With my little sister entering into high school next year, I am confronted again with the idea that the public schools of America might be under-rigorous. I realized that it is possible that a person could go to school and only take three years of math; basic math, algebra, and geometry. In science, a kid could take FOS (a comprehensive and extremely basic overview of earth, energy, and matter sciences), biology, and only one other class of science. Even though math and science may not be the forte of every single person, every student should have to take four years of every subject (even a foreign language).
Seniors get senioritis and take two classes their senior year. Freshmen in my high school fail out of FOS. Most people are heading off to a community college with extremely vague goals in mind for their future. This is not a pretty picture of part of the American educational system.
However, Americans do excel in creativity and individual thinking, a product of our less militaristic curriculum. But if kids were exposed to math and science in more depth, it is possible that there would be more interest in the subject, especially if they didn't seem so forbidden. The person who takes an enormous number of science and math classes that are advanced or at the college level is immediately given a prestigious place of brilliance in the smart-hierarchy of the collective teenage brain. However, the person who excels at language arts is less noticed and possibly thought of as weird or artsy. By keeping the langauge arts and social studies curriculum the same and widening the science and math curriculum, the schools of America could have a better chance at inspiring their students to do something better with their lives.
Another area of this system that desperately needs to be changed is the area of foreign language. At least at my school, foreign language isn't even required, allowing people who may have undiscovered talents to slip through the cracks. In addition, the language curriculum is enormously easy. In a third year French class, you would be hard-pressed to find a student who could understand the language as it is spoken.
America needs to change this system. It's inescapable and true, but when the shift does occur, no other system should be taken as a model. When the Founding Fathers built the Constitution of our nation, they took ideas from other sources but subsequently combined them into something more brilliant than anyone had ever imagined.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Is This What It's Come To?
Researchers have found that mice that lack a certain protein in their body that responds to the hunger hormone ghrelin burn fat faster than mice with the protein and hope to apply this idea to humans (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/67610/title/Mice_missing_protein_burn_more_fat). I read this article, and instead of becoming awestruck, I was horrified.
Do we really need to alter our genome in order to make us immune to fatness?
For centuries, we've played with Nature, trying to alter it, moving organisms from one end of the world to the other, changing organisms, but humans don't seem to realize what a dangerous game they're playing. From the usage of antibiotics, which are admittedly a good thing, we have gained a plethora of antibiotic-resistant bugs, able to make us sicker than ever. By playing with the genes of our food crops, we managed to ensare ourselves in our own legal trap of greediness. We've destroyed so many ecological systems in our quest to dominate this world. And now, after thousands of years of hard labor and tight food, we have become decidely pudgy in the Western world. While people starve in third world countries, many people have enough to eat here in America. But in order to combat this horibble disease of heftiness, we are actually thinking about gene alteration? Inconceivable.
Scientists estimate that this gene alteration may be equivalent to 2.5 miles of walking, without walking! Strange as it may sound, it probably does work, if researchers can find the same mechanisms in humans. The problem is, however, that 2.5 miles a day is good for more than just your waistline; exercise maintains and builds muscle mass as well as providing the needed pressure for your bones. Nothing comes without hard work, even an attractive physique.
As children, teachers and parents told us to beware of the offers and ideas that seemed to be too good to be true. As we grew older, it became apparent that life was unfair, and all good things come usually after hard work. With the alteration of a gene, a person could be manufactured thin, but at what cost? We don't know all the exact mechanisms of the human body, much less the genome, and should probably be very careful before beginning to meddle with it. I am not suggesting that the alteration of genes is an inherently evil practice or should be thrown away, but I am saying that maybe we should be cautious and think before we go trying to do good where good is already there.
Do we really need to alter our genome in order to make us immune to fatness?
For centuries, we've played with Nature, trying to alter it, moving organisms from one end of the world to the other, changing organisms, but humans don't seem to realize what a dangerous game they're playing. From the usage of antibiotics, which are admittedly a good thing, we have gained a plethora of antibiotic-resistant bugs, able to make us sicker than ever. By playing with the genes of our food crops, we managed to ensare ourselves in our own legal trap of greediness. We've destroyed so many ecological systems in our quest to dominate this world. And now, after thousands of years of hard labor and tight food, we have become decidely pudgy in the Western world. While people starve in third world countries, many people have enough to eat here in America. But in order to combat this horibble disease of heftiness, we are actually thinking about gene alteration? Inconceivable.
