In many ways, humans are de-evolving, or adapting to habits that serve little benefit. The fact that we are basically sedentary, as opposed to our perpetually moving cavemen ancestors, is only one example of this.

But another way we might be downgrading is through the Internet’s embodiment of a space in itself. Before the Internet came around, we were better at living in the moment, attentive to the nuances in our external surroundings.

Nowadays, however, when one enters the kingdom of the Internet, cyberspace uproots actual space. Conversations around you begin to tune out, the walls and the posters in your room start to blur and it would probably make little difference if your cushy bed were indeed a bed of tarantulas, enmeshed as you are in the world within an 8-inch by 12-inch screen.

The consequences of such a reality-upheaval are numerous. In particular, Facebook has made it so that mini feeds and “status updates” puncture the process of moving on after a break-up or truncated fling.

The site has a way of remembering people you click on the most, thereby broadcasting their information more frequently in your mini feed. The obvious downside to this is that people who were once very meaningful to you continue to bombard your newsfeed every time you log on.

Given this, I assume it was much easier for our cavemen ancestors to get over their exes. They’d maybe shed a few tears, bang some stones together and let out a series of forlorn grunts before being forced to move on and hunt more wild animals with their heads held high. Can you imagine what it would have been like if Facebook were around at that time? Our muscled friends would be laying on their chests, recklessly clicking through photos, sighing, pining and letting their dinner run away while their chiseled muscles slowly atrophied. Such prolonged self-sabotage may have even killed them off eventually.

Though our ancestors could not afford to engage in such self-destructive actions, we have both the privilege and the curse of being allowed to wallow. Not only does Facebook enable us to keep clinging on, but it can lead us to make erroneous assumptions. 

For instance, when you’re looking at an ex’s page, you are merely looking in on their life as a voyeur, stressing yourself over what may or may not even be true. (Who’s to say that a smiling picture means they’re happy without you? Maybe they just lifted the corner of their lips for one fleeting moment before going back to their room later that night to cry about how much they missed you.)

Also erroneous can be the impressions we have of a person; particularly an ex or an unrequited love. Facebook makes it easy to put the idealized person on a pedestal, constructing an inaccurate fantasy version of them that is often remarkably discordant with its in-the-flesh counterpart.

Garry Trudeau’s cartoon “Doonesbury” pokes fun at this discrepancy between the groomed Facebook page and its actual owner. Addressing her friend at the table next to her, the girl in the cartoon remarks, “My Facebook page has become ridiculous! It’s this place where a perfect, overcurated version of me lives. A place where I’m accomplished, happy and attractive. Even my professed faults are endearing! Who is she? I don’t even recognize this person!”

The page floats out there in cyberspace as a potentiality, a positive caricature of a nuanced individual, usually either reduced or exaggerated but hardly ever spot-on. The more you look at their manicured page, manipulated to align with their ideal self, the more you’re wrongly convinced that they’re perfect.

Reckless Facebook use can mess with your psychology for all these aforementioned reasons, but it can also just flat-out mess with your productivity. Timothy Pychyl, professor of psychology at Carleton University, described it as “a cesspool for staying caught in the past, fixation on a former love and festering jealousy over an ex’s new beau.”

Pychyl, who has done extensive research on Facebook and self-destructive behavior, found that students in his lab spent one-third of their time procrastinating when they were supposed to be working on an academic task. He attributed their behavior to the human need for feeling connected:

“There’s a powerful pull to be connected to others, but we have other needs as well, many of which get neglected when we’re sucked in to the social networking site,” Pychyl said.

So take a look up, scan your environment and drag yourself out of the cyber milieu if you’re losing sense of your tangible world. What’s inside the computer need not transcend the screen and become a part of your surroundings.

ELENI STEPHANIDES can be reached at estephanides@ucdavis.edu.

There’s entirely too much sex happening on this campus.

Or better put, the wrong kind of sex, with the wrong implications for our society. Allow me to explain.

In a recent issue of Slate Magazine, author Mark Regnerus discussed the issue of why young men generally have more control in premarital sex. He began by reminding us of several very interesting statistics on the failures of young American males.

“Their financial prospects are impaired – earnings for 25- to 34-year-old men have fallen by 20 percent since 1971,” Regnerus wrote. “Their college enrollment numbers trail women’s: Only 43 percent of American undergraduates today are men. Last year, women made up the majority of the work force for the first time.”

