Once again Derrick Jensen has our jaws dropping in chapters 4, 5, and 6. His words are controversial, and yet his support is convincing. The literature is infused with excellent anecdotes, compelling stories, and allusions to Descartes and other great thinkers. Seeing as the the reading as a whole is broken down into three chapters, I will break my analysis down into three parts. The fourth chapter, entitle cultural eyeglasses, delves into some of our societal lies. The fifth chapter, entitled cranes, Jensen talks about self confidence and growing up. The sixth chapter, a safety metaphor, he initially addresses the human/animal dynamic and then talks about fear.
Cultural eyeglasses opens with discussion about a set of scientists that studied monkeys who had been treated extremely poorly as infants. When it was these monkeys turns to parent their own children, they had no idea what to do. They either ignored the children or beat them to death. This opening anecdote transitions effectively into a series of statistics about the abuse and neglect of children in America. Essentially the point that Jensen is trying to make is that "the physical cannot be separated from the nonphysical." The one strong example given is the Nazi regime. Although they were adamant that Jews, Russians, homosexuals etc. were subhuman, they couldn't justify such conclusions 100% in their head. Later in the chapter, he briefly talks about how self experience is the most important of all proof. Essentially equations and theories are used to explain phenomenon that need not be explained, and thus are cheapened with such descriptions. One of the most striking conclusions that Jensen comes to in this chapter that "the world is drowning in a sea of words, and I add to the deluge, then hope that i can sleep that night, secure in the knowledge that I have done my part." Essentially what this implies is that the world is just words, Jensen speak words, and he is content with that. Regardless, Jensen brings it all back to the animal conversations going on all around us.
Cranes, the second chapter from this reading, is short but fairly straight forward. The topic Jensen addresses across the four pages of this Chapter is that breakdown is the best foundation for build up. On a personal level, he was abused and plagued by turmoil growing up. As a result though, he was able to start from scratch and develop into a fully functional adult. As he says, "mythologies of all times and all places tell us that those who enter the abyss and survive can bring back important lessons."
The last chapter of this set of reading is titled "The Safety of Metaphor" opens with Jensen discussion his mission to find out if others converse with animals. The conclusion that he comes to is that no one believes him because there is not proof. To combat this fact, Jensen references how most of the important things we know are internal truth, and not empirical fact. The difficult truth is that we ignore problems that we label as unsolvable. Animals do not do this, for they are all "pulling towards life." The problematic thing in our society is that we as humans refuse to break away from the worlds injustices because that is the easy path. "We lie, destroy, rape, murder, experiment, extirpate, all to control this wildly uncontrollable symphony."
The biggest thing this reading brought to my attention was the ignorance we are plagued by. The first chapter proves we are ignorant of is the truth that lies right before our eyes; that jews are human, that we are all talk, that politicians are corrupt. The second chapter proves that we are ignorant to the fact that we can succeed by rising from the ashes of distress. The last chapter proves that we are ignorant of the connections and relations we are missing out on; ignorant to the fact that we are destroying what we set out to save. Jensen shocked me with the revelation of all of this ignorance.
A great connection from this excerpt to other class readings is with the article that touched on the benefits of becoming vegetarian. That article really summed up the ignorance that Jensen was speaking out against in these three chapters. For instance, the vegetarian article talked about how the amount of food fed to the chickens that we eat as meat could feed four times as many people as those fed chickens actually do. It also talked about the fossil fuels and toxic emissions necessary to maintain livestock. The statistics are amazing, and yet we continue to eat meat and play into this vicious cycle of waste. This is the sort of ignorance that Jensen says is destroying the world. We choose to ignore blatant facts, because the prospect of solving the world's injustices is much more difficult than refusing to believe they don't exist.
As a result of this article, I intend to fight ignorance. In the days, weeks, and years to come, I will make a conscious effort not to lie to myself. Lying to yourself only pacifies the sorrow that would be a direct result of the truth. For instance, I intend to buy products that were not made in a fair environment. Things that were created because of slave labor or sub-human wages will not be found in my possession. Thanks to Jensen, I can no longer remain comfortably ignorant on such topics, just so the goods I buy are dirt cheap. Another impact this article has made on me is in regards to his allusions to the fact that if you survive going through hell, you'll be better off for it. From now, anytime I experience extreme sorrow, hardship, or turmoil, I will come out not only being a better person but actively acknowledging that I am a better person.
Questions:
What were some of the exact responses you got when you asked people if they talked to animals?
What happens if you don't survive hardship? Is hardship just a waste in that case?
How can we convince society to stop turning a blind eye to injustice?
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
A Language Older Than Words Ch. 1,2 and 3
From my initial exposure to Derick Jensen's A Language Older Than Words, it seems as if the text is going to make me (and anyone else reading it) really question the blind eye we have turned to things in society. Right off the bat Jenson attacks "schooling and other forms of socialization" for diluting ones perception. The approach he takes bounces from historical references, like Descartes, to personal stories, like his conversations with coyotes, to straightforward discussion of an issue. Since the reading was conveniently divided into three chapters, I will give a brief synopsis of each, and then I will discuss the impact of A Language Older Than Words as a whole.
