In fact, every human has a natural bias, but some can control it better than others. Every human is hardwired with the instinct of prejudging, because back in uncivilized days, it assisted with survival. With the ability to prejudge, humans could identify threats more easily, enabling them to live longer lives. While we have become a civilized society and survival comes easy in America, humans nonetheless have this natural instinct to prejudge or "discriminate." This instinct is strong in me. Whenever I meet someone for the first time, I critically judge and place him or her into a stereotype. Of course, if I were to speak out my biased thoughts, I would be in trouble, so over time I have managed to acquire a filter. My first look at anyone, though, causes a bunch of prejudging thoughts to fill my head. Anyone reading this now probably thinks of me as a bad person, but I can't help it! I accept it, and I try to control it as much as possible.
A test that verified my prejudice was Project Implicit's Race IAT. The test pairs blacks with "good" words and whites with "bad" words, and then the pairs switch. It sends out a flurry of words and faces, and you have to choose which pair it belongs with. The results are calculated from any errors you make during matching. My results indicated that I have a strong preference for whites over blacks. The test did verify my strong natural bias, but I believe it is far from perfect. In my opinion, it's a pointless test. Everyone should know that all humans have a natural bias. And why test for something stupid like that anyway? Okay, I have a strong natural bias; now what? Should I waste my time and try to get rid of this instinct that's impossible to eradicate? Thus, we should all stop freaking out about being prejudice because it's a human instinct; it's okay to be as long as you don't openly express it towards others. Just keep the "don't judge a book by it's cover" moral in mind when you meet somebody, and you might be pleasantly surprised.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Thursday, January 12, 2012
The Origins of My Blog Title
The Search for John Galt... so who is John Galt?
It's a great question that can only be answered by reading the novel Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, the most important book I've ever read. Ayn Rand is not alive today, but her philosophy can be applied to every aspect of politics in present time; it's fascinating how she was able to do this. Atlas Shrugged was actually written in the fifties and takes place during that time. It's about two independent companies, Taggart Transcontinental and Rearden Steel, that are manipulated by the government, known as the Unification Board, in a recession, and as a result, the recession worsens. One of the driving forces of the Unification Board is James Taggart, brother of the CEO of Taggart Transcontinental. Taggart is a looter: a man who produces no thoughts of his own, feels to decide what is the best solution to a problem, and takes money and ideas from the men that use their minds to innovate and prosper. He is also a phony, pretending to be capable even though he truly is not. He feels pity for the struggling companies in the recession, and he hates the "dog-eat-dog" competition that Taggart Transcontinental and Rearden Steel are facilitating, so he tries in every way possible to hamper it. As a result, the CEOs of these companies, who are actually the chief stimulators of the economy, pick up and leave, leaving America to fend for themselves amid chaos. That is Atlas's shrug. As for John Galt, I will keep it a mystery unless you read the novel and find out for yourselves, and you'll see why my blog title includes "The Search for".
I believe that the novel is not just focused on economic conservative values, but it is also focused on how to think. The novel concentrates primarily on the importance of the mind. According to Rand, the mind is the most valuable tool for the individual, and the mind (reason) should be used rather than the heart (emotion) when reacting to outside forces. Instead of feeling to solve problems, the most successful people use their minds and logic to think to solve problems. The novel drove home this idea so effectively that I now follow and apply this philosophy to my life. Atlas Shrugged has forever changed my life for the better, and I believe it changes anybody that reads it.
It's a great question that can only be answered by reading the novel Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, the most important book I've ever read. Ayn Rand is not alive today, but her philosophy can be applied to every aspect of politics in present time; it's fascinating how she was able to do this. Atlas Shrugged was actually written in the fifties and takes place during that time. It's about two independent companies, Taggart Transcontinental and Rearden Steel, that are manipulated by the government, known as the Unification Board, in a recession, and as a result, the recession worsens. One of the driving forces of the Unification Board is James Taggart, brother of the CEO of Taggart Transcontinental. Taggart is a looter: a man who produces no thoughts of his own, feels to decide what is the best solution to a problem, and takes money and ideas from the men that use their minds to innovate and prosper. He is also a phony, pretending to be capable even though he truly is not. He feels pity for the struggling companies in the recession, and he hates the "dog-eat-dog" competition that Taggart Transcontinental and Rearden Steel are facilitating, so he tries in every way possible to hamper it. As a result, the CEOs of these companies, who are actually the chief stimulators of the economy, pick up and leave, leaving America to fend for themselves amid chaos. That is Atlas's shrug. As for John Galt, I will keep it a mystery unless you read the novel and find out for yourselves, and you'll see why my blog title includes "The Search for".
