The Anabases

Life is a Journey… Get Over It!
Subscribe

Of Arachnids and Insects

March 07, 2010 By: anabasius Category: Nature

I’ve been watching insects and arachnids for nearly all my life.  In the Philippines, there is such a large variety of insects, even in one’s own backyard. I remember catching dragonflies by the tips of their slender wings, picking up beetles and Goliaths, and netting butterflies for science classes – all just to set them free a day later. This is a far cry from the bugphobic culture in the West. While I don’t go out of my way to catch bugs, I still get to appreciate them in whatever shape or form they are crawling or flying in (as long as they are outside the house, where they belong).


Send this picture as an ecard

Lately, I have been pondering the evolution of insects and arachnids. While I am a demi-scientist (that is, one in nature, if not by designation since I have yet to earn a master’s), I specialize in physics and inanimate objects, not living creatures. So I am neither a biologist or entomologist. However, I am curious all the same, and will pose these questions for posterity.

Here’s what has been bugging me lately (no pun intended): Was it a fluke that, on the scales of Nature, the bug-sized predators are predominantly arachnids, and everything else is an insect? It’s often been taken for granted that both insects (subphylum Hexapoda) and arachnids (subphylum chelicerata, class Arachnada) both have the same phylum as Arthropods, according to the rigid taxonomic structure of animal classification. The similarities supposedly end there, and any other mention of comparisons are barely made in textbooks or scientific journals.


Send this picture as an ecard

Yet, the lives of spiders, ticks, and most of the smaller four-legged creatures, are so closely intertwined with that of their twice-removed and distant four-legged relatives, that it pleads for a story to explain why they are such.  The first obvious difference, of course, is the number of legs: Insects have six, arachnids have eight. But if we consider the wings as an extra pair of appendages, then insects are on par with arachnids.

I have yet to learn about the success ratio of a spider on the hunt. However, I was fortunate enough to observe a few spiders in my old apartment. Depending on their location and proximity to sources of insects, a spider could be lucky and nab a meal, one out of six or even five times. However, being able to fly would be a serious game-changer for a hungry critter.


Send this picture as an ecard

The wings are a propelling mechanism that allow an insect to cover large distances in a split second, in any direction. Arachnids, on the other hand, use the hind legs of their four pairs as a spring to propel them, but usually only in one direction. For any creature, freedom of movement and latitude may be just as important, if not more so, than range of motion, especially when it comes to fighting or fleeing.

Here is my semi-mythological arc. When some of the arthropods mutated away from the compound-eyes of insects, to the simple and multiple eye structure of arachnids, they saw how their brethren looked like… and some of them looked good enough to eat! Lo and behold, a breed of carnivores was born, that loved the flesh of bugs. Mother Nature was upset at how the new creatures, who called themselves spiders, took unfair advantage of the situation. If they kept chowing down on their winged relatives, there would hardly be any insects left.

So, to even the score, Mother Nature said, “Very well, you can have your insects and eat them, too.  BUT… you will give up your wings.  In return and just to sweeten the deal, you get an extra pair of legs.” The spiders snickered and said, “Fair enough. We hardly use those things anyway…”  POOF! Gone were the wings, and then the spiders realized, “This was harder than we thought.” And that’s how insects kept their wings, but the spiders were out of luck. Thank goodness, too. Spiders are best appreciated from a distance – and as long as they’re not flying.


Send this picture as an ecard

Copyright Anabasius 2010

Blog Traffic Exchange Related Websites
  • blog traffic exchangeCan Natural Aquarium Lighting Work? The wild coral reefs sit under the sun and do well. Everything is correct - spectrum, intensity, photoperiod and the dawn/dusk sequence. Could the aquarist...
  • fishingMore Fishing and Boating Lexicon Dissolved Oxygen - This is the amount of usable or free oxygen present in the water. Dissolved oxygen is typically measured in terms of parts...
  • Kingdom of Heaven- Orlando BloomKingdom of Heaven Balian’s journey is exciting and never dull for a second. In Jerusalem, he easily makes friends with the Marshall Tiberias (Jeremy Irons) and earns the...

The Ronin Teacher: Gold Stars & Apples

February 06, 2010 By: anabasius Category: Dispatches from the Edge: Editorials, The Ronin Teacher

The Increasing Dropout Rate in America, Why an Overhaul of Our Educational System is Long Overdue, and Where to Start

Our educational system has it all backwards, my beloved Partner claims. As we grow older, we tend to learn and retain more information, even the more complex bits like calculus or chemistry. In our younger days, a student was already remarkable if he or she could master second-year algebra before gra- duation. Today, second-year algebra is a bare minimum requirement to pass most high school programs. I am compelled to agree and further expound on this argument – and not just because my Partner is pretty and smart.