The first chapter, entitled "Silencing" opens with a discussion of how the world is filled with the lies. The role of these lies is disguise and thus allow deplorable acts. Jensen then continues on to discuss how the world's conversation ( between the trees, animals, and stars) was audible as a child, and yet slowly began to fade away. This talk of silence quickly turns to real world examples: we choose to forget violence or to not acknowledge the pollution around us. Our reasoning behind this is that they are "too horrific to comprehend." When Jensen was a child, he turned to the stars to combat this apparent ignorance. They in turn told him that the world wasn't as it was supposed to be, and that he would survive this. As Jensen grew old and learned more, he came to a bold conclusion that combats the commonly accepted ideals of Rene Descartes. This conclusion was that existence was self proving (I exist therefore I exist). The chapter closes with several more examples of personal and global disillusion. Jensen's only solution to the world's constant erosion: learning how to listen.
The second chapter, entitled "Coyotes, Kittens, and Conversations" starts off with a story about how Jensen had a successful conversation with a group of coyotes, deterring them from massacring his chicken population. The discussion that follows addresses the fact the world is set up in a way that as soon was humans understand something, we exploit it. Jensen finds this horrifying and wrong. The rest of this chapter alternates between examples/anecdotes about humans raping the world and its inhabitants and more about Jensen's ability to talk to animals. The conclusion that he draws is that conversations with nature are feasible and necessary for humans to exist in harmony with the world around them. Unfortunately though, Jensen points out that the state of the world is anything but harmony. Indians are massacred, children are beaten, and the land is devastated all under the lie that it is necessary and right.
The third and final chapter in the assigned reading is called "Taking a Life". Jensen opens this chapter with a question that the readers themselves might have been asking: how is it right that you slaughter the chickens yourself? He goes through a brief encounter where he was forced to kill one of his favorite ducks. He warned the fowl that the next bird to force himself on a hen was going to lose his life. This particular duck did so, and was forced to face the consequence. In respectfully giving this bird time to think about his death, Jensen comes to the realization that just like sex, violence is a very intimate relationship. Both are deeply emotional experiences and thus inspire similar responses: intimacy.
Similarly to articles in the past, this reading from A Language Older Than Words Evoked good and bad emotions. It was definitely interesting and powerful to hear about Jensen's success in talking to nature, but on the contrary it was troubling to hear how the world is just a series of lies that hides atrocities. First I'll focus on the positive response. What I learned from these three chapters is that if one is able to get over the common misconception that "listening to the land is a metaphor" then one can start to uncover some very important truths in the world. These truths are typically disguised by lies that humans have created, but if you can cut through the crap then you can develop an extremely deep solidarity with the world. Now in contrast, I'll highlight the bad emotions it brought out. They are best expressed in rhetorical questions. Have I too been raping the land and its resources? Do I marginalized and condemn entire groups of people? Do I justify my own wrongs with lies? I think it is clear that the reading had positive and yet adverse affects on my life.
These first three chapters of A Language Older Than Words (and probably the entirety of the book) tie in wonderfully with all of the articles we have read on nature. In light of available time and space I'll highlight one. Looking back at "A Blizzard Under the Blue Sky" by Houston in Literature and The Environment, there are some subtle but important similarities. For example, Houston speaks from the point of her dogs on several occasions. This may seem irrelevant to Jenson's message, but on the contrary, it is pivotal. Houston had a connection with her dogs that was so strong that she felt like she could speak as if she were actually them. This definitely implies a form of communication between human and animal that is right in line with what Jensen exhibits. A connection is how nature changed both authors understanding of the world. Houston learned through extreme weather that life was not as bad as it seemed; Jensen learned trhough communications with a chicken that violence, sex, and intimacy are all connected.
Ultimately, Jensen's message in these first three chapters is applicable across the board. It is clear to me now that our society is filled with liars and frauds, all of which are hiding horrific realities. I intend to combat these lies, whether it be in regards to human treatment of animals or equal rights (not just implied, but acted on) for all people. The other important message that I gained, and consequently will apply from this reading, is that there is without a doubt a language that can be spoken between man and nature. The results of such conversations are ultimately positive because they develop a unity between populations that had previously been isolated. Through personal stories, empirical facts, and interesting metaphors, Jensen puts forth many visionary ideals. With hard work and some overhaul of previous conventions, I will apply them to my life.
Questions:
Were the conversations with these animals and trees verbal or implied?
What does the connection between sex and violence really mean?
How do we cut through the lies? Does it matter that the world will probably never be able to do it as a whole?