I believe that the novel is not just focused on economic conservative values, but it is also focused on how to think. The novel concentrates primarily on the importance of the mind. According to Rand, the mind is the most valuable tool for the individual, and the mind (reason) should be used rather than the heart (emotion) when reacting to outside forces. Instead of feeling to solve problems, the most successful people use their minds and logic to think to solve problems. The novel drove home this idea so effectively that I now follow and apply this philosophy to my life. Atlas Shrugged has forever changed my life for the better, and I believe it changes anybody that reads it.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
The Omnivore's Dilemma - 5
In the final part of his book, Pollan takes a major right turn in his subject matter: he makes "The Perfect Meal," a completely natural meal made from foods that he himself gathered. The first part of his book is industrial, focusing on the corn industry, the second part is pastoral, focusing on local farms and organic food industries, and this final part is a way to tie things together, a focus on personal eating. To make this meal, Pollan decides that he needs to gather at least one type of food from every edible animal kingdom, plants, animals, and fungi. Because of his inexperience with gathering, he is helped by several people. For plants, he grows his own vegetables, which was probably his easiest feat. For fungi, Pollan chooses the other side of the omnivore's dilemma and goes mushrooming with the intent to actually eat them this time. For him, the mushroom gathering is slightly harder than the vegetable growing, because he has to walk through muddy areas early in the morning, and the mushrooms are well-camoflauged. However, the most difficult part of the gathering for him is the meat. With a couple other experienced hunters, Pollan goes on two pig-hunting expeditions. The first time, he fails to shoot one, and the second time, he finally succeeds. Strangely enough, Pollan says, "The one emotion I expected to feel but did not, inexplicably, was remorse, or even ambivalence. All that would come later, but now, I'm slightly embarrassed to admit, I felt absolutely terrific—unambiguously happy" (353). It is rather interesting to hear that hunting, killing animals, can bring happiness to people. Before talking about his hunt, though, Pollan goes in depth about the ethics of eating animals and his vegetarianism.
Pollan delves deep into both sides of the argument. For the vegetarian argument, he refers to Peter Singer's book, titled Animal Liberation. Pollan writes, "'Equality is a moral idea,' Singer points out, 'not an assertion of fact.' The moral idea is that everyone's interests ought to receive equal consideration, regardless of 'what they are like or what abilities they have.' Fair enough; many philosophers have gone this far. But few have then taken the next logical step. 'If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit non-humans for the same purpose?' (307). Essentially, this assertion says that equality does not exist in reality, and if humans can't dominate one another with their intelligence, then humans can't dominate animals with their intelligence. Pollan also counters the "animals kill other animals too" argument by saying, "Do you really want to base your moral code on the natural order? Murder and rape are natural, too. Besides, we can choose: Humans don't need to kill other creatures in order to survive; carnivorous animals do" (310). On the other side of the argument, he admits, "Meat eating helped make us what we are in a physical as well as a social sense. Under the pressure of the hunt, anthropologists tell us, the human brain grew in size and complexity, and around the hearth where the spoils of the hunt were cooked and then apportioned, human culture first flourished. This isn't to say we can't or shouldn't transcend our inheritance, only that it is or inheritance; whatever else may be gained by giving up meat, this much at least is lost" (314). If we were to abandon meat-eating, the cultural, social, and physical benefits would be lost as well. So, to eat meat or not to eat meat?
