Hurrah for anosmia!

Naturally, we have become accustomed to using 5 basic sensory devices, these of course, being touch, sight, smell, taste and hearing. I as it happens, fall into the category of people who only enjoy the full functionality of 4. I am not deaf, and I am certainly not blind, those being the two most prevalent cases of sensory disability. I suffer from what is “commonly” known as anosmia. I therefore, cannot smell.

Each sense demands use of a specialised set of nerves that deliver the various types of sensation to our brain, being the optic nerve (sight), tastebuds (taste), cochlear nerve (hearing), olfactory nerves (smell), and the various different nerves used for touch.

I, as it happens, have no olfactory nerves, yes, none. This is a rather uncommon occurrence, which I only discovered when I was about 12. The situation I discovered it in is equally telling. Dad farted, and consequently, the room cleared and I was left sitting there wondering what had happened. We realised there was something wrong, and I had an MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) scan, which found that my olfactory nerves had not developed at all. The MRI scan also picked up a bunch of extra brain tissue, which surely must account for something…

I have no apparent sensitivity to this issue, and find it increasingly interesting the questions that I am asked almost every day by those who happen find out. Here’s the 5 most common, along with the answers I usually provide:

1. So you can’t smell? Does that mean you can’t smell dog shit?

Umm. Well actually my condition provides me with the olfactory faculties that allow ONLY the smell of dog shit. No, I cannot smell dog shit.

2. Can you taste?

Yes, I think my taste is slightly inhibited though, but it’s mostly fine.

3. So I could put a dog shit in your room and you would not notice?

Apparently not dipshit.

4. So what do you get when you sniff?

Nothing. I can’t smell. My nose is permanently set on “default” as such.

5. So we could just chop your nose off and it wouldn’t make a difference?

Well you could, but that would look a bit stupid then wouldn’t it.

When I first arrived at the school I am at, and I told maybe one person, then within a week or two I had had in excess of probably 120 people ask me these very questions, over, and over, and over again. Now that was fun…

Anyway, If there’s anyone that knows of people with this condition, or suffers from it themselves, or is generally interested In the subject of sensory disability, leave a comment and let us know. Thanks guys

So yeah...how about that?

I’m rather bored, so I thought it was about time I hit you with something to read. I’m gonna steer away from the usual today, and maybe focus on something slightly different.

Just give me a few minutes while writers block subsides.

…

Right, I’m back, and thought I might tell everyone a bit about me, since many of you don’t know me from a bar of soap. (Not that if a bar of soap said hi you would mistake it for me…I hope).

Ok, so I’m still a student, and I’m busy student-ing in Sydney, Australia. I go to an all boys boarding school, which has its ups and downs, but all in all it’s a good place. It is here I am learning all the things that will grant me the ability to find my place in society when I am spat out the other side. For the time being, I want to study architecture at uni next year, if not, then probably something else (for those of you who haven’t already made that connection).

I have a number of things which I use my spare time to achieve, most notably sports. I’ve played them most of my life, and I cannot see that changing anytime soon (that is, until my knees and back and whatever else have had it). I play tennis and football (soccer), but I have in the past also been involved in a bit of cricket, rugby, golf and what have you.

Other than that my time is fairly well divided between mates, video games, and eating, as well as a few other mindless pursuits.

I’ve travelled a bit (well a lot actually). The complete list of places I have been includes New Zealand, England, Scotland, America, Canada, Austria, Japan, Japan, Japan (yes that’s right, x3), then back to England, Wales and Spain for a football trip last year. I owe a great deal of thanks to my parents for allowing me these experiences, all of which have been incredible in their own right.

The only other thing I need to say is, I am actually kind of struggling for subjects to write about, so If anyone has any suggestions, like literally anything, don’t hesitate to share them just here, and I will do my level best to churn out something half decipherable for you to read =].

I think that’s probably it for the time being…To be completely honest I don’t really know what else I should tell you…so I’ll leave it there hey? As always, thanks for reading, thanks for following, thanks for commenting. Have a great week and I shall see you soon.