The first chapter, entitled "Silencing" opens with a discussion of how the world is filled with the lies. The role of these lies is disguise and thus allow deplorable acts. Jensen then continues on to discuss how the world's conversation ( between the trees, animals, and stars) was audible as a child, and yet slowly began to fade away. This talk of silence quickly turns to real world examples: we choose to forget violence or to not acknowledge the pollution around us. Our reasoning behind this is that they are "too horrific to comprehend." When Jensen was a child, he turned to the stars to combat this apparent ignorance. They in turn told him that the world wasn't as it was supposed to be, and that he would survive this. As Jensen grew old and learned more, he came to a bold conclusion that combats the commonly accepted ideals of Rene Descartes. This conclusion was that existence was self proving (I exist therefore I exist). The chapter closes with several more examples of personal and global disillusion. Jensen's only solution to the world's constant erosion: learning how to listen.
The second chapter, entitled "Coyotes, Kittens, and Conversations" starts off with a story about how Jensen had a successful conversation with a group of coyotes, deterring them from massacring his chicken population. The discussion that follows addresses the fact the world is set up in a way that as soon was humans understand something, we exploit it. Jensen finds this horrifying and wrong. The rest of this chapter alternates between examples/anecdotes about humans raping the world and its inhabitants and more about Jensen's ability to talk to animals. The conclusion that he draws is that conversations with nature are feasible and necessary for humans to exist in harmony with the world around them. Unfortunately though, Jensen points out that the state of the world is anything but harmony. Indians are massacred, children are beaten, and the land is devastated all under the lie that it is necessary and right.
The third and final chapter in the assigned reading is called "Taking a Life". Jensen opens this chapter with a question that the readers themselves might have been asking: how is it right that you slaughter the chickens yourself? He goes through a brief encounter where he was forced to kill one of his favorite ducks. He warned the fowl that the next bird to force himself on a hen was going to lose his life. This particular duck did so, and was forced to face the consequence. In respectfully giving this bird time to think about his death, Jensen comes to the realization that just like sex, violence is a very intimate relationship. Both are deeply emotional experiences and thus inspire similar responses: intimacy.
Similarly to articles in the past, this reading from A Language Older Than Words Evoked good and bad emotions. It was definitely interesting and powerful to hear about Jensen's success in talking to nature, but on the contrary it was troubling to hear how the world is just a series of lies that hides atrocities. First I'll focus on the positive response. What I learned from these three chapters is that if one is able to get over the common misconception that "listening to the land is a metaphor" then one can start to uncover some very important truths in the world. These truths are typically disguised by lies that humans have created, but if you can cut through the crap then you can develop an extremely deep solidarity with the world. Now in contrast, I'll highlight the bad emotions it brought out. They are best expressed in rhetorical questions. Have I too been raping the land and its resources? Do I marginalized and condemn entire groups of people? Do I justify my own wrongs with lies? I think it is clear that the reading had positive and yet adverse affects on my life.
These first three chapters of A Language Older Than Words (and probably the entirety of the book) tie in wonderfully with all of the articles we have read on nature. In light of available time and space I'll highlight one. Looking back at "A Blizzard Under the Blue Sky" by Houston in Literature and The Environment, there are some subtle but important similarities. For example, Houston speaks from the point of her dogs on several occasions. This may seem irrelevant to Jenson's message, but on the contrary, it is pivotal. Houston had a connection with her dogs that was so strong that she felt like she could speak as if she were actually them. This definitely implies a form of communication between human and animal that is right in line with what Jensen exhibits. A connection is how nature changed both authors understanding of the world. Houston learned through extreme weather that life was not as bad as it seemed; Jensen learned trhough communications with a chicken that violence, sex, and intimacy are all connected.
Ultimately, Jensen's message in these first three chapters is applicable across the board. It is clear to me now that our society is filled with liars and frauds, all of which are hiding horrific realities. I intend to combat these lies, whether it be in regards to human treatment of animals or equal rights (not just implied, but acted on) for all people. The other important message that I gained, and consequently will apply from this reading, is that there is without a doubt a language that can be spoken between man and nature. The results of such conversations are ultimately positive because they develop a unity between populations that had previously been isolated. Through personal stories, empirical facts, and interesting metaphors, Jensen puts forth many visionary ideals. With hard work and some overhaul of previous conventions, I will apply them to my life.
Questions:
Were the conversations with these animals and trees verbal or implied?
What does the connection between sex and violence really mean?
How do we cut through the lies? Does it matter that the world will probably never be able to do it as a whole?
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Sleep in the Dark
It is four o'clock in the morning and I am sitting in the fluorescent light infested east room of LaFortune. Not the best time to be reading an article about how over-exposure to light during the night time increases your risk of cancer, but I digress. The articles grouped under the title "Sleep in the Dark" each discuss studies where evidence point to the fact that A.) melatonin is a cancer suppressor and B.) that sleeping with the lights on (overexposure to light) stunts your production of melatonin. Based on these two statements, overexposure to light increases your risk of cancer. My two key points will describe these two key statements.
First off, these articles as a whole assert that melatonin is a cancer suppressor. The last article in particular makes a point of noting that "there is abundant evidence indicating that melatonin is involved in preventing tumor initiation, promotion, and progression." A lot of the language used to describe this phenomenon is way over my head, but the conclusion is clear: more melatonin produced by an individuals body, less likely that the individual will have cancer.