There is so much more that goes into animal-eating philosophy, but personally, I can't see myself living a life without meat, not just because I need the extra calories (because I'm skinny). I was raised a meat eater, so whenever I see a simmering filet mignon, my mouth begins to water; I can't help it. At one point, I stopped eating red meat for two weeks to see if I could really do it, and I failed miserably. Even though the number of vegetarians in the world are rising today, I think that all humans will never evolve to live lives without meat. I understand the vegetarian argument and I believe it's valid, though I could never be one. However, what I don't understand are the people that are vegetarians because they don't want to support CAFOs. If you don't want to support the industrial food industry, you can still eat meat! Just buy meat locally, where the animals are grass-fed and probably "happier." Actually, that's what I do; my family owns a butchered half-cow. Not only is it cheaper per pound than grocery store meat, but it is grass fed too. Anyways...While people are beginning to understand vegetarians, I feel like the struggle between omnivores and vegetarians will never be resolved.
Overall, this book was an eye-opener. It is incredibly educational and worth the read. If you happen to be questioning the vegetarian argument, read this book!
Pollan delves deep into both sides of the argument. For the vegetarian argument, he refers to Peter Singer's book, titled Animal Liberation. Pollan writes, "'Equality is a moral idea,' Singer points out, 'not an assertion of fact.' The moral idea is that everyone's interests ought to receive equal consideration, regardless of 'what they are like or what abilities they have.' Fair enough; many philosophers have gone this far. But few have then taken the next logical step. 'If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit non-humans for the same purpose?' (307). Essentially, this assertion says that equality does not exist in reality, and if humans can't dominate one another with their intelligence, then humans can't dominate animals with their intelligence. Pollan also counters the "animals kill other animals too" argument by saying, "Do you really want to base your moral code on the natural order? Murder and rape are natural, too. Besides, we can choose: Humans don't need to kill other creatures in order to survive; carnivorous animals do" (310). On the other side of the argument, he admits, "Meat eating helped make us what we are in a physical as well as a social sense. Under the pressure of the hunt, anthropologists tell us, the human brain grew in size and complexity, and around the hearth where the spoils of the hunt were cooked and then apportioned, human culture first flourished. This isn't to say we can't or shouldn't transcend our inheritance, only that it is or inheritance; whatever else may be gained by giving up meat, this much at least is lost" (314). If we were to abandon meat-eating, the cultural, social, and physical benefits would be lost as well. So, to eat meat or not to eat meat?
There is so much more that goes into animal-eating philosophy, but personally, I can't see myself living a life without meat, not just because I need the extra calories (because I'm skinny). I was raised a meat eater, so whenever I see a simmering filet mignon, my mouth begins to water; I can't help it. At one point, I stopped eating red meat for two weeks to see if I could really do it, and I failed miserably. Even though the number of vegetarians in the world are rising today, I think that all humans will never evolve to live lives without meat. I understand the vegetarian argument and I believe it's valid, though I could never be one. However, what I don't understand are the people that are vegetarians because they don't want to support CAFOs. If you don't want to support the industrial food industry, you can still eat meat! Just buy meat locally, where the animals are grass-fed and probably "happier." Actually, that's what I do; my family owns a butchered half-cow. Not only is it cheaper per pound than grocery store meat, but it is grass fed too. Anyways...While people are beginning to understand vegetarians, I feel like the struggle between omnivores and vegetarians will never be resolved.
Overall, this book was an eye-opener. It is incredibly educational and worth the read. If you happen to be questioning the vegetarian argument, read this book!
Friday, January 6, 2012
The Omnivore's Dilemma - 4
Michael Pollan begins the third part of his novel by finally talking about the title of his book, the omnivore's dilemma, and the ethics of eating animals. So, what is the omnivore's dilemma anyways? Pollan explains this concept by telling a story about finding what looked like chanterelles (mushrooms) on a hike in Berkeley Hills. He brings them home with him, thinking that he would eventually boil them up and eat them, but he is hesitant. He refers to his field guide to verify that they are actually chanterelles and not poisonous. The field guide mentions that there are mushrooms that look like chanterelles but can actually kill you, suitably named "false chanterelles." These false chanterelles, it is written, have slightly thinner gills under the cap. Pollan responds, "These were relative terms; how could I tell if the gills I was looking at were thin or thick ones? Compared to what? My mother's mycophobic warnings rang in my ears" (286). Pollan's doubt about eating this mushroom is essentially the omnivore's dilemma. In the next chapter, he says, "The blessing of the omnivore is that he can eat a great many different things in nature. The curse of the omnivore is that when it comes to figuring out which of those things are safe to eat, he's pretty much on his own" (287). The question is: to eat, or not to eat? Humans have a wide variety of foods that we can choose to eat. Through historical trial and error (error being the death of humans), we humans have been able to differentiate what is okay to ingest and what is not. However, like Pollan's mushroom experience, not everyone can differentiate foods from poisons in the wilderness.
