I have always thought that there is more crossover than we might assume between art and science, and that interesting things happen when the two fields collaborate on a project. A couple of recent arts events have led me to revisit the idea that art and science aren’t mutually exclusive. I think that we all understand this in some way, but it’s not until you listen to a scientist and a cellist give you a genetics lesson that it becomes very apparent.

At TEDxVancouver, Jennifer Gardy and Peter Gregson discussed the origins of culture and why we are genetically disposed to creativity, through the study of other species, such as the zebra finch. One would think that a finch raised in isolation, never hearing birdsong, would not be able to produce its own song. In fact, the finch is able to sing, but it doesn’t sound as good as his parents. However, as Gardy explained, after about five generations of raising offspring in isolation, the finch’s song sounds just like the that of finches raised in the wild. The birdsong evolves all on it’s own and it seems to be an innate ability in their DNA. 

The DNA responsible for this phenomenon used to be called junk DNA, but has since been renamed regulatory DNA, and it seems that this is what gives  humans the ability to evolve complex creativity. It’s fascinating to think that this extra DNA, which performs no obvious function, is responsible for the most beautiful works of art.

[Gregson] takes genetic data and transforms it into a beautiful piece of music.

Gregson — an accomplished cellist and composer — is interested in data sonification, the process of turning data into sound or music. He has taken genetic data, translated it into musical notation, and has transformed it into a beautiful piece of music.

This may all sound a bit bizarre, but he’s not the only artist working with science. Swiss choreographer Gilles Jobin recently brought his new work Quantum to The Dance Centre. This work was inspired by Jobin’s residency at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), the largest particle physics laboratory in the world. The choreography explores forces such as gravity, time, and space, and American composer Carla Scaletti’s electronic score incorporates data from the Large Hadron Collider, the world’s largest and most powerful particle accelerator.

Jobin was part of the Collide@CERN artist residency program, where he spent several months immersed in the world of scientists at CERN and their study of the origins of the universe through the Large Hadron Collider. Inspired by particle physics, his work ultimately explores the idea that we are held together by quantum forces.

Art and science are fascinating fields of study in their own rights, but when they come together, we can push our knowledge even further and make all kinds of amazing discoveries.

Because climate change is a fairly recent issue, it has been difficult to arouse the public’s interest enough to reverse the trend. During my high school years in Hong Kong, students would occassionally be exposed to discussions on this issue. An article from Rabble suggests that “education about climate change must become front and center in our curriculum at all levels of schooling and across disciplines” — a statement with which I agree immensely.

As unpleasant as it is to admit, climate change is one of the most serious crises we face on this planet. It is no longer an issue that troubles only a few countries; the issue has now quickly come to affect almost every part of the world. If we do not act quickly, future generations will suffer.

Climate change issues cannot be solved in a short period of time, therefore, the education of future generations is an essential element in building a sustainable future.

One of the problems with current climate change education is that it’s introduced too late in the school curriculum. In elementary school, these issues are barely touched upon, and only in high school is the subject really introduced. It is best to start educating students when they are young, in order to successfully encourage them to change their attitudes and behaviours.

Educators must show understanding and be passionate when teaching.

Unfortunately, I find that some teachers do not have adequate knowledge on the issue, and are therefore unable to enlighten students fully. Furthermore, educators must be passionate about what they teach their students. A real interest in a certain situation would do wonders in influencing students’ perceptions.

Sadly, during my high school days, climate change talks could be dull. Teachers tended to bombard students with scientific research — statistics, graphs, charts, and quantitative facts — that did little to arouse student interest.

An interactive learning approach may be a useful alternative in educating students on climate change. Innovative, hands-on activities would be a decent method to use on children.

Point blank, while we may have yet to come up with some truly effective methods that will motivate people to participate in a viable climate change solution, education and awareness for our future generations is where it starts.

Carbon dioxide levels have almost doubled in the past 60 years, global sea levels have risen about 17 centimetres in the last century, and extreme weather is occurring all over the world. As everyone is responsible for the environment, we must invest our time, money, and interest in raising our future generations to be globally empathetic, innovative individuals who will build our sustainable future.

The rapid spread of the Ebola virus has undoubtedly become one of the worst epidemics in recent history, claiming the lives of thousands in West Africa. Ironically though, as victims fall prey to the outbreak thousands of kilometres from our borders, Westerners over here in ‘prosperity-land’ are left shaking in their boots. After all, it could be any day now that a weary traveller fresh from disease-ridden Sierra Leone steps foot on Canadian soil, thus sounding the alarms for terrified public health officials to race over and quarantine the hell out of that poor individual.

