Below is a transcript of the proceedings of Harvard University’s Lunar Campus’s class on Earthen History and Psychology, which is in its “trial year.” Being that Harvard was the first of the Ivy League to establish an official campus on the moon, and in light of the tragic event that took place one year prior to the class’s establishment, Harvard is committed to acknowledging its importance for intellectual growth and striving to inform its students of it by establishing this as a mandatory introductory course for all enrolled, regardless of major preference.

Opposite the buildings in Manhattan back in the day, pillars of concrete stood as evidence of the abundance of business or maybe the oversaturation of it. Well, that was one of the major reasons for its construction, besides being a major port for foreign commerce, since the growth and attainability of resources. So it makes sense for one to spend his life in the corporate occupation, surrounded by glass that provides a generous view of the outside world. This also adds a slight justification in the back of the mind on why exactly they chose such a specific degree program. 

The main character (speaking in a general pop-culture reference), always views the world around him. Sometimes they take into account the majority of the causes and effects they can have on not just small populations (microeconomics) but on major population adjustments, like behavior (macroeconomics) which ironically, is this major corporation’s specialty. But are we overestimating his abilities? Now, it makes sense for some to completely disregard the idea of how his causes affect adjustments. However, that is where we cross into the gray area of self-interest and whether or not it’s immoral and how it ties into egotism and narcissism.

Moving onward from that, do you believe in scientists like a child would in Santa Claus? Do you believe in reason, facts, and knowledge? If not, that is fine. But what do you substitute in place of that? While it may sound that the implication may be in the overall depth of the prose, in this circumstance, it is not. It is a general curiosity. I find it rather interesting, to say at least. If we manage to notice the current Nobel laureates that have just been announced (it’s quite amazing, because it is, in essence, a science fair for adults), science has overtaken their thought process and allowed them to discover and establish a generous view of the outside world, or sometimes inside the world itself (evident by the physics laureates). But what would happen if they had not believed in science? Again I am not “bashing” any form of ideology, I am simply pointing out specific facts using reason. What would happen (or like in conjunction with the Renaissance, the printing press, and its influence on Western civilization)? Well, actually I should amend the former question: What wouldn’t happen? Economists and historians believe that we would be behind at least a hundred years in productivity, research, and technology. However, now we have AI and its ability to (comically, may I add) produce a college admissions essay in at least 5 seconds. Maybe we can cut it down to two.

Unlike the nobility and the serfs in the Dark Ages, when they had to defecate in buckets or an “outhouse” built in the castle, our technology greatly increased. We are now researching and trying to colonize Mars!

(I wonder—Pope Francis. I wonder what his opinion would have been on this topic, due to his controversy during his time of power). 

But, anyway, how does that affect our planet? How does it affect our “birth mother” (Earth, since she nurtured us, and provided us with her hearth, aided with man-made technology) and what is the effect when we move on to the new “stepmother”? I want you to think about this—if Earth could speak, what would she say? Would she be happy or upset and feel betrayed and disappointed in us—her children? Now if we think about the relationship between a mother and her child (specifically human), as the child matures into an adult and accepts his responsibility for the outside world, the mother would normally accept the present as it transitions to the “future”, and wholeheartedly support the endeavor. She will bid us farewell, peacefully and respectfully.

However, let us assume that our mother is narcissistic and proves to be quite a challenge to “escape”.  No one thinks about that, so I tie that back into my earlier statement “Are we overestimating?” How do we have such technology built by professionals that allows us to travel interdimensionally, but can’t think of or completely disregard that variable altogether? Again, this is highly theoretical. Don’t take my questions and “warp them” into your interpretation to fit your specific narrative. But since the establishment of the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago (or by God when he commanded for there to be light, for those of you with that belief), humanity has had a connection to Earth. That is obvious, like I said, through the discovery of ancient tools and the creation of newer technology (not by our relatives, but of the primates that evolved from Homo erectus, that then evolved into Neanderthals then into Homo sapiens—us). Humanity has used their knowledge to cultivate a society in which we could successfully thrive without the challenges of the past they lived in. The only thing that the human species didn’t influence was the creation of the earth's early atmosphere when it had little to no oxygen—Now, that was the job description of the basic elements when they boned and shared each other’s structure. 

If you look back far enough into the causes and effects of the early economic systems and their correlation to government involvement, structure, and operation, you can visibly witness it firsthand and understand. The Head of State would normally be in charge of the day-to-day operations of their realm (actually that sounds as if I am speaking of fantasy and fiction— let me use “state”—or “country”) while working closely with the established legislature. But there is a question that has been itching my mind recently: would there be a point when the sovereign’s causes and effects are considered too much for the denizens and the economy? One would think yes—right? I hope so. Again it is basic economics; just like businessmen and their contribution to the economy (positive contribution in a capitalistic society). But can anyone tell me how that is relative to science (Specifically, in physics and biology)? I don’t believe it has any significant relationship.

However, if we look back about a few years, you may have noticed the media bringing light onto a rather interesting scientist named Luis Edwards. You cannot deny the fact that he is interesting, I mean just look at his findings. I think I have one of his books, The Point of View On Science which he published just last month. As a Nobel laureate in economics and physics, he attempted to study Earth on the cease of its rotation and the animals that remained there. But let me say this, he studied the latter and used Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, as you know is now banned due to an in-depth analysis (it’s just an “Op-Ed”) published in the New York Times, calling her findings anecdotal, saying they could no longer believe in her integrity considering she referred to radiation as a chemical (and as you know, it is not), to compare the cause and effect of the human race and eventually determined the complete narcissism of Earth. Also, Edwards used her basic argument of cause and effect from the use of DDT (a chemical-based synthetic pesticide widely used in the 1940s) on bird populations and expanded on that to entire species.

He recorded the current setting on Earth, and how Carson dealt with the “imbalance” in economic principles. We all know what would happen if Earth slammed on the breaks: it would be disastrous right? (Let us put ourselves in the situation temporarily). We are all moving with the Earth at about 800 miles an hour (actually, it may be more; I need to double check. But it's somewhere around there) due east. YES, if you stopped Earth, or if, as Edwards says, she stopped in her own right, you would go rolling, falling, or flying at around 800 miles an hour. You-Would-Be-Dead. All would be dead—and the businessman dealing with macroeconomics in Manhattan would go flying out of windows, and his place of business would come crumbling down. Crumbling down before bankruptcy took over due to a Ponzi scheme gone wrong—I don’t know. I am just creating impossible scenarios. Overall, it would be a relatively bad day for Earth, well not for her specifically considering she is causing the disaster. But the result would be an overall bad day for the individuals living on her.

Currently, as you also know, Earth’s interior is in ruin, its landscape uninhabitable (except for maybe a few cockroaches—which I’m sure you are also glad we don’t have here). However, we—as the research team in the biology department—have conducted a few expeditions to extract any animal remains that can be excavated. I find that interesting, considering there have been findings and they have been placed in a “museum” of sorts dedicated to Luis Edwards who also took part in the excavations. But I must clear up something, for those who haven't been—when I mean by findings, I mean of DNA and not of individuals. 

 However, Luis Edwards, came out with a line of reasoning just recently (I think it was about a few weeks ago) after his twelfth excavation in an article that he wrote for his magazine, that the reason for the cease in Earth's rotation was due to an overwhelming justification of cause and effect and how it was, basically, unbalanced. But I find it rather interesting that he also considered Silent Spring “unfounded” and privately rejected Carson as legitimate, agreeing with the Times article even when his entire article wasn’t based on reason supported by scientific fact (when the stop in the rotation was indeed scientific) and unfounded in its own right.

Thank you very much!