It has been incredibly difficult to start developing new technology! I have run into ontological problems first. I want to create a science for the people and not pursue weaponry but what we need right now seems to be weapons. We need a way to defend ourselves and we need a way to fight. I've been thinking about something that can do both because it feels wrong to design something to solely kill. I would like to find something transformative, converting their existing evil into torrential goodness. They have all the resources, they've ransacked and continue to ransack the Earth for everything it's got and they came up with a lot. I think it would be easiest to turn their resources against them instead of trying to steal them. Have them fracture along lines that already exist like CLASS instead of shooting us. Sharing their wealth is #1 if we're not able to dissolve the money system and then maybe people will see it's not bad with us (radicals, progressives, whatever you want to label me & the other probably 200 people that think this). I want everyone to live a beautiful fucking life and I KNOW white supremacy is keeping us back from it. I want scientific centers that encourage curiosity and showcase the diversity of science for all ages. Truly we are all children and lately I've been thinking that we need a lot more elementary school type posters everywhere, to explain things simply because we like simplicity. I want billions to go towards climate change and Earth research, medicine, materials science, astronomy, study of all living and non living things... physics!!!!! and chemistry too for the chemistry baddies. I don't want more cars, more iPhones, more plastic bags, more missiles, more guns. I want more life, more knowledge, more freedom, more power, more love. All those things are in science.

If you can understand forces like electricity and magnetism, you can understand how a force like white supremacy works. That is why I hate apolitical scientists, because you're being willfully ignorant of reality for no logical reason. Your intolerance effortlessly translates into daily actions and honestly, just your personality. Ignoring such a big fact about the world means your ignorance is all you become. How could it not when you deny the truth at every turn?

Radical scientists like me, we want a world where knowledge is accurately valued. For too long people have overvalued white, male, capitalist, murderous knowledge and science has greatly suffered from that imbalance. Science is a fundamental pursuit of humanity and I think there are so many people out there whose purpose in life is scientific study & discovery. But a million killers have killed hundreds of millions who could've changed the world with their minds, eradicating that knowledge for no logical, rational, or valid emotional reason.

To me, it's pure logical sense that human diversity in science results in a more enlightened world for all, and that things improving for everyone is good for EVERYONE including YOURSELF. I'm selfish the same way every human is and it makes so much sense to grab the answer that will sustain us than kill us. That's why for so long my reaction to close-minded scientists was emotional, because the lack of base logic is upsetting. For them, their brain hears "circle" and goes to "square" while mine hears "circle" and goes to "sphere". The snap logic is so immediate, like sight words for elementary school kids. I guess that's why they act like children when you try to change their mind. I oscillate between condescension and empathy which makes me think I'm not best suited for dealing with ignorant scientists, because I think they deserve more empathy than I can muster.

Fundamentally understanding that the whole world is connected is something that took Western scientists so long to figure out because their whole society is based in enforcing one reality. Until presented with undeniable evidence, Western scholarship has rejected the idea of intricate, instant, complex connections existing across the globe.

Society has changed the most because of scientific revolutions. Agriculture first led humanity to consciousness. The wheel revolutionized movement. The Industrial Revolution changed how we manipulate energy, creating and redirecting and consuming. The Digital Revolution followed the creation of computers, allowing us to connect with each other and share information across the entire world. The development of each of these sciences and the hundreds of branches that exist within them have completely changed the world on levels we overlook, because they feel so essential to human life it's hard to believe we, all of humanity, existed without it.

Social revolution always comes with scientific revolution. There was one in physics not long ago-- the discovery and acceptance of quantum mechanics-- and some physicists like Amit Goswami have seen how quantum mechanics can change our whole civilization. I agree, but I also want to note that understanding the world exists as possibilities and possibility of possibility has always been understood by oppressed people. All of us who live in a terrible world have visions of better ones. Right now, in the PRESENT, we see other worlds. I know our concrete reality is the existence of multiple things at the same time. The world is diverse and exists equally for everybody across the world. If we practiced a non white supremacist science-- a practice that is inclusive and fundamentally understood our multidimensional existence instead of only growing the empire's mind-- I feel confident in saying that we would've unlocked quantum mechanics sooner. I hope more people, especially scientists, see how social inclusivity will lead us to more scientific accuracy-- not less and not equal, but more. I see all the negativity in the world as a measure of all the positivity we could possibly put into the world. We can be so much more... and in a real way, we already ARE so much more. It's just about looking towards that world instead of sticking to classical (antiquated) beliefs.