Extensive media coverage has left frightened Canadians in a state of paranoia. But what we Westerners must realize is that the only outbreak we’ll be falling prey to is that of anxiety bordering on hysteria.

In many respects, it’s become the media’s duty to shroud foreign epidemics in a certain melodrama. This isn’t to belittle the fact that, since March, over 4,700 people have been killed by the virus, it’s to say that our nation’s perception of this issue, through the corporate lens of the news, has been vastly misinformed.

Yes, Canadians should be worried about the possible introduction of the disease to the country — after all, it only makes sense — but what we should be even more worried about is how our news coverage is currently skewing the issue through too much speculation and too few facts.

Currently, our nation’s precautionary measures regarding a Canadian Ebola outbreak are sturdy. Apart from sending out 800 vials of experimental vaccines to the World Health Organization last Monday, the Public Health Agency of Canada has placed two large groups of epidemiologists and other experts ‘on call’ in Winnipeg and Ottawa.

Harper has needlessly ingrained a bloated issue into our Canadian psyche.

In addition, quarantine officers have been stationed at six major airports across the country, while Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently announced an intensive Ebola-preparedness plan with Nova Scotia Health.

Needless to say, the only people at risk of contracting the virus would be those health officials in direct contact with a patient. Similar to the swine flu pandemic in 2009, our nation’s extensive security measures would ensure that such a patient is under quarantine within minutes, and everyone outside the quarantine zone would be kept safe.

It’s a shame that the media has spewed out so much editorial commentary on how Ebola has the potential to wipe out our nation — a commentary further amplified by activists and politicians. It’s ironic that, while Obama cautions his American herd to “not give in to hysteria or fear,” Harper proclaims to the True North that a great threat is upon us, stating that due to globalized travel, foreign issues “could arrive at our shores very quickly.” Apart from playing Mr. Obvious, Harper has needlessly ingrained a bloated issue into our collective Canadian psyche.

Statements such as these have even influenced us to consider unnecessary measures to prevent the spread of the virus. Some officials have suggested that Canada close borders to people traveling from anywhere in Africa — an enormous continent where those living on the Eastern side have even less a chance of contracting the virus than Europeans. These irrational notions could cause us to turn away almost an entire continent of comparatively healthy people.

While it’s human nature to fear what we do not understand, our fears are simply a product of misinformed speculation. I hope I’m not the only individual who’d like a little more light shed on the realities of the issue, rather than some Hollywood drama concocted by corporate conjurors to make a dime.

Almost every undergraduate, at one point, asks the following question: is university worth it? I myself have spent more than a few hours over the last several years pondering this. But what does it mean for something to be worth it? Monetary return? Experiential value? Or is it merely another check we all feel must be crossed off before entering adulthood?

The answer to this question is all of the above. We’d all like a higher salary and to experience all of the joys of university life. Most commonly, we want to cross this task off our list, and move on. The question then is, does university actually get you any of these things?

From a monetary perspective, let’s assume you graduate at the age of 25 and you work for at least another 40 years. Having gone through post-secondary education, how much more money would you need to make in order to break even?

Simply combine the cost of your tuition, the opportunity cost you incur by attending school, and the interest on your student loan repayment. By my estimate, if you’re an undergraduate, your total cost will never be over $75,000. Now you may find this number rather staggering. You may question what job you could possibly get upon graduation that could justify such an expenditure. The answer, surprisingly, is just about any.      

University only needs to make you better off than you would have been otherwise.

Assuming you have the next 40 years of work to break even, and assuming that you will work full-time each year, you would need to make an average of 97 cents more per hour — than what you would have made without your degree — post-university for your degree to have been worth it. Some might argue that you won’t even be able to make that much more, being perpetually underqualified due to your lack of work experience.

My answer would be to wait. Take that BA designation off of your resume, get a ‘basic job,’ then apply for a proper one every week. Even if it takes you years to build up the work experience needed, it will still have been worth it. Remember, post-secondary education doesn’t need to make you a millionaire to have been worth it. It simply needs to make you better off than you would have been otherwise.

These ideas do not even consider the fact that university is amazing on its own merits, regardless of any payback. It is a time for you to be part of a community of thinkers, to become politically active, and socially mobile. To use a tired cliché, it is a place for you to discover yourself and find your academic muse. This muse, whether English or statistics, geology or acting, will inform and enrich the rest of your life. What is more, the experiences you share with your peers, professors, lovers, and friends will stay with you forever.

When you take all of these benefits into consideration, in conjunction with the fact that the monetary payoff is almost certain, surely your answer to my question is obvious: university is worth it.