Second off, these articles as a whole assert that being exposed to light when we should be in the dark sleeping decreases a bodies production of melatonin. The first article says that "lighting fixtures should be designed to minimize interference with normal circadian rhythms in plants and animals" based on the fact that melatonin is produced because of these circadian rhythms. Individuals like those who work the night shift at their job are at high risk of producing dangerously low levels of this melatonin. They are awake and in the light when its dark outside, and they are asleep and still in the light when its light outside.
This article has instilled emotions resembling fear. I have an extremely unorthodox sleep schedule where I am up until 4 or 5 in the morning most days and take long naps during the time when it is light out. Based on these studies, I am thus at high risk for cancer. The question is though, what am I supposed to do? I am extremely productive in the wee hours of the morning and extremely unproductive during the day. It seems intuitive then that I would stay awake when I am focused and sleep when I am not. The problem now though is that I am being exposed to light in a contrary manner to my natural circadian rhythm. Essentially, this article has brought me awareness to this fact but at the same time I have no viable solution to fix it. As of right now it would be a feeble attempt to try and change my sleep cycle. I am permanently, or at least til the end of college, a night owl.
In terms of the big picture, this article ties in very well with the other readings assigned for March 4th. These articles also addressed health, but they were concerned with our diets. The connection between the two is that we as humans have begun practices that are unnatural and thus unhealthy. For instance, we have started eating things that are not actually food but artificial substances that closely resemble food. Similarly, we have rebelled against the traditional day of waking at sunrise and sleeping at by working nighttime jobs in an attempt to increase productivity. Both of these unnatural practices are increasing our health risks. By eating foods that are artificial and eating them in outrageous portions, we are increasing the chance that we will get heart disease or diabetes. By overexposing ourselves to unnatural light, we are increasing our chance of getting cancer.
Essentially these articles on melatonin, circadian rhythms and cancer are explicitly telling me to change my sleeping habits. They have presented facts based on valid research that prove that my practices are unhealthy and could very likely lead to cancer. At the end of the day, I would love to sleep at the natural times and respect my circadian rhythms, but I seem unable to break the habit. My studies require me to put in long hours every day, and based on the way I seem to function best, these long hours seem to be very late at night (early in the morning). With that being said, I will make a conscious effort to correct my sleep schedule as time goes on. Spring break is this week, so it should be a great opportunity to regroup and get on a proper nighttime regimen. If all of that does not work though, I will just have to keep my fingers crossed that the damage I do to my body during these years of college can be undone in the years that follow.
Questions -
Can sleep in pitch black during the day compensate for having to work the night shift?
Are there any artificial ways to increase your levels of melatonin?
Nine hours of sleep seems like a lot to maintain, is there anyways of cheating the system?
First off, these articles as a whole assert that melatonin is a cancer suppressor. The last article in particular makes a point of noting that "there is abundant evidence indicating that melatonin is involved in preventing tumor initiation, promotion, and progression." A lot of the language used to describe this phenomenon is way over my head, but the conclusion is clear: more melatonin produced by an individuals body, less likely that the individual will have cancer.
Second off, these articles as a whole assert that being exposed to light when we should be in the dark sleeping decreases a bodies production of melatonin. The first article says that "lighting fixtures should be designed to minimize interference with normal circadian rhythms in plants and animals" based on the fact that melatonin is produced because of these circadian rhythms. Individuals like those who work the night shift at their job are at high risk of producing dangerously low levels of this melatonin. They are awake and in the light when its dark outside, and they are asleep and still in the light when its light outside.
This article has instilled emotions resembling fear. I have an extremely unorthodox sleep schedule where I am up until 4 or 5 in the morning most days and take long naps during the time when it is light out. Based on these studies, I am thus at high risk for cancer. The question is though, what am I supposed to do? I am extremely productive in the wee hours of the morning and extremely unproductive during the day. It seems intuitive then that I would stay awake when I am focused and sleep when I am not. The problem now though is that I am being exposed to light in a contrary manner to my natural circadian rhythm. Essentially, this article has brought me awareness to this fact but at the same time I have no viable solution to fix it. As of right now it would be a feeble attempt to try and change my sleep cycle. I am permanently, or at least til the end of college, a night owl.
In terms of the big picture, this article ties in very well with the other readings assigned for March 4th. These articles also addressed health, but they were concerned with our diets. The connection between the two is that we as humans have begun practices that are unnatural and thus unhealthy. For instance, we have started eating things that are not actually food but artificial substances that closely resemble food. Similarly, we have rebelled against the traditional day of waking at sunrise and sleeping at by working nighttime jobs in an attempt to increase productivity. Both of these unnatural practices are increasing our health risks. By eating foods that are artificial and eating them in outrageous portions, we are increasing the chance that we will get heart disease or diabetes. By overexposing ourselves to unnatural light, we are increasing our chance of getting cancer.