Op-Ed for Physics Seminar Fall 2023 about my perspective on advancing diversity in physics.

​Excerpts: 
"Studies conducted by the American Institute of Physics show that the amount of Physics degrees awarded to Black, Latino, and Indigenous students across Bachelor’s, Masters, and PhDs has increased from 3% to 13% in the past 25 years. I would like to rephrase this data to show the problem in physics as felt by minority students. Around 90% of physicists, across every level of higher education within the past generation, have been white and predominantly male. Past generations are even more homogenous as women, people of color, people of lower socioeconomic status, and people with disabilities (to name a few disenfranchised groups) were absolutely and specifically not allowed entry into academic institutions. The thousands of people that have graduated from these schools, these overwhelming statistics: this is evidence of a white supremacist & capitalist ideal at work, operating in real time."

"I propose that an active counter to imbuing white supremacy into education and science and physics is to embrace interdisciplinary, collaborative research and not being afraid to do things that aren’t accepted by the current paradigm. Isn’t that part of science anyways, questioning not only inside a framework but the framework itself? Fixing diversity in physics requires large scale efforts to fix diversity in academia period. The issues in one field are not exclusive to that one when we are all part of the same academic body and this rapidly growing interconnected world."

"In the classroom, an interdisciplinary education naturally emphasizes the importance of everyone’s voices, and teacher collaboration leads to a strengthened learning environment while decreasing teacher burn-out... Nearly all real-world problems are complex and have elements that include numerous scientific disciplines. Having an interdisciplinary education directly teaches you complex problem-solving skills and keeps you on your feet with fresh perspectives and ideas. Furthermore, this type of collaboration would inevitably diversify your world socially. As physicists, practically every other department is more diverse than your own. Meeting new people and becoming comfortable working in a diverse environment yourself will make you a better teacher of diversifying class. Embracing an inclusive version of education, rather than the discriminative one currently prized by academia, is a step away from an old white supremacist ideal and towards the future of learning."

"I reject Western science’s claim that their conclusions about the world reflect all of humanity’s experiences. Having never seen a giraffe doesn’t mean they don’t exist, and what Western science is doing is ignoring giraffes they do see and claiming they don’t exist to everybody else, going around and spreading the narrative as far-reaching as possible. They actually caged up the giraffes and put them on display-- showed them to us-- and expect us to ignore their existence. I reject that notion completely. I would like you to leave this article questioning a lot, including this: why is there a rejection of love in science? Why do we not approach our analysis of the world this way, if it is a universal behavior of all humanity throughout all the recorded time we have? What do we gain from analyzing the world in a loveless fashion?" --page 12​

Everything is a relationship; everything is related by virtue of existing together with us. That view to step outside my consciousness and into the extended self, the concept of humanity that exists across the globe, is what allows me to see these structures and systems and how ideas of what humanity is affect all of us.

We can’t particularly feel each place where there’s pressure but we recognize it’s there. The force it exerts on us is only noticeable when analyzed throughout multiple generations, and even our understanding now can always be improved upon. The more we look back the more we see possible paths forward, and I want us to go the right way.

I don’t think it’s bold to say that we might be at our end. Global problems threaten our whole experience at every moment. Climate change, national and international political conflicts, world economic strife, the inhumane exploitation of a huge portion of humanity, and the improbable yet highly destructive threat of nuclear war are only some of the problems facing humanity today.