Send this picture as an ecard

Today, many schools have in place advanced classes that neither I nor my Partner could ever dream of adding, back in our time. In addition to the battery of Honors and Advanced Placement prep classes generally available, there are now hybrid classes. For instance, a “Math Analysis” class combines the essentials of precalculus and first-semester calculus.  “Integrated Science” is a modular class that takes the most interesting parts of science – astronomy, geology and so forth. Why didn’t we have these before?

have been piled on top of preexisting requirements, as if they would seriously improve the declining aptitude skills of poorly-performing students.Yet, for each salivating choice, there are also more of the dry requirements whose usefulness is questionable, at best.  1-2 more years of Math and English. I have heard of and had to repeat some tired reasons for this grueling regime. “You need all these classes to get ready for college,” is the Number One most overused mantra.  Sure, I can think of many reasons why physics and chemistry are important. But I can’t, for the life of me, come up with one good reason why Pascal’s Triangle is essential. [These crazy mathematicians are imposing their views of the world like dogma, and it's utterly disturbing.]

Educators today place more of a sense of urgency to finish even more classes (as compared to then) in the same amount of time is greater. Yet, the general statistics are alarming, to say the least. For the most powerful free nation on Earth, one would expect that more and more people should be finishing high school each year, but such is not the case. Most research now show that the rate of graduating high school seniors has decreased. As of a report dated March, 2009, California alone accounts for the most dropouts of any state (710,000). The most affected demographic group are Latinos and African-American, primarily because they are situated in poverty or other cases of hardship which, needless to say, do not enhance the learning environment. Parenting has something to do with that, but that’s a topic for another essay. This factor makes up about 70-80% of change that could be controlled by a student or parents themselves, following Pareto’s Law.


Send this picture as an ecard

Beyond that, those of us in the educational field have a fundamental obligation to create an environment that will enable an optimal learning environment. It should never have been about what to learn that should have been the argument, but how to enable it. The other 20% of change, that can’t be controlled by individuals and their families, can be tagged on our current educational system.

I shall bluntly address this now. Our current model works on a numbers game that passes 70% of the general population – which means, 30% of our students, on average, will fail to graduate high school in a timely manner. Out of that 70% that pass, only 20% or less are expected to excel in advanced studies or material, which means that, other than those who are fighting for a better grade, or just simply to pass, the 70% that fall under the bell curve have no real incentive to excel beyond their comfort zone. For instance, a chemistry student coasting along a “C” or a “D” and doesn’t expect to make much more in the finals, won’t feel as motivated to bust a move studying all night, since it won’t make a critical difference. However, a student who’s a few points shy of a “B” or an “A” – does.


Send this picture as an ecard

Kindergarten Classroom in Marina, California

Unfortunately, our current model – which, by the way, has been in place for nearly 200 years – carries over an academic version of Darwinian Natural Selection, a biased and oppressive mentality that has been responsible for two World Wars and other man-made disasters. It’s also been the basis of a flawed and outdated system that becomes more recalcitrant despite the best efforts of teachers and administrators alike.  I have come to realize that my Partner’s comment in the introduction, shockingly applies to teachers as well. For those of us in elementary and secondary education, I think we generally start out as good teachers with good intentions… and become increasingly stingy with age. In the beginning, I wanted to focus on making sure everyone was on the same page, and understood what was going on.

While my methods were crude at best, I now realize I cared a lot more when I started. As I progressed in teaching, I gradually fell into that mentality of “separating the wheat from the chaff.” Like so many thousands of teachers, I dutifully followed the Department of Education’s guidelines of differen- tiating work between students. “Differentiating” generally meant creating different standards of learning for a diverse group in any classroom. It is a lot of work, and very divisive and morale-lowering, in some cases, since it identifies excellent and slow-learning students alike, without the luxury of privacy or discretion. In general, dealing with an average class size of 30-40 students is a lot of work. This is where the Darwin-Pareto Method comes in handy, because it allows teachers to discriminate and use the law of averages to streamline work.

If you are feeling the least bit uncomfortable about that word “discriminate,” then rightly you should. Teachers, above all others, should never, ever discriminate. And yet, while we have been taught to never do so under any circumstances – we as teachers are guilty. This kind of discrimination does not focus on the color of someone’s skin, or sexual orientation, or any other physical representation. It is a kind that is subtle and glaring all at once. The subtle references are peripheral, and ties to underachieving demographics as mentioned previously. The more glaring aspects have to do with how it affects a child’s tender ego, as well as the fallacy of predestination that it imprints on our children. In elementary school, we hand out gold stars for everyone who can master basics; in high school, the most one can expect are “A’s.” As teachers, we are made to believe and preach that these should not come cheap, either, because at the collegiate level, there will be no mercy whatsoever.  However, it’s not as if the institutes of higher learning are making any effort to change. There is a disconnect somewhere, but I give the educators at the elementary and high school levels more credit for dealing with the crisis directly.


Send this picture as an ecard

Besides, the hype about college has lost most of its luster, in light of the horrendous financial recession we are encountering. The face of post- secondary education is changing fast, from one that was teacher and classroom-oriented, to a more vocation-school-type setting, where everyone learns at their own pace, and with their own deadlines. That was how I learned my basics in typing and accounting, 20 years ago, at a business college. It’s the general trend of many college classes today, going online. The payoff is straightforward and clear: Master these skills, and you learn skills that are easily translatable to the working world, whatever the current demands may be.