Scientists estimate that this gene alteration may be equivalent to 2.5 miles of walking, without walking! Strange as it may sound, it probably does work, if researchers can find the same mechanisms in humans. The problem is, however, that 2.5 miles a day is good for more than just your waistline; exercise maintains and builds muscle mass as well as providing the needed pressure for your bones. Nothing comes without hard work, even an attractive physique.
As children, teachers and parents told us to beware of the offers and ideas that seemed to be too good to be true. As we grew older, it became apparent that life was unfair, and all good things come usually after hard work. With the alteration of a gene, a person could be manufactured thin, but at what cost? We don't know all the exact mechanisms of the human body, much less the genome, and should probably be very careful before beginning to meddle with it. I am not suggesting that the alteration of genes is an inherently evil practice or should be thrown away, but I am saying that maybe we should be cautious and think before we go trying to do good where good is already there.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Of the Mice that Saved Men
My AP Biology textbook is full of detailed explanations of important experiments that I must memorize, but I soon realized that nobody cares about the mouse. Biologists use this little varmint all the time in experiments, much to the dismay of PETA. One experiment comes up particularily in my mind; Griffin's experiment on bacterial transformation. In this groundbreaking procedure, Griffin used the pneumonia bacteria on mice, and many mice died. But from this experiment, so many lives have been saved. Now, scientists can use bacteria to harvest insulin and help diabetics live normal lives. This video shows PETA's stance on experimentation on rats and mice.
However wrong this practice is, we cannot, as one commentor so intelligently put it "expiroment with yourself" as scientists. In order to save lives, human lives, scientists have to choose. In addition, scietists also cannot "expiroment with prisoners, people from jail, where those so called "scientist" should be" because those people are human.
Amid this debate is the idea that a human life is worth more than an animal one. I have 3 beautiful, wonderful, lovely dogs, who I love to death. If there was a fire in my house and I could save either one dog or my mother, I obviously would choose my mother. If it was between a dog and another person who I didn't even know, I would choose the person every time, no matter if the person was the worst person alive. Why? Because human life is something beyond the animal. The moment we were given a soul, the moment we knew ourselves and the high "Moral Law", we became more important than animals. I don't say this out of pride of my humanity. What is there to be proud of? We managed to overpopulate the Earth, make ourselves fat, and allow our selfish impulses to rule our lives. And yet, there is some consciousness of having been chosen, some intangible feeling of innate superiority that we can sense.
Experimenting on animals is not right, and an alternative should be sought. HOWEVER, as long as that option is our only option, scientists should be allowed to continue experimenting on the mice and rats for lifesaving technologies. Now, companies shouldn't be allowed to keep animals to test shampoo and other things on, but in the name of life, this option looks better.
Griffin's mice died a sickly death of pneumonia, but in the end, they have saved thousands, possibly millions of people. If Griffin hadn't been allowed to experiment on the mice, we would still be trying to harvest second-grade insulin from slaughtered livestock and telling people that there simply isn't enough for them.
However wrong this practice is, we cannot, as one commentor so intelligently put it "expiroment with yourself" as scientists. In order to save lives, human lives, scientists have to choose. In addition, scietists also cannot "expiroment with prisoners, people from jail, where those so called "scientist" should be" because those people are human.
Amid this debate is the idea that a human life is worth more than an animal one. I have 3 beautiful, wonderful, lovely dogs, who I love to death. If there was a fire in my house and I could save either one dog or my mother, I obviously would choose my mother. If it was between a dog and another person who I didn't even know, I would choose the person every time, no matter if the person was the worst person alive. Why? Because human life is something beyond the animal. The moment we were given a soul, the moment we knew ourselves and the high "Moral Law", we became more important than animals. I don't say this out of pride of my humanity. What is there to be proud of? We managed to overpopulate the Earth, make ourselves fat, and allow our selfish impulses to rule our lives. And yet, there is some consciousness of having been chosen, some intangible feeling of innate superiority that we can sense.
Experimenting on animals is not right, and an alternative should be sought. HOWEVER, as long as that option is our only option, scientists should be allowed to continue experimenting on the mice and rats for lifesaving technologies. Now, companies shouldn't be allowed to keep animals to test shampoo and other things on, but in the name of life, this option looks better.
Griffin's mice died a sickly death of pneumonia, but in the end, they have saved thousands, possibly millions of people. If Griffin hadn't been allowed to experiment on the mice, we would still be trying to harvest second-grade insulin from slaughtered livestock and telling people that there simply isn't enough for them.