I was aware that our nation’s young men are not performing as well as our young women, but I became curious about my own juniors and seniors in my U.S. history class at a nearby high school. Though the key studies of gender gaps I am referencing focus on college-aged folks and 20-somethings, if there were a trend it would probably already have manifested itself at the high school level.

I averaged the grades of the boys and girls in the two periods I have as a student teacher and found the results were even wider than I expected. The girls made up an average of 83 percent, while the boys were a paltry 74 percent.

So it seems clear that in both my classroom and the nation at large our young men are not putting in the work, in their schooling or in their careers, compared with our young women.

Yet, because of the particulars for our generation and our society, young men often find it easy to get sex. The advent of the pill and the feminist movement of the 1960s and ’70s reduced the cost of premarital sex for women, as many feminists asserted that the more aggressive and “manly” women became about sex, the more equality they would achieve. Social condemnations of promiscuous sex were correspondingly diminished.

Female college students outnumbering males gives the latter the upper hand in both romance and sex, as the demand for men goes up when their “supply” goes down. As has become increasingly clear, men need to accomplish less in order to get more.

A perfect example is the new hit single from Bruno Mars, The Lazy Song, in which the speaker/singer outlines his philosophy toward life. He brags about doing nothing all day, ignoring his father’s wishes to go to college, alternately putting his hands in his pants or walking around naked and taking muscle enhancements in order to bed women.

Of course, he succeeds with “a really nice girl” midway through the song, despite his incredible lack of ambition, and she even screams “Oh my god, this is great.”

In what is seemingly a microcosm for the predicament of our generation, the young man gets exactly what he wants with no commitment to his parents, the girls he has sex with or the community and country he lives in. To me, the song embodies the approach too many of our young men have to life altogether.

Of course, I must emphasize that I am speaking in broad terms. There are plenty of dedicated, ambitious young men, as there are equally young women who demand more from their lovers than others of their generation.

But speaking as a man myself, sex is a huge part of the goals we have in life. In general, we will do what it takes to get it. If it takes less to get it, then we will do less. If it takes more, we will do more. We are hardwired to reproduce, and as long as that is being accomplished, we tend to take the path of least resistance.

What’s fascinating is the connection between the non-sexual achievements of a young man’s life (work, education, commitment, etc.) and whether or not he is getting the sex he craves. Young women literally have the power to make half of our population more driven to make a contribution to our economy, schools and homes. I think too many of them just don’t realize how much control they really have.

The result of the last several decades is that young men have achieved the upper hand in premarital, heterosexual relationships, whether we are willing to talk openly about it or not.

“Don’t forget your Freud,” Regnerus concluded in the article. “Civilization is built on blocked, redirected and channeled sexual impulse, because men will work for sex. Today’s young men, however, seldom have to.”

Gentlemen, get it together. Ladies, don’t settle for less. The well-being of society depends on it.

Reach ROB OLSON at rwolson@ucdavis.edu.

I would like to share the discomfort I have with the recent experiences I have witnessed with the Cal Aggie Hosts on the UC Davis campus.  After attending several events on the campus in recent weeks I have experienced a great deal of harassment against the college population.  Being an alum of Davis I began to feel sorry for the students who are currently attending the university. Not only do they now have to pay increased fees to attend the university, but the shows and events they support in the community should be a time to enjoy, not be harassed.

Recently I attended the benefit concert for HOPE, which is an amazing organization that does wonders for the community. The various students and community members attending the show offered their gratitude and support toward not only the HOPE organization, but the show’s performers as well. 

The only unpleasant experience throughout the show was the Cal Aggie Hosts shining lights, harassing students and disrupting the pleasant experience viewers were trying to have. The Cal Aggie Hosts created such a distraction that I felt it took away from the performers and their performances. The constant disruptions and unnecessary behavior toward attendees made the Cal Aggie Hosts look unprofessional. The pinnacle moment that stunned me was when the Cal Aggie Hosts ejected someone from the crowd who was enjoying the show with friends. Consistently misjudging situations and harassing paying customers at events seems to be a norm of the Cal Aggie Hosts.

