I remember 90's. Knee-high shorts, arguably bad music (except N sync), and Jurassic Park. The movie premiered at the beginning of my functional cognition and it took it by storm. Observing animatonic and computer generated species chasing hominids was great. The characters were great; seeing Sam Neil's love for the Brachiasaur, his passive aggressiveness towards the kids, and his suspicion of Jurassic Park are just a few of many of qualities that make that character interesting (atleast that was how I felt at the time). But most intriguing to me as a child, was the idea that you could recreate these preavians with preserved DNA from a mosquito-ancestor stuck within fossilized tree sap. These thoughts would be the catalyst that ignited my interest in the sciences.
However, I was likely a black sheep of the family. My siblings carried no love of the sciences (or the arts). From a genetic stand point I could not see any semblance of interests or qualities that amounted to any relationship to my family, besides the looks. I suppose the argument would be that the "nurture" was the more important of the two dichotomies in my life, at least, this was my belief until fairly recently. As I grew into my 20's, I began experiencing events that I would normally deem boring and uninteresting, as quite fun and rewarding. Fishing, camping, and sports all became interesting to me. I guess the other determinism wins this round, because I actively find myself enjoying more and more things that my brothers have enjoyed for the past decade.
No comments:
Post a Comment