Essentially these articles on melatonin, circadian rhythms and cancer are explicitly telling me to change my sleeping habits. They have presented facts based on valid research that prove that my practices are unhealthy and could very likely lead to cancer. At the end of the day, I would love to sleep at the natural times and respect my circadian rhythms, but I seem unable to break the habit. My studies require me to put in long hours every day, and based on the way I seem to function best, these long hours seem to be very late at night (early in the morning). With that being said, I will make a conscious effort to correct my sleep schedule as time goes on. Spring break is this week, so it should be a great opportunity to regroup and get on a proper nighttime regimen. If all of that does not work though, I will just have to keep my fingers crossed that the damage I do to my body during these years of college can be undone in the years that follow.
Questions -
Can sleep in pitch black during the day compensate for having to work the night shift?
Are there any artificial ways to increase your levels of melatonin?
Nine hours of sleep seems like a lot to maintain, is there anyways of cheating the system?
Unhappy Meals and Going Vegetarian
I'll be honest: the material I read in Michael Pollan's article "Unhappy Meals" and in Kathy Freston's "The Startling Effects of Going Vegetarian for One Day" was eye opening and startling. After being somewhat ignorant to the nutritional misconceptions in our society for the first 20 years of my life, these two articles without a doubt had a profound impact one me. Michale Pollan really stresses the institutions in America that have made us unhealthy eaters while Kathy Freston provides statistics for a hypothetical scenario where we all gave up the consumption of meat. Both of these individuals seem to achieve exactly what they wanted in their articles: to raise awareness and propose alternatives. Since these two articles cover similar material, I will summarize each of them individually for my two key points.
Pollan opens with a statement that summarizes his entire article: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." He then goes on to say that the rest of the article will probably just make this bold statement more confusing, but he proceeds anyway. At first I was disappointed by this fact, wishing I could get away with reading only six words. Soon though it became apparent that although the rest of his article was confusing, it was also very enlightening. He starts out by discussing the progression from eating foods to eating nutrients. Back in the day we simply consumed food without concern for what they were made up of. Now though, we strive to eat nutrients on individual level instead of foods as a whole. What this does is it takes away from the holistic nutrition (like the idea of eating an bread) and instead focuses on eating fiber (which we can artificially infuse into all sorts of things, including bread). This idea is referred to as nutritionism. The most striking problems that Pollan points out that proves nutriotionism is bad is that A.) we often wrongly identify those nutrients that are good for us and B.) that nutrients have different effects based on their combinations and relations to other foods. A perfect example of these negative ideas is how when we eat right, we get fatter. The push to replace fats with carbohydrates actually made America much fatter. In trying to improve nutrition though, scientists hit two big problems. The first is that focusing on nutrients is the only feasible way to analyze food. The second is that surveys that analyze consumption of food are usually not accurate due to extensive lying. Ultimately it comes down to this: either we keep our fingers crossed that natural selection adapts our bodies to this terrible diet or we strive to reduce meat consumption, increase plant consumption, and start eating real food.
The second article, by Kathy Preston, is essentially just a list of statistics about what would happen if everyone became a vegetarian for the day. Essentially everyone of the statistics points to one of two things: everyone as a vegetarian will conserve resources and decrease waste. In light of the fact that this is a statistics based article, I will highlight the three I found most impactful. First, if we all stopped eating meat, the grain that we saved could feed every person in the world with 3 pounds of grain per day (more than enough to survive). Second, that everyone turning vegetarian would save 70 million gallons of gas. Finally, greenhouse gas prevention would be equal to that of France's total pollution. These facts, and all of the others, are very powerful.
As I said in the beginning of this blog, the emotions these articles stirred up in me were very strong. They managed to insight questioning, shock, and even fear in me as I read them. The reason they were so powerful was because they applied to my everyday decisions. Every time I walk into the dining hall I am faced with the option to eat healthy or to eat unhealthy; I have usually picked the latter. At what cost does this come though? Essentially I have learned to take my diet much more seriously and to analyze everything I put into my body. Pollan's idea that we should eat food and not just "food like substances" is a very strong one. If you would have asked me a day ago if what I ate was food, I would have told you yes. Now though, I am no quite sure what I would say to such a question. The two articles combine to make me question whether or not I should be a vegetarian. Am I risking a short life or early medical complications if I do not?
In terms of relating this article to the big picture, it reminds me a lot of a film I watched over Christmas break called Supersize Me. This documentary follows a New York native around on his quest to eat McDonalds for thirty days straight. Three separate doctors examine him and evaluate his health throughout the experiment, giving him expert advice on what his body is being exposed to. When compared to Pollan and Freston's articles, it is clear that what he was eating was not food but instead was something that resembled food. His health showed it. By day 21 of his 30 day journey he was having heart palpitations and had to check himself into the emergency room. Obviously the average American does not consume this much that resembles food, but they are almost as guilty/at risk. The fact that we go to the stores and buy bread infused with various nutrients and meat that has been raised on preservative infused grain means that we are also at risk of medical complication. I think the fact that these articles and the film tie in so well together is an important connection to make when delving into the topic of nutrition.