So, how does the omnivore's dilemma relate to today's food industry? Most people do not obtain their food from the wilderness, and all of the food we buy in the grocery store is clearly not poison, so it's not like we're in a life or death situation like the omivore's dilemma. Pollan modernizes the omnivore's dilemma by stating, "The omnivore's dilemma is replayed every time we decide whether or not to ingest a wild mushroom, but it also figures in our less primordial encounters with the putatively edible: when we're deliberating the nutritional claims on the boxes in the cereal aisle; when we're settling on a weight-loss regimen (low fat or low carb?); or deciding whether to sample McDonald's' newly reformulated chicken nugget; or weighing the costs and benefits of buying the organic strawberries over the conventional ones; or choosing to observe (or flout) kosher or halal rules; or determining whether or not it is ethically defensible to eat meat..." (289). Because modern Americans do not need to worry about poison in their food, they worry about the kind of nutrients that are in their foods instead. Should I have the double quarter pounder with cheese at McDonald's, or should I have a salad at Whole Foods? The nutrients that are within the double quarter pounder deem the food not as healthy as the salad, and anybody stuck in the dilemma would choose the salad. But anyone else that enjoys the taste of the burger more would choose it, regardless of its unhealthiness. Should the government be able to protect Americans from the unhealthiness by choosing the salad for them? In my opinion, no. Individuals, omnivores, in the land of freedom called America should be able to choose a side of the dilemma and face the consequences.
So, how does the omnivore's dilemma relate to today's food industry? Most people do not obtain their food from the wilderness, and all of the food we buy in the grocery store is clearly not poison, so it's not like we're in a life or death situation like the omivore's dilemma. Pollan modernizes the omnivore's dilemma by stating, "The omnivore's dilemma is replayed every time we decide whether or not to ingest a wild mushroom, but it also figures in our less primordial encounters with the putatively edible: when we're deliberating the nutritional claims on the boxes in the cereal aisle; when we're settling on a weight-loss regimen (low fat or low carb?); or deciding whether to sample McDonald's' newly reformulated chicken nugget; or weighing the costs and benefits of buying the organic strawberries over the conventional ones; or choosing to observe (or flout) kosher or halal rules; or determining whether or not it is ethically defensible to eat meat..." (289). Because modern Americans do not need to worry about poison in their food, they worry about the kind of nutrients that are in their foods instead. Should I have the double quarter pounder with cheese at McDonald's, or should I have a salad at Whole Foods? The nutrients that are within the double quarter pounder deem the food not as healthy as the salad, and anybody stuck in the dilemma would choose the salad. But anyone else that enjoys the taste of the burger more would choose it, regardless of its unhealthiness. Should the government be able to protect Americans from the unhealthiness by choosing the salad for them? In my opinion, no. Individuals, omnivores, in the land of freedom called America should be able to choose a side of the dilemma and face the consequences.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
The Videogames of Today
Technology seems to be improving exponentially. Two decades ago, cell phones did not even exist. Now, Apple has developed a cell phone that takes pictures, goes on the internet, utilizes skype (facetime), and has a robot that can respond to any voiced questions. It's absurd thinking about it. I believe this exponential growth in technological advances can be seen prominently in videogames. I remember ten years ago, the Nintendo 64 was the modern console. The games were in cartridges, and if they didn't work the first time, I would blow into them to eliminate any stray dust particles. If the console were hit during gameplay, the game would freeze. Back then, videogame graphics consisted of polygon figures and non-HD details. Today, graphics are scarily life-like. If the console is hit, the game won't freeze. Some consoles even have motion controls, which back then would be considered incredibly futuristic. For example, every movement you make with the Wii mote in The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword is what Link mimics with the sword in his hand. Like I said, it's absurd. However, there's one game in particular that I want to talk about that has blown my mind, and that game is called Skyrim.