If the realm of higher learning is changing suit, then isn’t it time the rest of the educational institutions followed suit? While we shouldn’t expect more gold stars and other perks that are more appropriate for children, we should create a system that provides enough rewards and incentives for people to continue to want to pursue a course. It could be jobs, or the skills needed to perform a job correctly.  Grades should be treated as an afterthought; they are not, nor have they ever been, a good barometer of a person’s total aptitude. For our society to continue to improve and advance, we must grow beyond the fallacy and irrationality of grades and numbers. A person who fails is our own collective responsibility. If we want to see a future that is beneficial to all 100% of our citizens, and not just 70%, we have to adopt a more caring and sensible apprentice-type approach to learning, one that simultaneously enables everyone to succeed in the basics and allows them to achieve higher educational pursuits.

Copyright Anabasius 2010

“High School Dropout Crisis” Continues in the U.S.

Educated in America: College Graduates & High School Dropouts

The Fallacy of Private School Education

Blog Traffic Exchange Related Websites

The Sign of the [TV and Movie] Times

January 20, 2010 By: anabasius Category: Business & Economics, Dispatches from the Edge: Editorials, Science & Technology

The Changing Landscape of TV and Other Old-School Media

On Tuesday’s (Jan. 19) edition of The Nightly Business Report, Harry Lin of lottay.com had an interesting commentary called “The Evolution of TV.” His opening remark was an observation that younger generations of TV viewers were more likely to watch their favorite programs over the internet, or pre- recorded on a DVR or TiVo set.  He was half-right, since more people in my age group (Generation X, and even Baby Boomers) are also following suit.


Send this picture as an ecard

The point was that the old business model that broadcast TV companies followed religiously for nearly a century, has been effectively pushed into obsolescence by the advent of the internet and online entertainment. There has been a steady decline in live-action advertising since there is hardly anyone patient enough to sit through them.  As a result, broadcasters have seen their revenues all but evaporate completely.  In the not-so-distant future, producing even a new sitcom may become a losing proposition if there won’t be enough of a budget, since former sponsors will be watching every penny they spend on advertising. In fact, it’s happening now. Portable entertainment is going the way of cable, as it has been for a while.  The last vestiges of free TV are disappearing.

But Lin also noted that in general, the TV industry is following the same fate that befell the music industry. No amount of lawsuits or legislation will ever repair that damage or restore it to its previous grandeur.  There will be fewer and fewer TV stars emerging, just as there have been less rock stars sprout- ing.  What he didn’t say, but that we already know full well, is that print media was the first to fall victim to the revolutionizing effect of paperless reading on this wonderful thing called the Internet. As a result, newspapers, book publishers and now bookstores have been forced to look inward, in a manner of speaking.  Even copyrights don’t hold much power anymore; anyone could copy and disseminate your work, and it could spread like wildfire. If you were a struggling writer, would you prefer fame or opt for whatever cold, hard cash you can grab?


Send this picture as an ecard

I see the same thing happening to movies – albeit very slowly.  Everyone in the film industry – from the biggest producer to the actors, and the crews that work with them – all ultimately make their living from the promise of large throngs of moviegoers seeing a large-screen flick when released.  The flops are still lucky enough to get revenue out of DVD’s and Blue-ray rentals and sales.  But the inevitable “What if” scenario has reared its ugly head: “What if” fewer and fewer moviegoers go out to see movies anymore? Large, flat-screen HD TV’s are becoming more and more popular, and more af- fordable to boot. Prices start at about $700, but with the increase in demand, prices will only be driven lower. The picture quality isn’t too bad either.  So instead of going out to see the movies, you could rent about 100 movies (via aforementioned DVD or Blue-ray media, or Netflix) over the space of a year, and get more than your money’s worth. If you invite some friends over, they could help pay for the movies and the meals. Score!

People will still see movies, just as they will still watch TV or listen to music or read books. However, the dynamics and profitability will change.  There will be less frequency and urgency to go see movies. The trend actually started when VCR & Betamax gave box-office flops a new lease on life -    and also created a downward trend in movie attendance. The latest trends     as mentioned above, coupled with the ease and accessibility of online video platforms (such as YouTube) for viral marketing campaigns, as well as newer and less expensive methods and technology for filming low-budget movies, will make a gross mockery out of expensive, big-budget movie productions, thus diluting the argument for costly ticket sales and adver- tising and driving down costs even more.

The writing is on the wall, so to speak.  What does that mean for the majo- rity of us who simply like to watch? Nothing except a new thing to marvel and laugh at. No laughing matter is how the face of our culture is rapidly changing. There are fewer “stars” that stand out from the rest of the crowd. Instead, a massive, confusing cacophony of delights that can be seen, heard, and read, are now literally at our fingertips. We are getting more choices that shape how we perceive the world. No single entity, public or private will have a monopoly on viewers’ opinions and choices. And that’s a good thing.

Copyright Anabasius 2010

Nightly Business Report Commentary – The Evolution of TV

TV Viewing Dropped this Fall: Is the Web Finally Cutting into Tube Time?

Blog Traffic Exchange Related Websites