Week 1 Journal

3/20: After one week of e-learning and staying inside all day, I feel like I’ve adjusted pretty well. Actually, I haven’t really changed much of my schedule at all, except now I have an extra hour of free time since I no longer need to commute to and from school. The e-learning hasn’t even been that bad. It has opened up so much free time for me, and I’ve been using my extra time to grind out so many hours of PUBG. If anything, my classes have gotten easier because I only have to write a paragraph in a discussion for my daily check-in.

Do I miss being outside or being with my friends? Not exactly, but that answer may change soon. Only time will tell, but at the moment, everything feels pretty normal.

Junior Theme Reflection

In my Junior Theme essay, I researched origins of planned obsolescence and why it is still regularly practiced in today’s economy. Consumerism is a very big part of American culture, and companies have been exploiting our desire for growth and innovation for decades. I found that planned obsolescence originated from a diversification of the economy, and is largely supported by manufacturing companies, although consumer demand also plays a role.

Repercussions of planned obsolescence may not be very noticeable, especially in a community like the North Shore. Products that are frequently updated and have short replacement cycles are often used as a status metric, which leads many consumers to spend unnecessary amounts of money on superficial material goods.

More importantly, massive amounts of e-waste are generated by devices engineered to have shortened lifespans. When phones and laptops become unfashionable, it is customary to dispose of them in recycling plants, but many recycling plants don’t properly break down used electronics. Often, junk electronics will be shipped to e-waste dumps in developing countries, where locals are left to scavenge for copper and other usable parts. Not only does the extraction process (burning off the plastic coatings) do untold amounts of harm to the workers, but the thousands computers laying around leak heavy metals into the local soil and water sources.

Between the World and Me

The National Affordable Housing Act requires all municipalities to have at least 10% of homes be affordable. As of earlier this year, the percent of affordable homes in the north shore hovers around 5% (Patch).

Last Friday, we conducted a quick experiment: draw a square, and let it represent the boundaries of say, Winnetka. Then, pretend that you are a city planner, who must make 10% of the households affordable. Where will the affordable houses be built?

Only about ⅕ of the class split up the “affordable areas” into small dots throughout the square, while a majority of the class drew a square in the corner (side note: if our local city planners ever took this law seriously, there’d be no way in hell you’d find an affordable home on Sheridan Road).

It’s reasonable to assume that most city planners wouldn't give this much thought. After all, this law is very good at being slightly inconvenient to those that it affects. It stands to reason that a city planner wouldn't normally give it much thought, and section off a small area like many of us did. Is this zoning intentional? Probably not, but there may be something more subtle at play here.

Material objects (including one’s wealth), often inhibit our ability to empathize with others. In his book Between the World and Me, Ta-nehisi Coates develops his version of the American Dream. “…The Dream thrives on generalization...”. City planners in our area are probably living in some variation of the Dream. If the Dream thrives on generalization, then smaller details (like what one might empathize about) are lost to a superficial term: Empathy. The planners know about empathy, but without empathizing with the less fortunate, they can’t build a community that welcomes lower income families.

Coats also talks about the possibility of: “the small chance of the Dreamers coming into consciousness”. If city planners were to come into consciousness, the law requiring affordable homes wouldn't be required. In the past, de jure (by law) segregation existed, and now we (as a society) are moving away from that de jure segregation. However, de facto segregation has partially replaced the law. The refusal of the Dreamers to leave the past and their claims of “it’s always been like this” are the root of de facto segregation. Stubbornness comes with a lack of empathy, thus the Dreamers can’t understand how dotting affordable homes around the community helps others.

Shifting Values? MSI Chicago’s New Name

The Museum of Science and Industry

This past Thursday, the Museum of Science and Industry accepted a $125 million dollar donation from Investor Ken Griffin.
That’s awesome!
However... there’s a catch: its name is being changed to the Kenneth C. Griffin Museum of Science and Industry.

As someone who is passionate about STEM, I think that science and scientific knowledge should be the property of the people, and shouldn’t necessarily have a name attached to it, unless direct contributions have been made (Einstein, Newton, etc.). MSI’s website states: “Museum leadership, along with the Board of Trustees, felt that this naming recognition was the most appropriate way to convey our gratitude for this gift…”

If Ken really is the philanthropist that he claims to be, he wouldn’t want to have his name on display for everyone to see. For example, I’ve been to the museum countless times, and I also served on the Teen Advisory Committee this summer. As far as I know, there is only a meeting room named after Julius Rosenwald; no other places mention the founder’s name.

Some locals don’t care, and others are quite irked. Knowing Chicago’s stubbornness, we might just ignore the addition and it’ll become another Sears Tower. I did enjoy how the MSI was once devoted to catering  pure science, and was associated with signature exhibits like the U-boat. That’s not to say that benefactors shouldn't be appreciated, but this recent name change appears to reflect some shift in the museum’s values.

What do you think about the change: Is it good? Horrible? Do you even care? Share your thoughts below.