Skyrim is a northern province of Tamriel, which is a parallel world to Earth. In-game, the province is around two MILES long. The game takes place in a somewhat medieval era of swords and bows, but added onto this is magic, goblins, trolls, orcs, human lizards, et cetera. This world is HUGE and seemingly endless. You can see every blade of grass on the ground, every shadow corresponding to the time of day, even dirt on a man's face. Speaking of which, there are hundreds and hundreds of people to talk to in the game, and more than half of them ask you to do something for them. You may walk up to this random man and he'll ask you to retrieve his stolen ring deep in a forbidden cave. There is lots of fighting (which is always entertaining) and an endless amount of fighting styles. You can choose to run into enemy territory swords a-blazing, or you can camp on top of a hill and snipe out the enemies with arrows to the head. Or, you can launch fireballs from your hand at enemies from a distance. The possibilities in this game are endless, and it's actually quite scary. At this rate of technological advancement, we're not far from virtual reality video games. Is this kind of technology headed in the wrong direction? Are video games becoming too real? We'll find out eventually.
Skyrim is a northern province of Tamriel, which is a parallel world to Earth. In-game, the province is around two MILES long. The game takes place in a somewhat medieval era of swords and bows, but added onto this is magic, goblins, trolls, orcs, human lizards, et cetera. This world is HUGE and seemingly endless. You can see every blade of grass on the ground, every shadow corresponding to the time of day, even dirt on a man's face. Speaking of which, there are hundreds and hundreds of people to talk to in the game, and more than half of them ask you to do something for them. You may walk up to this random man and he'll ask you to retrieve his stolen ring deep in a forbidden cave. There is lots of fighting (which is always entertaining) and an endless amount of fighting styles. You can choose to run into enemy territory swords a-blazing, or you can camp on top of a hill and snipe out the enemies with arrows to the head. Or, you can launch fireballs from your hand at enemies from a distance. The possibilities in this game are endless, and it's actually quite scary. At this rate of technological advancement, we're not far from virtual reality video games. Is this kind of technology headed in the wrong direction? Are video games becoming too real? We'll find out eventually.
Personal Gardens
After I graduate from high school, my family will move up to their property in Northern Wisconsin while I go off to college (hopefully UW Madison). While they're there, my mom plans to start up a backyard garden, a true, hardcore, versatile garden. In my old home, my mom had a garden in the front yard, but it was a beginner's; she only grew simple stuff like lettuce, tomatoes, basil, and onions. Being an excellent cook already, having home-grown vegetables and spices made her meals that much better. You would never expect home-grown crops to taste any different from store-bought ones, but they really do. Comparing store-bought tomatoes to our home-grown ones, I noticed that our tomato had a fuller red color; not only that, there was more flavor in our tomato. So, why is there a difference? Well, store-bought vegetables, if not organic, are grown with pesticides, and all vegetables are shipped halfway across the country to grocery stores, deeming them not as fresh as backyard vegetables. Backyard vegetables are also treated with personal care rather than with machines.
I highly suggest starting up your own backyard vegetable garden; it is definitely worth the time, money, and effort. When you eat your own vegetables, you know exactly where they come from. It is a great feeling, not just because you know what you're eating, but also because you know that they are your vegetables and they are the product of your effort. Vegetable gardens are also a way to have less dependence on grocery stores. No more eating fruits and vegetables that you don't know the origins of, no more unknown pesticides, no more doubt. And, if disaster ever strikes, vegetable gardens allow for self-sufficient living. The benefits of gardens highly outweigh the detriments, so why not pick up that trowel and plant?
I highly suggest starting up your own backyard vegetable garden; it is definitely worth the time, money, and effort. When you eat your own vegetables, you know exactly where they come from. It is a great feeling, not just because you know what you're eating, but also because you know that they are your vegetables and they are the product of your effort. Vegetable gardens are also a way to have less dependence on grocery stores. No more eating fruits and vegetables that you don't know the origins of, no more unknown pesticides, no more doubt. And, if disaster ever strikes, vegetable gardens allow for self-sufficient living. The benefits of gardens highly outweigh the detriments, so why not pick up that trowel and plant?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)