In terms of application, I think the most important thing to note from both of articles is a topic raised in "Unhappy Meal". Some might say that our bodies as humans will ultimately adapt to this new nutritional system. Here's the problem though: we don't let survival of the fittest work its magic. Ideally (not in a sadistic way) those whose genes are not conducive to the US's current diet would die off and only those with favorable genes for surviving on those types of food would survive. The problem is that modern medicine has been charged with trying to extend everyone's life regardless of nutritional background. Consequently, I intend to imply all of this information to my life. Perhaps I will try and be a vegetarian for a day. There obviously will not be a dramatic reduction in pollution and hunger as a result of my vegetarian exploits, but there will be some good done: I will be healthier and hopefully people will follow my lead. The biggest thing that I intend to do is reduce my meat consumption across the board. I am a big time fan of giant meat proportions (steak, chicken, pork, you name it) but now I will be a lot more conscientious about the amounts I consume. Hopefully I will see health benefits as a result of this transition.
Questions -
Some of the Vegetarian statistics are not labeled with time periods. How long will the changes be in effect? For instance, how long could the excess fuel power cars?
Will there ever be a time somewhere far down the road where the health benefits of certain foods will be fully understood and thus utilized in our everyday lives.
Pollan opens with a statement that summarizes his entire article: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." He then goes on to say that the rest of the article will probably just make this bold statement more confusing, but he proceeds anyway. At first I was disappointed by this fact, wishing I could get away with reading only six words. Soon though it became apparent that although the rest of his article was confusing, it was also very enlightening. He starts out by discussing the progression from eating foods to eating nutrients. Back in the day we simply consumed food without concern for what they were made up of. Now though, we strive to eat nutrients on individual level instead of foods as a whole. What this does is it takes away from the holistic nutrition (like the idea of eating an bread) and instead focuses on eating fiber (which we can artificially infuse into all sorts of things, including bread). This idea is referred to as nutritionism. The most striking problems that Pollan points out that proves nutriotionism is bad is that A.) we often wrongly identify those nutrients that are good for us and B.) that nutrients have different effects based on their combinations and relations to other foods. A perfect example of these negative ideas is how when we eat right, we get fatter. The push to replace fats with carbohydrates actually made America much fatter. In trying to improve nutrition though, scientists hit two big problems. The first is that focusing on nutrients is the only feasible way to analyze food. The second is that surveys that analyze consumption of food are usually not accurate due to extensive lying. Ultimately it comes down to this: either we keep our fingers crossed that natural selection adapts our bodies to this terrible diet or we strive to reduce meat consumption, increase plant consumption, and start eating real food.
The second article, by Kathy Preston, is essentially just a list of statistics about what would happen if everyone became a vegetarian for the day. Essentially everyone of the statistics points to one of two things: everyone as a vegetarian will conserve resources and decrease waste. In light of the fact that this is a statistics based article, I will highlight the three I found most impactful. First, if we all stopped eating meat, the grain that we saved could feed every person in the world with 3 pounds of grain per day (more than enough to survive). Second, that everyone turning vegetarian would save 70 million gallons of gas. Finally, greenhouse gas prevention would be equal to that of France's total pollution. These facts, and all of the others, are very powerful.
As I said in the beginning of this blog, the emotions these articles stirred up in me were very strong. They managed to insight questioning, shock, and even fear in me as I read them. The reason they were so powerful was because they applied to my everyday decisions. Every time I walk into the dining hall I am faced with the option to eat healthy or to eat unhealthy; I have usually picked the latter. At what cost does this come though? Essentially I have learned to take my diet much more seriously and to analyze everything I put into my body. Pollan's idea that we should eat food and not just "food like substances" is a very strong one. If you would have asked me a day ago if what I ate was food, I would have told you yes. Now though, I am no quite sure what I would say to such a question. The two articles combine to make me question whether or not I should be a vegetarian. Am I risking a short life or early medical complications if I do not?
In terms of relating this article to the big picture, it reminds me a lot of a film I watched over Christmas break called Supersize Me. This documentary follows a New York native around on his quest to eat McDonalds for thirty days straight. Three separate doctors examine him and evaluate his health throughout the experiment, giving him expert advice on what his body is being exposed to. When compared to Pollan and Freston's articles, it is clear that what he was eating was not food but instead was something that resembled food. His health showed it. By day 21 of his 30 day journey he was having heart palpitations and had to check himself into the emergency room. Obviously the average American does not consume this much that resembles food, but they are almost as guilty/at risk. The fact that we go to the stores and buy bread infused with various nutrients and meat that has been raised on preservative infused grain means that we are also at risk of medical complication. I think the fact that these articles and the film tie in so well together is an important connection to make when delving into the topic of nutrition.
