Science is a hoax.
To all my biology or chemistry major friends, I respect the good that can come from your field. Illnesses have been cured and discoveries have been made that change people’s lives for the better. Take non-stick pans or Viagra, for example. Our society would be sticky and soft without science.
But I support my initial claim. Science, in some respects, is an overly analytical, emotion-centered joke.
You might ask ‘what sparked this annoyance with a field of study you know absolutely nothing about?’ Well, scientists have discovered why I say ‘aw’ when I see a baby with the hiccups or a kitten playing with a ball of string, according to a Jan. 6 MSNBC article. They’ve defined cute in terms of brain activity and mathematical equations. And where did this get us?
Not everyone agrees this was a waste of good lab equipment, though. Scientists apparently have devoted their entire careers to analyzing facial proportions to determine the level of cuteness and then measuring how that cuteness affects the pleasure centers of our brain.
I can’t imagine how embarrassing it must be to be a scientist whose goal in life is determining what’s cute and why. Where did they go wrong in their eight-plus years of higher education? Working on a cure for cancer must be so 10 minutes ago.
All their hard work paid off. Those scientists solved a mystery and we now know big eyes, cheeks and a forehead apparently are the recipe for cute. Maybe chubby cheeks on a baby do pull at my heartstrings, but this formula for cuteness is limited solely to babies. Bulging eyes like a catfish, cheeks like a squirrel preparing for a long winter and a forehead where you can’t quite tell if hair once grew there on a human or animal of any age won’t make me say ‘aw.’
It sounds rude and vain, but to continue on this petty streak, the scientists started it. They were the ones who decided it was appearance, not action that made one thing cuter than another.
I’m all for learning and experimenting just for the sake of building knowledge, but this is too much. Science should work toward something worthwhile. In 1952, Dr. Jonas Salk developed the first successful polio vaccine, which led to 20,000 fewer polio outbreaks in 1953. Dr. Salk might not have known exactly what he was dealing with at the time, but his efforts were directed toward a specific goal with the greater good in mind.
As for the scientists who have a fascination with all things fluffy and cute, what’s their contribution to mankind? Not only do they not have one, but they also likely have wasted valuable grant money in the process to their “life-changing” discovery. Children’s hospitals, disease centers and Doctors Without Borders must all be content on funds and research. The world is a perfect place, after all. So perfect, the only question left to answer was what makes something cute.
Don’t be too harsh on the cute-obsessed scientists, though. Part of the blame for the mockery that has become of science belongs to the perverted scientific community. These scientists discovered men should ogle women’s breasts because it will improve their heart health, according to a March 4, 2011 Fox News segment. I’m no doctor, but I don’t see the connection. Some men might find this “freedom” to stare at breasts pleasurable, but a man who eats six cheeseburgers a day while staring at a woman’s chest probably will still die of heart failure. End of story.
So scientists of the world: We don’t really need to know what color socks will make people happier or why grey T-shirts always seem to fit better. We need legitimate answers and discoveries to questions about cancer or life on Mars. Maybe one day someone could even top the non-stick pan.