Got Manduca Sexta?

Over the past 10 years or so, one of my favorite programs on NPR has been Talk of the Nation's Science Friday!  Sorry, I get excited every time I say Science Friday or "Sci Fri" as it's sometimes referred to.  You can even say TGISF when you wake up on Friday mornings if you're especially excited about the day's topics.

This week, Sci Fri had a segment on a particular flying insect called the Hummingbird Hawk Moth, or Manduca Sexta as they called it (Note:  There is some dispute over the proper name as Manduca Sexta seems to refer to the species with the common name Tomato Hornworm/Carolina Sphinx, while the species with the common name Hummingbird Moth may be known as Hyles lineata, but I've also seen it referred to as Macroglossum Stellatarum, a species of Sphingidae.  I'll ammend this post if/when I ever figure out the actual name.  For now we'll trust the Sci Fri folks and stick with Manduca Sexta.  Sounds cooler anyway).

Hummingbird Hawk Moth.  Pic swiped from http://gardenofeaden.blogspot.com/2008/11/hummingbird-hawk-moth.html

There it is.  Pretty cool, huh?  My interest in this little guy is that I had the pleasure of actually seeing one while I was sitting on the retaining wall behind my apartment having a beer with my neighbors.  At first I thought it was the smallest hummingbird I'd ever seen, because that's exactly what it looks like when you see it.  It flies exactly like a hummingbird, feeds on nectar like a hummingbird, and moves with amazing quickness and dexterity like a hummingbird.

Check out this video from Sci Fri.  The only thing I'll point out is that the video doesn't translate the actual beauty of the moth when you see it in the wild.  Hopefully if I ever see one again I'll have my camera with me instead of a beer, or better yet, camera and a beer. 

Occupy Harvard

Initially, this post started as an email to my brother Dan.  I'm usually interested in his take on socio-political happenings, and am typically surprised by his responses.  Sometimes I'll make a wager with myself on where his views will land, and I'm often wrong.  This is a good thing.  It shows signs of an intelligent thought process, aspects of critical thinking, and an ability to examine each issue without a predetermined bias (i.e. taking either the left or right side of an issue regardless of facts and details).  In effect, and it pains me to say this, he's not a neanderthal (unlike me in my previous post).

Then, I decided that this issue might be blog-worthy.  It's having to do with the recent Harvard student walkout on a 100 level Economics course because the students felt that Professor Greg Mankiw was not providing a balanced and broad perspective on economic theories.  More specifically, they felt the Mankiw was focusing mostly on the economic theories of free market capitalist Adam Smith, and provided no insight into the macroeconomic theories of John Maynard Keynes.  I'm not going to delve into whose economic theories make more sense because frankly I know little about either of them.  I don't even believe that people who study economics really know anything more than simply the history of economics.  That is, time and time again the "economy" has acted like Mother Nature and just when we thought we had it figured out and could predict events with surprising accuracy, with one fell swoop (2008 Economic Crisis, Japan Tsunami) she (it) throws everything into disarray and let's us know that we are not in control.

For the purposes of this post I'm more interested in people's opinions/views on the act of demonstrating in and of itself.

My email began like this (I copied and pasted and then as you will see I continued the discussion in blog form):

What's your take on this?
http://www.thejournal.ie/economics-students-walkout-of-harvard-to-join-occupy-movement-270343-Nov2011/

Here's the thing, the easy thing for 'Libs (Liberals) to do is applaud them and go about their way.  The easy thing for 'Pubs (Republicans) to do is call them spoiled, whiny little brats and go about their way.  The comments placed by readers at the bottom of the article show the divide.

Could it be, as usual, that the truth lies somewhere in between?  Maybe, but simply saying it lies in between would be taking the easy way out.  Whenever I see dissent, civil disobedience, or sparks of revolution like this (ok, revolution might be too strong a word for this walk-out, but not for Occupy Wallstreet as a whole), I can't help but think of all the walkouts and sit-ins and marches of the 60's and 70's.  Most of the hippie kids involved in the demonstrations were college students and the "spoiled brat" moniker could have easily been applied to them at that time, but you don't get the impression (looking back on it now) that it was.  Now, we look at the demonstrations as a collective movement that when its parts where summed up, created a lot of change (Civil Rights, Environmental Protections, etc.).

Is the act of "walking out" in and of itself a good thing?  Well, let's examine this particular walkout.  I have questions that aren't answered by the article.  I wish I could ask the students the following:  Did you ask the professor why he doesn't teach the theories of Keynes?  Did you inform the professor of your intent to walkout?  Was the walkout an attempt to get the professor (and the university) to require the teachings of Keynes in the economics class or was it to provide publicity to the Occupy Wallstreet movement, or some other motive?

The tone of my questions might suggest that I'm against the walkout when in fact it's the opposite.  I think we are in a time that requires walkouts.  We probably should have never left the time of walkouts and should continually be walking out to protest policies that promote unfair business practices or global inequalities in human standards of living or environmental atrocities.  I'm just saying that the Harvard students took the first step towards being revolutionary (and I assume it was probably one or two students that actually took charge and pushed the idea into a full-fledged walkout), now they need to refine their tactics, examine what worked and what didn't, and learn from the experience.  This same technique could be applied to anything in life, business dealings, management, parenting, etc.

We need to then ask, what if they didn't walk out?  What if they approached the teacher and told him they want to learn more about Keynesian economics and the teacher agreed and began including it in the curriculum?  Would it have been enough to achieve their specific goal, or was there a need to tie this issue into the Occupy Wallstreet movement in order to send a message to all professors/universities who may be biased in their teachings?

What did the walkout do?  It made the news (nationally), and it was another example of discontent, as well as the contagion of public demonstrations.  The endurance of the Occupy Wallstreet movement is what's allowing for (or promoting) the other acts of disobedience we're seeing.

So, is it a good thing?

To be honest, it's hard for me to root against idealistic college students.  Maybe most of them don't exactly know what it's like to live in the "real world" yet, but if they're observant enough to realize that the real world is headed in the wrong direction then why shouldn't they strive to change it for the better.  That's what the movements of the 60's and 70's were about.  Maybe idealism can push things in the right direction and at least provide a chance for change that benefits everyone, as opposed to throwing up our hands and saying, "that's not how the real world works."  The real problem with idealism is that it's often hypocritical, and often abandoned too easily.

I say, keep walking out and keep protesting.  Money can buy a big megaphone, but masses have no need for megaphones as their voices are amplified through sheer numbers.  However, individual responsibility and examination of every issue (not just blindly jumping on any bandwagon) is essential to effectively promoting changes that will benefit society as a whole.

That's my story.  I may or may not stick to it.