Portrayal of teens in the media

You know the one. You see these kids on TV, engaging in a range of generally unacceptable acts of social rebellion and disobedience. Is this the truth? My question today, is how has the widely accepted portrayal of the teenage demographic in the media affected the commonly held view of us (I am a teenager, for those who are not aware)?

I have mentioned it in a previous post, and I think it is time to blow the dust off it and show it to you again. It is through the worst of something that we tend to judge things placed in a particular grouping. The example I used before, was the stigmatization of Islam, while the only real trouble comes from isolated strands of fundamentalist, extremist believers, we see Muslims as a whole, as the ones to blame for religious unrest.

In a similar fashion, (while not everyone believes this, and I am fully aware of that) society is often too quick to look at the young people, AS A WHOLE, rather than those isolated groups, (who only need a bit of support from those who are blaming them), as a scapegoat for many societal issues. The fact of the matter is it is simply not true.

As a teenager myself, I am with, and around people of this very age bracket most of the time, and I, as much as anyone, know that many of us, (the vast majority in fact), have an intelligent, mature engagement of society. It is all a matter or misinterpretation. My own perspective of the issue, however, is likely to have been affected by my contextual environment. I understand that possibly if my own upbringing was different, and I was not associated with the people I am, then naturally, the story may be very different.

My general theory is, that upon realizing that blaming minority ethnic or religious groups was unacceptable, the media then moved to shift their focus onto the next best thing – teenagers. While I believe this problem is currently looking to be dealt with, there is still a lot of work to be done.

If anyone feels naturally compelled to share their thoughts on the matter, please leave a comment. Thanks guys, and enjoy what remains of your day.

Citizenry and troop deployment

Over the past 40 or so years, there has been an increasing amount of citizen-based objection towards the deployment of combat troops around the world. America’s involvement in Vietnam served to highlight this problem, and was largely the initiating force behind it. My own personal theory, a view held by I’m sure many, is that the increasing awareness caused by the media forms has served to demonstrate the nature of war to those at home, creating a sense of disparity and disillusionment.

The Second Indochina War, more commonly known as the Vietnam War, was granted the name “The Television War”, because it observed the introduction of live broadcasted footage from the front. This allowed those not actively participating, to catch a glimpse of the nature, and the precise, not always likeable details of the progression of the conflict. While providing a way of closely tracking the progress of the war, this combination of war and media creates a number of immediate problems.

Firstly, the anti-war movements that occurred in not only America, but across a number of participating factions engaged in the Vietnam War, are a violent demonstration of the effect of media warfare coverage. The coverage granted the public a viewing over the war, and allowed many to take a justified standpoint opposing the way the US forces were engaging in the conflict. Public opinion was at an all time low.

This, in turn created trouble within the troops that were fighting, as it is understandable that they became increasingly disillusioned as to why they were fighting for people who opposed their actions. Many Vietnam War veterans still feel this disillusionment to the day.

Similarly, the US engagement of forces in Iraq seems to be having a similar effect on today’s America, as well as the international coverage of other global conflicts around the world.

My opinion is that whether or not we support the government’s decisions, we should offer support to those troops that are fighting for their nation.

Anyone bearing an opinion on the matter feel free to step forward and let it be known below. Thanks everyone

Latin - a dead language?

Here is another question that has raised significant and ongoing debate. Can the ancient language of Latin be considered to be a “dead” language? In essence, yes, Latin is no longer used as a method of communication anywhere in the world, and so in this respect, can be considered “dead”. However, is its use for professional and educational purposes keeping it alive?

As we are aware, many contemporary languages base many aspects of structure and vocabulary on the forms used within the language of Latin. It is in many professional worlds within which Latin is very much still a part of the specialized lexis. Professions such as medicine, horticulture, religious engagements and many others, base much of their work on the basic Latin designations. There has also been, of late, a resurgence of the number of secondary and tertiary students desiring to choose Latin as an elective subject.

My father being a very professionally engaged Anaesthetist, I am naturally immersed in aspects of his work. He is the editor of a medical journal and a senior lecturer at the University of Sydney. It is through many of the things HE does, that naturally leads me to believe that Latin can still be used in an effective way. In his personal and professional opinion, Latin is still very much alive.