Mental Enhancement Is Code for Rebellion
This paper describes mental enhancement as containing the drugs I've been lectured against since elementary school. It seems to imply that some people believe these illegal substances (that are illegal for a reason) actually increase mental faculty and benefit the person.
Slam... slam... slam...
That was my head, against my desk.
Alcohol, PCP, shrooms... they all do something bad to your body. Now, not having a druggie connection, I can't tell you first hand or second hand what these things do to you. Taking shrooms (which is short for mushrooms, which I did not know) for an example of a hallucogin, I Googled "benefits of shrooms" and stumbled across The Invisible Landscape as an example of someone who supposedly believes these things are good. And now I'm scared that these people do actually exist.
Obviously, drugs are a bad thing. Why? As a form of mental enhancement, they do an awful job at making you actually smarter. After reflecting on my innate mental capacity due to my lack of shroom-ness, I realized that I too have an equivalent mental enhancer. Although it does seem to be less effective, I like to believe that someday, I might develop just as much as the people who use hallucogins. SCHOOL.
However, I don't believe that the paper meant to encourage the use of such substances, but rather to merely state that some people believe that they make you more creative. People who say this sort of thing are obviously trying to justify doing what every cell of their body screams against. Hence, rebellion is shrouded by the mysticism of MENTAL ENHANCEMENT.
Slam... slam... slam...
That was my head, against my desk.
Alcohol, PCP, shrooms... they all do something bad to your body. Now, not having a druggie connection, I can't tell you first hand or second hand what these things do to you. Taking shrooms (which is short for mushrooms, which I did not know) for an example of a hallucogin, I Googled "benefits of shrooms" and stumbled across The Invisible Landscape as an example of someone who supposedly believes these things are good. And now I'm scared that these people do actually exist.
Obviously, drugs are a bad thing. Why? As a form of mental enhancement, they do an awful job at making you actually smarter. After reflecting on my innate mental capacity due to my lack of shroom-ness, I realized that I too have an equivalent mental enhancer. Although it does seem to be less effective, I like to believe that someday, I might develop just as much as the people who use hallucogins. SCHOOL.
However, I don't believe that the paper meant to encourage the use of such substances, but rather to merely state that some people believe that they make you more creative. People who say this sort of thing are obviously trying to justify doing what every cell of their body screams against. Hence, rebellion is shrouded by the mysticism of MENTAL ENHANCEMENT.
No, I Can't Talk Right Now, I'm Charging My Cell Phone in My Head.
I was reading this report by a professional looking group of people that discuss the ethics of human enhancements. Whoever wrote this was extremely intelligent, because they keep citing studies (however vaguely) from places such as MIT. In the beginning section, they answer questions about human enhancement, and I was particularily interested in the "future" sections of them. Until I read that in the future humans will have neural implants in our brains that allow us to plug devices right into our heads.
Doesn't that seem a bit inconvenient?
To me, at least, it seems as though a normal, functioning human being wouldn't want to have a plug in their skull. Of course, scientists are still studying this area for therapeutic applications, but not so that I can charge my phone up by the power of my neural activity! While reading the section on page 15, I was reminded of the Borg, from Star Trek. They had implants in them, and they used them to connect to each other AND they plugged themselves in to sleep. (I remember this specifically because one of the episodes -- or movies, I can't remember -- had them adventurous crew try and defeat the Borg by jamming their signals and telling them to sleep. Then, for some unknown reason, the giant cube exploded.) It's one thing to change other organisms, but that kind of change in humans is a whole uncharted sector.
Most of this paper deals with the possible outcomes if people start upgrading themselves. When the phrase "enhancement divide" came onto my screen, I couldn't help but think of the movie Robots, where the pressure to upgrade was enormous. But if you think about it, those kinds of upgrades were mostly aesthetic, not meant for some higher purpose. Humans are shallow. If we are going to spend the money on changing our selves, most of us will make ourselves look better, not have a video game in our head (honest, they said it... page 15). We probably should worry about what new extremes we'll try to make ourselves look good instead of the ethics of implanting computer chips in our brain.
This organization seems legitamite, however. Its contacts are two professors at state univerisities. Bioethics is a sticky issue, dealing with the future and the present, while trying to convince the public not be scared of the new technologies. Going into medical research myself, I find that these areas are important to consider, especially with the rate that science moves today.
