astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson on Twitter five minutes ago.* (via washingtonpoststyle)

*23 hours ago, as of now.

(via itsfullofstars)

How do we improve scientific literacy, prompt curiosity?

Then, once we accept our particle-based selves (the fact that we are made of star stuff), what does it mean for humans/Earth-beings/conscious partakers? How do we (scientifically-literate humans) proceed?

Answers? (t.b.c) —›

We become more aware of the changeability, the rearrange-ability, of our bodies, and thus,
our cultures, beliefs, knowledge, ways-of-being,

HIR becomes a sci-lit human term combining the sexes
an admittance that we are prone to change, especially in sexuality,
which has until now-then been taboo.
hir is a step towards embracing the trans- & post-human, the alien, the variety of life
We say:
hir, hirs, s/he, wo/man, misster, …


Much of what’s of importance for the human is an evolutionary need, and extremely local-mundane, and idiosyncratic to our species, thus,
the way we explain phenomena, the universe, is human-centric. it is not universal.
our words, images, sounds, ways of understanding — they are mostly only for us. they are not the only ways, they are not comprehensive. thus,
they are not always correct, nor our best option, because

We have not finished evolving.
slowly, we are ever-selecting and being selected.
we are coming of age together with the rest of the earth,
and with our machines


We are nature. Our creations are creations of nature. Machines are nature.
“If nature permits it, it is natural. If nature doesn’t permit it, you can’t do it.” - RBF
and


Cultural norms are only that.
they are mostly arbitrary and open for interpretation and subject to change.
the sci-literate human is unconcerned with appearing locally-normal, except with the understanding that a local-normal appearance can aid in blending in,
in making others in hirs current group feel safe, as an appeal to that evolved psychological trait that allows one to accept members who are like hir.

Science empowers us,
when it furthers our opportunities and understanding of our world,
when it enables us to better interact with our environment

The Body is not to be seen as only a structure containing some incorporeal “self”/soul/mind —
the mind is the body, Cartesian Dualism is to be dismantled.
There is no man in the machine — the machine is the wo/man.
More than a vehicle, a structure, the body is an interactive system
transmitting signals into its environment, and receiving them.
If the environment can be seen as a network,
the body is a single sculpture in and of that network

Steve Fuller: { It’s time for Humanity 2.0 }

••••••

“Most people” don’t see that. “Natural vs Artificial”, “Man vs Nature” — those are real points of conversation. It’s important that we begin to see through that facade, to create new mythologies that don’t pose that kind of polarity, because it’s going to be a problem if people think it’s a real thing in the world. How many articles are there now, about how computers and the internet are changing our brains, when actually we’ve been changing our brains for much longer than that — it’s only the most obvious, accelerated changes that are noticed, and the rest pass by as if they never happened, as if we were “natural” before computers, natural before the 1950s, before the 1800s? When? Where is the line? As if these artificial things are not a part of nature, as if we are not nature itself, creating.

Stories like Avatar (or Fern Gully, if you like) have their points, and those are important. But we need new stories — stories that contain a different point of view: that of artifice as a manifestation of nature. Stories that highlight the impossibility of being outside of nature. Stories that then, once having said that, focus more on balance. It isn’t about “natural” or “unnatural” — it’s about how we can strike the correct balance to take care of life on/and our planet in the best way.