I believe when students are asked to regulate other students and community members there is a mentality of authority that too many Cal Aggie Hosts let go to their head. The Cal Aggie Hosts act too much like police officers, which THEY ARE NOT. As a viewer who wants to attend these events and have an enjoyable time, I find it hard to achieve due to the continuous harassment I witness from the Cal Aggie Hosts. I regret to inform everyone that due to the Cal Aggie Hosts’ misguidance in how to regulate crowd control I will not be supporting and attending events that use Cal Aggie Hosts. This is a shame because my family and I enjoy Whole Earth Festival, Picnic Day and other events that Cal Aggie Hosts happen to work, but what I witnessed recently terrifies me in how I might get treated in the future attending one of these events. I will do my best to spread the word of how unprofessional the Cal Aggie Hosts have been.

ALEX BYRNE

So, I think it is safe to assume that the majority of this campus spends more time than they should on Facebook. Whether you’re checking your friends’ status updates while waiting for the bus, chatting about how crappy your paper is at 2 a.m. or making epic Triple Word Scores on Facebook Scrabble, you are interconnected in this network.

Since the start up of the social media company in 2004, some have been skeptical of the impact that Facebook might have on our culture. I’ve heard about the perils of Facebook ad nauseam. In the next few years, we will all need glasses and have wicked cases of carpal tunnel syndrome. The degradation of the English language is due to social media.

Well, you know what? Haters gon’ hate. I love Facebook. This amazing gathering of life histories places your “we met at a party once” acquaintance’s drunken photos next to the adorable puppy videos your roommate’s mom likes to post. How is that not useful?

Countless charities and businesses have also found Facebook to be a great marketing tool. It’s also a great interface for journalism. Facebook’s Facebook page even boasts that the social network helped a man lose 100 pounds, helped a woman find her lost wedding ring and even saved a life when a surgeon diagnosed his friend’s appendicitis after seeing his Facebook status.

With over 500 million active users, it seems that you can never be lonely when you’re logged in. With more than 30 billion pieces of content (photos, web links, notes, etc.) uploaded each month, we might have finally found the cure for boredom. Does Facebook provide its users with instant contentment at the click of a mouse?

A recent study published in the April edition of the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics doesn’t see Facebook in such a great light. The study suggests that kids and teens are susceptible to “Facebook Depression” when they start to compare their profile to the online presence of their peers. Glancing at photos of other people having a good time or counting the number of comments and likes someone else’s relationship status change gets can affect one’s mental well-being.

The researchers claim that “Facebook Depression” is not an actual diagnosis or real disease, just a “phenomenon.” Robert David Jaffee, a mental-health activist and journalist, blogged about the issue on Huffington Post late last month.

“There is a difference between technology-driven disappointment and true depression, a term that is used far too promiscuously. As I have written before, depression of a clinical nature does not come and go based on technological success or popularity. Clinical depression often remains with a person for his or her entire life,” wrote Jaffee.

I know I’ve been victim to the disappointment that Jaffee is talking about at least once since I created my profile. It’s sometimes impossible not to compare yourself to your Facebook friends.

Seeing my sister’s profile picture of her standing next to Colin Powell (yes, she got to meet the former Secretary of State) did make me jealous and feel a bit worthless. But, after five seconds, I got over it. Why? Because we’re different people living different lives. While cyber-bullying and identity theft have been other dangers often associated with Facebook, I think the core of the trouble with Facebook lies somewhere else. The website has made the experience of human interaction seem quantifiable and sometimes cold.

Even though you might only have three friends on Facebook, that doesn’t mean only three people care about you or that you have only interacted with three people in your lifetime. Just because nobody comments on your status update, that doesn’t mean that it has gone unread or that nobody cares.

Also, Facebook is not a substitute for real life. It doesn’t always function using the same rules. The social networking site lets you easily create an alter ego, a representation where you can pick and choose what people see about you. Users can hide their human flaws and play up their good qualities more so than they might be able to do in their daily lives. Potentially, you can have millions of “friends,” but you will have probably only met a handful of them in person.

With time management skills, parental supervision for younger users, some strict privacy settings and general good judgment, I see no reason for us to give up Facebook. But, if you still can’t get rid of your “Facebook Depression,” turn off the computer. Go out with your real friends. Give your refresh button a break.

Instead of Facebook stalking CORRIE JACOBS, like and comment on her column (or send your friend requests) to cljacobs@ucdavis.edu.

A university should be a place for exchanging ideas and discussing sensitive topics. When 30 students staged a protest during Israeli Consul General Akiva Tor’s lecture at UC Davis School of Law last Tuesday evening, the intellectual integrity of that classroom was reduced to symbols of hate and hopelessness. The students would not engage in a conversation. They taped their mouths shut and walked out of the classroom as the Consul General begged them to stay and ask questions. But the students had already choreographed their protest. They knew how the evening would unfold before it began.