​I don’t know if the entire answer lies here but I think we need to turn away from WSCP and towards truth, reality, acceptance of humanity, and love, as illogical as it sounds. But in the end that is an issue of Western science; it acts without love, without care, commitment, respect, honesty, affection, trust, and recognition towards the world it tries to understand. We will never get more progress, take another big step if we don’t start incorporating the universals that have been left behind. ​

We live in an economic, political & social, and most significantly to my argument, scientific world that fundamentally looks at the world with a white supremacist, capitalist, patriarchal (WSCP) lens.

I use the words white supremacy to emphasize how these methods are the result of one operating perspective, not a million different negative views and mistakes. bell hooks states so perfectly in her 1997 film titled Cultural Criticism & Transformation:

“To me an important breakthrough, I felt, in my work and that of others was the call to use the term white supremacy over racism, because racism in and of itself did not really allow for a discourse of colonization and decolonization, the recognition of the internalized racism within people of color and it was always in a sense keeping things at the level at which whiteness and white people remained at the center of the discussion. In my classroom I might say to students that you know that when we use the term white supremacy it doesn’t just evoke white people, it evokes a political world that we can all frame ourselves in relation to… And so for me those words were very much about the constant reminder, one of institutional construct, that we’re not talking about personal construct in the sense of, how do you feel about me as a woman, or how do you feel about me as a black person? But they really seem to me to evoke a larger apparatus…”

I use bell hooks’ terminology because I believe she was an author and philosopher that was able to identify something truly universal. As cliche as it may sound, love is something that has always existed in humanity and I believe she defined it perfectly. I do actually have one contrasting view to hers which is that I believe domination and love can coexist, when we all are able to understand that the love that binds us is more important than the power we wield. But besides that one caveat, I think she crystallized the ethereal concept of love into human values and actions that are done every day.

Final Essay for Philosophy of Science taught by Jenann Ismael at Columbia University

Excerpts below:

-- "Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions describes science as dependent on three properties. First, it depends on a united scientific community. Second, science exerts its authority over society through scientific institutions. Third, future generations are trained to practice science through learning from textbooks, which standardize scientific learning. I see issues with each aspect of Kuhn’s definition of science.

What I have experienced, as somebody who considers themselves a scientist, is that first, the scientific community is deeply divided by identity. Institutions that maintain science’s authority over society are historically predominantly white institutions, male-only institutions, and in general are rife with discrimination. Secondly, the authority institutions continue to wield today is ingrained with principles and values from a society built on colonization and slavery. Columbia University was founded in 1754, twenty-two years older than America itself, and has a long history of white, Western supremacy. Look at the discriminatory processes you have to go through to even enter the school, let alone receive opportunities, the suffering and displacement it's brought to Harlem, the sanctioned KKK rallies that used to take place on Low Steps.

Thirdly, textbook writing is a heavily edited and biased process that very intentionally chooses who gets included. A study published by the The Royal Society in 2020 has shown that approximately 90% of the scientists we learn about in textbooks are male and around 97% are white. The way Kuhn talks about who the scientific community is composed of throughout Scientific Revolutions are the people who we are taught can be scientists. His repetitive use of men-- 58 times throughout the book, whereas people is used 11 times and women is used 0 times-- when referring to scientists shows patriarchy is fundamental to his conceptualization of science.

-- As non-white non-male scientists like myself progress in our scientific careers, we begin to see how there is rarely space for both who we are as scientists and who we are as people. The sentiment I’ve heard repeatedly by older generations of scientists is that one’s identity “doesn’t matter” if the science they do is good. This “value-less” view of science is seen as positive and is marketed towards future generations, selling the idea that going into science means that you will only be valued for your intelligence, that personal and/or societal biases don’t exist when you become a scientist. But the value-less view of science is incorrect and harmful to minority scientists. There is no “insulation of the scientific community from society”. Kuhn failed to take into consideration that scientists, who are all white men in his writing, are able to separate themselves from society because their identity places them at the top of the social hierarchy, where they can remain blissfully ignorant about societal issues because it doesn’t affect them. Science assumes that a scientist is a white man and because education was limited to white men for so long, science became seen as “value-less”. In truth, it values white men, solely acknowledges them, created institutions to further their pursuit of knowledge at the expense of other races and genders, and only writes about white men in its textbooks which are only written by white men.