In terms of application, I think the most important thing to note from both of articles is a topic raised in "Unhappy Meal". Some might say that our bodies as humans will ultimately adapt to this new nutritional system. Here's the problem though: we don't let survival of the fittest work its magic. Ideally (not in a sadistic way) those whose genes are not conducive to the US's current diet would die off and only those with favorable genes for surviving on those types of food would survive. The problem is that modern medicine has been charged with trying to extend everyone's life regardless of nutritional background. Consequently, I intend to imply all of this information to my life. Perhaps I will try and be a vegetarian for a day. There obviously will not be a dramatic reduction in pollution and hunger as a result of my vegetarian exploits, but there will be some good done: I will be healthier and hopefully people will follow my lead. The biggest thing that I intend to do is reduce my meat consumption across the board. I am a big time fan of giant meat proportions (steak, chicken, pork, you name it) but now I will be a lot more conscientious about the amounts I consume. Hopefully I will see health benefits as a result of this transition.
Questions -
Some of the Vegetarian statistics are not labeled with time periods. How long will the changes be in effect? For instance, how long could the excess fuel power cars?
Will there ever be a time somewhere far down the road where the health benefits of certain foods will be fully understood and thus utilized in our everyday lives.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Marriage, Sex, Abuse, and Parents
The readings for March 2nd encompassed a wide variety of topics, but the motif that spanned every one of them was love. The first encouraged getting back to the love of marriage, the second to the love of intimacy, the third to the love that combats abuse, and the fourth to the love that your parents have for you. The fusion of all of these articles has one key message: we need to work hard to develop and maintain healthy relationships that are infused with love. In order to outline three key points from the articles, I will summarize the articles on marriage, sex and parents. Consequently, I will highlight the main ideas from the abuse articles later in the blog.
The first article, entitle "What Makes a Marriage Work", was written by John Gottman who seems to have done research on the topic of marriage. Right off the bat, Gottman highlights several statistics in regards to failed marriages: 50% of first marriages fail, 60% of second marriages fail. Although these statistics are daunting, he provides hope for those who are willing to understand and work on their marriages. The first topic Gottman addresses is the misconceptions about what a healthy marriage should look like. "Validating. Couples compromise often and calmly work out their problems to mutual satisfaction as they arise," is the what the majority people think is needed for success. On the contrary, Gottman asserts, there are two other healthy couples that can succeed: volitale and conflict avoiding. Once this assertion is established, he continues on to highlight the four warning signs that a marriage is in trouble: criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stone-walling. In order to combat these, a couple must be calm, honest, and identify what they see to be healthy.
The second article, entitled "Lust for the Long Hall", analyzes the physicality of relationships. The author, Elizabeth Raeburn starts by talking about her own experience. Her and her husband were initially very lovey dovey: seizing every possible opportunity to make physical contact with each other. After a while though, this close physical intimacy faded and Raeburn began to question whether or not her marriage was failing. This idea launches the article into a discussion about physical intimacy: its misconceptions, its rewards, and how to make it work. The meat of the article is spent talking about how couples have a tendency to wrongly identify the reason for their intimacy problems. They blame it on a lack of physical desire, an abundance of stress, and other misguided reasons. In actuality, Raeburn asserts, successful physical intimacy is rooted in the holistic healthiness of a relationship. Couples must identify there problems, such as being too demanding or needy, before their bedroom life can flourish. The end result of achieving this is adulthood, maturity, and lifelong successful intimacy.
The third article, "Ten Count'em, Ten Uses for Parents", and it is essentially ten reasons why we need our parents. Instead of talking about all of the uses for parents, I am going to highlight my two favorites. First is number one: parents know you. The brief description of this use is very powerful. It talks about how their early exposure to every aspect of you means that parents know you better anyone else (spouses and best friends included). What it all boils down to is that "your parents came to know you before you started to hide your real self from the rest of the world." This fact is important because it means that whenever we need to look in the mirror, we can just go to our parents. My second favorite is number nine: parents are your critics. One realization that I came to in college was that the criticism I receive from my parents is the most painful and yet helpful criticism I ever get. The things that they tell me sting to the core sometimes, but I always know that they are right. The way I like to put it is that parents say everything that I fear internally...out loud.
All of these articles evoke feelings of understanding and excitement. The first two are a little over my head, seeing as I am not married or intimate with anyone, but I understand the general message. The last article is perfect: it highlights everything I have always thought about parents while reminding me to cherish them. The biggest thing that I gained from all of this came from the first article. It was very interesting for me to hear that there are several types of healthy relationships and that the normal conventions of marital success are not necessarily true. As a result of all of the information I learned in these readings, I intend to pursue a healthy marriage where honesty is the foundation, I intend to respect intimacy by understanding that it stems from other aspects of the relationship, and I intend to cherish/utilize my parents constantly.
In terms of the big picture, these topics tie in directly with the idea of constructing a good life for human flourishing. A solid marriage, healthy intimacy, and a good relationship with ones parents are all vital for personal success. What they provide is a foundation for the development of other relationships. The fact that your spouse and your parents are some of the closest people to you means that how you interact with them will dictate how you interact with others. Accordingly, one should build from the ground up: get your home life right and the rest will fall in line.
