it just me or are these Author's Notes becoming longer than the essays?
This story is the fifth installment in my "Origins of a Writer" Series.
You can find previous parts on my page or by searching my name on the top left.
Also, I don't think this is the right way to address this but I made a typo in Part 4 where I stated that it was originally written on January 20, 2008. That date is wrong since it was actually written on January 20, 2009. My sincerest apologies to the historians of the future who were using these stories to write about my life (if you didn't get this joke yet, you will in a couple paragraphs).
If you don't have time to read the previous parts, it's okay! Lucky for you, the actual stories aren't related, so all you really need to know before you start reading Part 5 below is the Author's Note portion of Part 1. And just because I'm so accommodating, here it is ---
Believe it or not, but I wasn't always a great writer (if you're laughing at this statement, I can't hear you).
In my first year of college at UC San Diego, I took a class called 'Theatre And Film' (I think), in which we studied (watched) films that were based on stage plays. Instead of exams, we were graded on essays comparing each adapted film we studied to its original written play.
Obviously, I got an 'A' in this class (this is a verifiable fact, and I am boasting because it was my first A in college). But on a more serious note, this class (and the 'A' grade, just saying) was particularly important to me because it was the first time I wrote something I wanted to write.
Basically, when historians in the future research my life, they will find traces of Launchora's origins in this class.
So to continue celebrating Launchora's first weekend of story-publishing (i.e. June 20-22, 2014), I'm going to publish some of my college writings/essays in this multiple part series, which I would like to call "The Origins of A Writer". Yes, I just made that up and then changed the name of this story to reflect it.
---- End of Author's Note from Part 1
This essay (part 5 of the series) is part of the second segment of my college writing, which I wrote during a class called CAT 2 (Culture, Art, Technology 2). I wrote my first fictional story (Tabula Rasa, also available to read on Launchora) during this class, so it was a pretty big deal you guys.
This essay was written on February 9, 2009, and is reproduced here word-for-word, typo-for-typo. As always - don't judge my writing, judge 18-year-old me's writing.
Spoiler Alert: This essay title is taken from the film Wall-E. I don't believe I was supposed to write about it as part of the assignment - I just really wanted to so I might have twisted the assignment topic to fit my needs. Kids, don't try this at college. Remember, I got a B in this class, and since then I've only dabbled with a decent career in finance, taught finance at two universities, and started my own company. Beware.
ESSAY FIVE
Meal In A Cup
Man has created many wonderful things over the past millennia. But it wasn’t until the birth of the Industrial Revolution that such things started affecting human behavior. Human behavior can be branched into several subsets, and in this essay I will explicate how the Industrial Revolution brought about change and mutation to human emotions, expectations and desires - which will lead to our ultimate destiny: meal in a cup.
David Nye, in American Technological Sublime (CAT 1 reader(Muniz), p185), talks about the man-made feats such as the Golden Gate Bridge, and even the natural forms such as the Niagara Falls, and how these sites arouse and effect human emotions. He introduces the term ‘Sublime’ - a term generally used to refer to nature and its vastness, which is now often used to describe man-made feats, such as The Seven Wonders of the World. From the ancient and medieval times to the current modern times, man has been picking such objects to be regarded as separate from every other form of art or technology. Even after being man-made objects we refer to them as “Wonders”, giving them a certain exotic feeling, distinct from everything normal. The technological concepts from their respective times built them, but it was our cultures that defined them as being sublime. There is a common sense of distinction between artificial or man-made objects, and natural sites.
We consider man-made monuments such as the Taj Mahal, the Colosseum, the Golden Gate Bridge, etc. as part of the natural beauty of the area, just like the ‘real’ natural sites such as the Grand Canyon, or the Niagara Falls, or the Ayers Rock, etc. are part of their surroundings. Both the categories of such “Wonders” add to one’s sightseeing list.
What is it that leads one to believe that such man-made objects can be compared to the natural wonders of the world?
Both artificial/man-made objects and natural sites are part of a culturally constructed Nature in which they invoke an emotional feeling of the sublime. Over the past millennia, the human response to what is truly magnificent has adjusted or mutated itself based on the sight in question - from the natural beauty of something like the Grand Canyon, to the ancient ruins of man-made sites such as Machu Picchu , Teotihuacan, the Pyramids of Egypt, to the massive and sometimes even colossal machines introduced by the Industrial Revolution (textile plants, oil rigs, etc.). These machines permitted man to create even bigger monuments and buildings and machines to build those buildings. The Industrial Revolution brought the technological sublime to every city and home. The requirements for something to be considered magnificent or extraordinary or beautiful were now decided by each person’s taste and/or interests. To someone with an interest in architecture the Colosseum is commendable, whereas to someone in the technical field the Apple computer qualifies as a beautiful man-made creation.