The topic of Tuesday’s discussion was “Israel Today: Challenges and Opportunities.” In publicizing this event, I did not mention Palestine, terrorism, rocket fire, recent murders or the heightened standard that is often applied when evaluating military action by Israel. The Consul General came to UC Davis to discuss the current climate in the Middle East, and how it affects Israel. The substance of his discussion, though, was irrelevant to the students’ reactions. Akiva Tor’s nation of affiliation was enough to spark protest and hate.

This type of knee-jerk reaction to Israel is anti-intellectual and counter productive to fostering coexistence on campus and in the Middle East. The Israel-Palestine discussion is being driven into a desperate hole of hopelessness by extremists and their liberal sheep, including young Jewish adults who are afraid of being framed as anti-liberal by talking about Israel – despite its remarkable track record in civil rights, clean tech, innovation and (yes) military tactics. Many of my Jewish classmates who do support a Jewish state did not want the Jewish Law Students Association to host an event about Israel, because they did not want to “deal” with the very reaction that was elicited by Akiva Tor. But by avoiding the Israel conversation, misconceptions remain unchallenged, and we passively legitimize illegitimate beliefs.

Academic institutions are our best hope for an open dialogue between parties with conflicting interests. Thus, blind subscription to any ideology should be heavily discouraged on a university campus.  Our responsibility as students is to explore the nuances of important political issues. It is dangerous when individuals and communities develop deep disdain for a country based on buzzwords from ideologues – apartheid, colonial, imperial, military occupation. I call on students to think critically and do their homework before adopting anything and everything under the liberal label. If you’ve done your homework and are still confident in your blanket disdain toward Israel, then bring those ideas to the classroom and let’s have a discussion. My objective in organizing last Tuesday’s event was to spark a dialogue as part of a slow shift from hopelessness to coexistence of ideas – at least at UC Davis. However, I must ask the students who taped their mouths shut and walked out on a discussion with Consul General Tor – what is your objective?

You seek to shift a civil exchange of ideas to a symbolic exchange of emotions, as symbols and emotions are harder to deconstruct than logically, factually sound dialogue. Is it insecurity in your beliefs? Intellectual laziness? Or perhaps you really are that angry and hopeless, and by refusing to engage with Israel’s Consul General, you are urging the local and international community to also disengage with Israel, regardless of its actions. There is nothing Akiva Tor could have said that would have resonated. There is nothing he could have done that you would have seen. You came to our discussion not to talk, but to tape your mouth shut and complain that you aren’t heard.

This is disturbing.

I call on my colleagues to exercise their ideas and exercise them responsibly – for they are powerful and we are privileged in having the key to this power.

A report from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has found UC Davis guilty of violating the Animal Welfare Act for conducting experiments on an unhealthy monkey at the California National Primate Research Center.

As a result, UC Davis could face a $20,000 fine in addition to a loss of grant money. Regardless of the ethics of animal experimentation, UC Davis should have to pay a fine for its infraction.

The monkey in question was used in four separate experiments despite multiple occurrences of vomiting and self-inflicted traumatic incidents. The monkey had hair loss, a wound on its genitals and suffered from gastrointestinal problems.

In its defense, UC Davis denies the severity of the infraction and has appealed the ruling. A spokesperson for the university, Andy Fell, said that the monkey was deemed fit enough by veterinarians to enter the fourth study. The problem is that, after the fourth study began, the monkey began to injure itself. Despite receiving treatment, the monkey was ultimately euthanized. The USDA is currently reviewing the appeal.

According to USDA reports, some veterinarians at the facility questioned whether the monkey was healthy enough for the fourth study. The animal was sedated 15 times between the third and fourth study for treatment of traumatic injuries, some of which were self-inflicted.

The bottom line is, UC Davis broke the rules, and when you break the rules, you pay a penalty. Of course the university thinks that it’s innocent. How often do you see a convicted criminal agree with a judge or a penalized athlete agree with a referee? There is a reason that judges, referees and organizations like the USDA exist. Our society needs impartial third parties to enforce mutually accepted guidelines.

Sure, being punished is unpleasant. That’s the point. UC Davis should, much like a penalized athlete, stop arguing and pay up.