Despite this, many will maintain the argument that because it is not used as a “language” so to speak (no pun intended, and it’s not used by a body of people to communicate as a primary means), and is not used as a native language by anyone, then surely Latin as a “language” has to be considered dead.

In my own opinion, and holding a rather conservative view on the matter, I believe that it depends on your level of engagement with the language. People like my dad, who use Latin on a regular basis, are going to think of it as an active part of our contemporary language, while those less engaged with it will be more inclined to believe otherwise.

In summation, as a means of understanding our modern interpretations of language, Latin can serve to enrich our sense of communication, and in doing so, is very much alive. However, as a widely used form of communication, it is no longer in use and therefore can be considered to be a “dead” language. It is all in your understanding of a “dead language”.

Any thoughts? (settle down Joe I know this is probably a strong point of yours, but try and keep it below essay-length if you can =P)

Human Evolution - no more?

Human evolution has been the subject of debate for just about the entirety of its existence. It has been discussed, argued, and criticized for centuries. But where to now? Has the human race reached the point in its development at which it no longer reacts to its environment, changing according to Darwin’s theory of natural selection, but changes its environment to suit itself? Think about it. At one stage, if something stopped humans from achieving something, then it would direct human development according to how successful we were at achieving it. Now, we simply create something that will achieve it for us. The reason we are considered the most intelligent race on earth we must remember, is our ability to create machines.

The theory of natural selection still applies to everything else, but not humans (well not anymore anyway). If we don’t like something, then we change it so that we do. Similarly, we have reached a point in medicinal progression at which we can now cure just about every disease that would otherwise affect the course of human development. This obviously has a similar effect. However, this has a less noticeable effect on developing countries, for obvious reasons.

But, is this necessarily a good thing? It is through our ability to alter our environment in order to stop it from affecting us that we are potentially growing into a weaker race. Diseases that at one stage would have run the course of natural selection (sorting the men from the boys so to speak), are now simply killed off, because we can. Obviously this is a good thing in terms of our general development, and it allows us to continually increase things such as life expectancy and the like.

However, this lack of effective natural selection (particularly in developed countries), is likely to be countered in a number of ways, including the continual immigration of developing peoples into industrial communities, and future use of genetic manipulation and intentional breeding. So there’s not a lot to be worried about. Apparently.

As always, it’s been a pleasure to empty the contents of my mind onto the floor, sort them out and provide you with the interesting bits. If you have any thoughts on the matter, or any discussions that you would like to be raised in the future, please leave a comment. Thanks

Stem cell research

The other night I watched a show called catalyst, an Australian science program that discusses a number of current scientific issues and the latest research etc. One of the segments involved the ongoing ethical debate surrounding the use of stem cells for scientific purposes. This sparked my mind into thinking, where do I stand on all of this?

To flesh the argument out, the basic dispute lies in the stage at which something can be considered to be a human life. Is for example, a group of cells, such as the ones being considered for scientific purposes, a human life? If not, at what stage in the early development of humans can we consider there to be human life?

If we transfer this onto a religious stage, the program pointed out that Islam considers human life to only be fully formed 40 days following conception, and Jewish people believe a similar thing. This is very different to views held by other religious faiths, and considering my own upbringing as a Catholic adherent, I disagree with this, naturally.

In a Christian sense, the main problem arises when those ethically opposed to the use of cells for research clash with those that believe that to help people with a number of disabilities; it is ethical TO use them. Is either side wrong? Those with a number of disabilities, of which we currently have little understanding, often rely on the use of stem cells to uncover the basis of their disease, and in doing so, hopefully uncover a form of cure for it. This dispute creates major religious tension, and pushes the faith of those involved.

In my own opinion, I have to say, while I have relatively little understanding of the concept, that I am understandably lost on the notion of when it is that “life” as such, begins. I feel however, that there are enough people to benefit from the use of stem cells that it is acceptable to undergo research, but these cells must be treated with respect, and used in a way which minimizes the need to simply throw away such potentially valuable resources.