One would no longer have to go to see the Pyramids of Egypt, or the Great Wall of China, or the Golden Gate Bridge because for most even something like the iPhone suffices as a huge breakthrough for human intelligence and capability. To us, the stunning architecture of Rome and Vatican City is as extraordinary as the breathtaking view of the Grand Canyon, further fading the thin line between man-made and natural beauty. It is not an intentional attempt to disregard what is naturally magnificent, but rather a technicality since beauty is the only word that can be used to describe both.
For an average tourist the same "must-see" list includes the Grand Canyon as well as the Golden Gate Bridge. Why? Because he does not differentiate between what constitutes to ‘nature’ and what accounts for ‘Nature’ - two separate forms with their own definitions, as mentioned in Earth by Yi-Fu Tuan (CAT 1 reader(Muniz), p100). Tuan states “Nature is that layer of the earth’s surface and the air above it that have been unaffected, or minimally affected by humans; hence the further back we go in time, the greater will be the extent of nature”(Tuan, 106).
All the beautiful monuments and buildings man has created over the years, and all the languages, cultures, religions and symbols that man has defined, have lead him to create ‘Nature’ where he is capable of comparing his creations to the ones from ‘nature’. The Earth, as we know it, has been around for millions of years, and it will still be there long after we are gone. In our arrogance to prove that our existence on this planet was not insignificant we decided to leave our mark, so that there will be a time that the Golden Gate Bridge will be as natural as the Grand Canyon.
But this arrogance also led us to create things that we are not so proud of. Jonathan Schell, in The Fate of the Earth, discusses the problem with science - “scientific progress may yet deliver us from many evils, but there are at least two evils it cannot deliver us from: its own findings and our own destructive and self-destructive bent.”(Controlling Technology, p30)
Knowledge has always been blamed as the source of most evil things because once achieved, it can never be forgotten. The consequences of such knowledge are evident in the form of the First and Second World Wars. Not only did such events shock everyone with man’s capabilities, but they lead to the fear of what man will create next. The Industrial Revolution led to the creation of a giant web where everything was connected, and through many chains and relations human emotions, expectations and desires were affected as well.
I have already discussed how human emotions were altered and adjusted to a broader range of objects. As mentioned in The Ruination of the Tomato by Mark Kramer, it was the increase in tomato consumption over the past twenty years that went hand in hand with the mass production of tomatoes and the introduction of harvesters (Controlling Technology, p303). The eating habits of the American population was adjusted to the easy availability of tomato in various canned and bottled forms. Even in Eric Schlosser’s article Why McDonald’s Fries Taste So Good, it is evident that consumers affected production. But in both articles one may notice that it wasn’t just one thing affecting the other. The problem with man is, as seen in the past and evident in these articles as well as Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, is the hunger for something - anything. In Frankenstein’s case it was the hunger for knowledge; in the case of the producers mentioned in the two articles it was the hunger for money and power. Consumers may decide what they want, but it was producers that decided how to meet the expectations of consumers. It may seem unintentional but by making the production meets their needs the producers were changing the needs and expectations of the consumers. The product was changed to suit the production(Controlling Technology, p304), and therefore the main purpose of technology only as a means to an end was lost. It was a slow and gradual process that lead to the huge changes to go by unnoticed, thereby modifying the initial desires of consumers as a whole.
In his article Schlosser mentions a term used in the flavor industry: GRAS - Generally Regarded As Safe. “The Food and Drug Administration does not require flavor companies to disclose the ingredients of their additives, so long as all the chemicals are considered by the agency to be GRAS”(Controlling Technology, p45). The mere fact that such a term has the word ‘Generally’ deciding what is ‘mostly’ going to be safe for us illustrates the extent to which we as consumers have given control to those who control the industry. Moreover, the absence of any natural flavor in even the ‘natural flavor’ mentioned in the ingredients of a product (Controlling Technology, p46) makes it evident that now man is capable of using machines to replace nature. It seems that we are preparing to adjust ourselves to the possibility of no longer needing(probably because we will finish them) the elements of nature.
At this point the future shown in the animated film ‘Wall-E’ seems to be a possibility for a not-so-distant future - where humans escape the earth in a spaceship where they are like machines being controlled by machines; a world where everyone dresses the same, but still follow the current fashion trend (“Red: its the new Blue!”). Since we have already achieved the ability to create any natural favor artificially, we will soon be taking our everyday meals in a cup, as shown in the film.
The Industrial Revolution, through a extremely gradual process, modified human needs, emotions, desires and expectations. It started as technological innovation, but lead to social mutation. Now the day is soon to come that humans will escape earth either out of necessity or maybe because they will no longer require earth and nature. And this future, like scientific progress, can and certainly will occur, if something isn’t done. But finding a solution to a millennia of genetically modified behavior is not going to be easy since all human knowledge that will lead us to such a future will go wherever humans go. “We have only to learn to live politically in the world in which we already live scientifically.” (Controlling Technology, p31)