Photographs

How could one make the generalization that all photography presents (to a degree) false knowledge? It is true that all pictures are taken with a purpose; however, that purpose doesn't always have to corrupt our understanding of the subject. Sure, some photographs do bring out certain emotions for a reason, but Sontag makes a mistake in fervently asserting that all pictures do so. Photographs included in scientific journals, for example, may simply show the reader what color petals the newest invasive species has on its flowers. In this instance, there is no hidden meaning whatsoever, and therefore, no reason to ponder what the photographer meant in capturing a plant.

That aside, Sontag does conclude with a rather eye-opening point: "needing to have reality confirmed and experience enhanced by photographs is an aesthetic consumerism to which everyone is now addicted." Again, that's quite the conjecture. Is that child in southeastern Asia who just got sold into slavery truly intent on uploading a smiling selfie with the caption, "haha just got #kidnapped"? However, Sontag's reasoning does apply to the majority of America, and in particular, its youth, whose future consequently doesn't look too good. In that sense, photography really has changed, and as all things that have to do with cell phones these days, it now has more sinister undertones.

Think about that model you follow on Instagram. How many times a day does she post? Probably two or three. She pays a photographer good money to take pictures of her traveling, eating, posing...essentially documenting her entire life. She's making money off of you while potentially putting herself at risk. But she's not the only one: what do you do when you dress up and go somewhere nice? You take pictures. Maybe you  put a couple up on Snapchat. Basically every trip to the beach turns into a photo op. At one point, there was actually a trending caption that you might have placed under your photo: "pics or it didn't happen." The point is, taking pictures now takes up a great deal more time than it might have forty years ago (understandably because of developments in camera accessibility and prices). The problem isn't the pictures, though; it's what others might do with them, and how much time and money we spend freeze-framing our personal lives.

Radiant or Radiation?

On April 26, 1986, reactor No. 4 exploded at the Chernobyl Plant about 80 miles north of Kiev, the capital of Ukraine. As large quantities of radioactive substance were released into the air, firefighters, on-site workers, and specialized people nicknamed "liquidators" received high doses of radiation as they rushed to clean up the site; for most, that became a final sacrifice. Today, cancer rates are still multiplying as a result of this massive radiation leak, while other long-term health effects remain shrouded in mystery. Though this tragedy occurred many miles away from America, it carries personal significance; my close relatives were among the thousands made to relocate from surrounding cities following the explosion.
(World Nuclear Association)

Chernobyl's destruction embodies Raymo's claim like no other event; a devastating accident resulted from an attempt to harness a science whose consequences greatly outweighed its benefits. With the prospect of lower costs, less emphasis on fossil fuel, and longer hours of energy production, nuclear power clearly holds more appeal than the other, less effective forms of energy that it seeks to replace, such as solar power (Nuclear Energy). However, it seems that the tradeoff between costs and advantages must increase proportionately to the energy source's usefulness. For example, while a malfunction with oil can cause major ecosystem contamination or lead to a fire, a mishap with a nuclear reactor can kill hundreds of thousands of people. Arguably, the only positive that came of the Chernobyl accident was that it "led to major changes in safety culture and in industry cooperation," though by then the unfortunate deed was already done.

In order to prevent future disasters, we must act cautiously, because "the unexamined quest for knowledge is hemmed with peril" (Raymo 216). Science may seem to hold all of the answers to our problems, but history says otherwise: with this ideology, people have made deadly mistakes.

Corporate Feminism

Corporate feminism is a movement lead by mostly "wealthy, white, highly educated women" who wish to add more women to the corporate workplace (corporate feminism). In fact, there's even a statue dedicated to the "lack of women on corporate boards" on Wall Street (Cauterucci). At first, you might ask, what's wrong with that? Surely motivating women to assume powerful positions in this country can't be a bad thing. It seems like a perfectly decent promotion of gender equality.

Here's why it's not. For one thing, business leaders are an extreme minority in comparison to the population of women. Realistically, becoming a higher-up would only benefit a couple thousand people, and it would be very difficult to achieve that position without an upper- or middle-class upbringing. That leaves millions struggling with basic issues, which form the focus of the bulk of the rest of the feminist movement. But even in the business world, there are much bigger fish to fry, such as the "cuts to legal aid that disproportionately affect women" (corporate feminism). As I mentioned earlier, supporters of corporate feminism are usually women who already find themselves in positions of power, but perhaps make less than their male coworkers. Obviously, fighting for equality for yourself and a small percentage of women when you make $200,000 a year isn't as impactful as pushing for more labor equality overall, especially when women are "over-represented in the low-paid service industries" (corporate feminism). Furthermore, as Livingston states, this form of feminism hints that "the appearance of women in a space currently dominated by men is a success in and of itself" (corporate feminism). Overall, the movement simply ignores the much larger issues at hand.