Applying all of this information to my own life should be pretty simple. All of the ideals put for the in these articles are very attainable. I would like to take a second to touch on the abuse articles now. One thing that I definitely intend to do after doing these readings is keep my eye out for domestic abuse. The "loveisnotabuse" website puts forth some accurate warning signs that prove domestic abuse is occuring. I will do my best to keep an eye out for these hints, especially when it comes to those close enough that I could accurately identify them (family and friends). Besides the domestic abuse stuff, I really intend to appreciate my parents more. Growing up, my relationship with them was extremely volitale. Now that I am older though, it should be easier to cherish, love and respect them. All the information that I got from each of these five articles should combine to increase my ability to love in healthy relationships.
Questions -
How did you come up with the one to five ratio for fighting and getting along in a marriage?
Is there anyone who is able to maintain touchy feely relationships for an entire marriage?
What is the best thing to do when domestic abuse is identified?
The first article, entitle "What Makes a Marriage Work", was written by John Gottman who seems to have done research on the topic of marriage. Right off the bat, Gottman highlights several statistics in regards to failed marriages: 50% of first marriages fail, 60% of second marriages fail. Although these statistics are daunting, he provides hope for those who are willing to understand and work on their marriages. The first topic Gottman addresses is the misconceptions about what a healthy marriage should look like. "Validating. Couples compromise often and calmly work out their problems to mutual satisfaction as they arise," is the what the majority people think is needed for success. On the contrary, Gottman asserts, there are two other healthy couples that can succeed: volitale and conflict avoiding. Once this assertion is established, he continues on to highlight the four warning signs that a marriage is in trouble: criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stone-walling. In order to combat these, a couple must be calm, honest, and identify what they see to be healthy.
The second article, entitled "Lust for the Long Hall", analyzes the physicality of relationships. The author, Elizabeth Raeburn starts by talking about her own experience. Her and her husband were initially very lovey dovey: seizing every possible opportunity to make physical contact with each other. After a while though, this close physical intimacy faded and Raeburn began to question whether or not her marriage was failing. This idea launches the article into a discussion about physical intimacy: its misconceptions, its rewards, and how to make it work. The meat of the article is spent talking about how couples have a tendency to wrongly identify the reason for their intimacy problems. They blame it on a lack of physical desire, an abundance of stress, and other misguided reasons. In actuality, Raeburn asserts, successful physical intimacy is rooted in the holistic healthiness of a relationship. Couples must identify there problems, such as being too demanding or needy, before their bedroom life can flourish. The end result of achieving this is adulthood, maturity, and lifelong successful intimacy.
The third article, "Ten Count'em, Ten Uses for Parents", and it is essentially ten reasons why we need our parents. Instead of talking about all of the uses for parents, I am going to highlight my two favorites. First is number one: parents know you. The brief description of this use is very powerful. It talks about how their early exposure to every aspect of you means that parents know you better anyone else (spouses and best friends included). What it all boils down to is that "your parents came to know you before you started to hide your real self from the rest of the world." This fact is important because it means that whenever we need to look in the mirror, we can just go to our parents. My second favorite is number nine: parents are your critics. One realization that I came to in college was that the criticism I receive from my parents is the most painful and yet helpful criticism I ever get. The things that they tell me sting to the core sometimes, but I always know that they are right. The way I like to put it is that parents say everything that I fear internally...out loud.
All of these articles evoke feelings of understanding and excitement. The first two are a little over my head, seeing as I am not married or intimate with anyone, but I understand the general message. The last article is perfect: it highlights everything I have always thought about parents while reminding me to cherish them. The biggest thing that I gained from all of this came from the first article. It was very interesting for me to hear that there are several types of healthy relationships and that the normal conventions of marital success are not necessarily true. As a result of all of the information I learned in these readings, I intend to pursue a healthy marriage where honesty is the foundation, I intend to respect intimacy by understanding that it stems from other aspects of the relationship, and I intend to cherish/utilize my parents constantly.
In terms of the big picture, these topics tie in directly with the idea of constructing a good life for human flourishing. A solid marriage, healthy intimacy, and a good relationship with ones parents are all vital for personal success. What they provide is a foundation for the development of other relationships. The fact that your spouse and your parents are some of the closest people to you means that how you interact with them will dictate how you interact with others. Accordingly, one should build from the ground up: get your home life right and the rest will fall in line.
Applying all of this information to my own life should be pretty simple. All of the ideals put for the in these articles are very attainable. I would like to take a second to touch on the abuse articles now. One thing that I definitely intend to do after doing these readings is keep my eye out for domestic abuse. The "loveisnotabuse" website puts forth some accurate warning signs that prove domestic abuse is occuring. I will do my best to keep an eye out for these hints, especially when it comes to those close enough that I could accurately identify them (family and friends). Besides the domestic abuse stuff, I really intend to appreciate my parents more. Growing up, my relationship with them was extremely volitale. Now that I am older though, it should be easier to cherish, love and respect them. All the information that I got from each of these five articles should combine to increase my ability to love in healthy relationships.
Questions -
How did you come up with the one to five ratio for fighting and getting along in a marriage?
Is there anyone who is able to maintain touchy feely relationships for an entire marriage?
What is the best thing to do when domestic abuse is identified?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)