Doesn't that seem a bit inconvenient?
To me, at least, it seems as though a normal, functioning human being wouldn't want to have a plug in their skull. Of course, scientists are still studying this area for therapeutic applications, but not so that I can charge my phone up by the power of my neural activity! While reading the section on page 15, I was reminded of the Borg, from Star Trek. They had implants in them, and they used them to connect to each other AND they plugged themselves in to sleep. (I remember this specifically because one of the episodes -- or movies, I can't remember -- had them adventurous crew try and defeat the Borg by jamming their signals and telling them to sleep. Then, for some unknown reason, the giant cube exploded.) It's one thing to change other organisms, but that kind of change in humans is a whole uncharted sector.
Most of this paper deals with the possible outcomes if people start upgrading themselves. When the phrase "enhancement divide" came onto my screen, I couldn't help but think of the movie Robots, where the pressure to upgrade was enormous. But if you think about it, those kinds of upgrades were mostly aesthetic, not meant for some higher purpose. Humans are shallow. If we are going to spend the money on changing our selves, most of us will make ourselves look better, not have a video game in our head (honest, they said it... page 15). We probably should worry about what new extremes we'll try to make ourselves look good instead of the ethics of implanting computer chips in our brain.
This organization seems legitamite, however. Its contacts are two professors at state univerisities. Bioethics is a sticky issue, dealing with the future and the present, while trying to convince the public not be scared of the new technologies. Going into medical research myself, I find that these areas are important to consider, especially with the rate that science moves today.
Humans of the Future
There is no reason why humans should have survived the food chain, other than to be toothpicks for a bear or a lion. We don't have claws, particularily sharp teeth, or any sort of protective body armor. We are, quite wholly, soft and squishy bags of breakableness. And yet, humans have proliferized to such an extent that our population has begun, and in some cases has, outgrown the available resources. My three couch-dwelling dogs are better equipped to survive than I am, but somehow, they look to me to feed them and open doors. I believe that the survival of humans is a product of our sentient nature and our applied capacity for intelligence. This capacity that obviously exceeds any other life form is not of our doing and is not something to take pride in. But still, humans have developed technologies that allow them to change the very basis of life. That's an accomplishment all of its own.
But if you ask most people, they could come up with something they'd like to change about themselves. Taller. Blonde hair. Straight teeth. The ability to shoot lasers out of your palms. Some people go and have plastic surgery and other just simply wish. There are two main ways that human enhancement is possible in today. The first is physical alteration that affects that individual, not their offspring. The second is the genetic engineering of embryos. Of the physical alteration, there are three main areas that enhancement focuses on\\
1) Therapeutic enhancement- Therapeutic enhancement focuses on curing diseases, the prevention of diseases, and the repair of the body from an accident or a disease. This is most likely the least debatable of the three types, simply because every human should have the right to lead a normal , relatively healthy life. Enhancements in this category include vaccinations and specific medical procedures that go beyond Nature but are necessary to maintain that person's quality of life.
2) Physical Performance Enhancement- Every person in America is most likely aware of the usage of steroids in athletics. Steroids increase muscle mass and help an athlete run harder, faster, and longer. Unfortunately, the side effects of such drugs can effect the sexual reproduction and health of the person who takes them, male or female. Physical performance enhancement can also be seen in the attatchment of prostetic limbs, although this specific instance is more therapeutic than it is strictly enhancing. Enhancement should probably be defined in the sense of the change of a perfectly normal or acceptable person with no reason related to medicine or health, sometimes in direct contrast to good health. Many other "futuristic" technologies can be lumped into this category. Physical performance is the broadest, and possibly the most debated of the three categories.
3) Mental Enhancement- It's common in college for students who pursue the highest grades to take a drug called Ritalin, which allows the person to be able to focus easily. Scientists rank drugs that cause hallucogins and changed perception (illegal drugs and alcohol) in this category. Although I can't see their inherent enhancement ability, my school paper ran a hallucogin story where a person (who surprisingly chose to remain unnamed) said that using these kinds of drugs allows him to relax and explore. He also seemed to imply that these drugs helped him reach some higher level of creativeness or thinking without leaving any bad effects. There is a reason why scientists around the country are unanimously against usage of these drugs, and it isn't because the Man is trying to crush the free spirit of the younger generation.
Should we be changing ourselves to this degree? Every time I get a flu shot, I change my immune system, and every time another teenager gets braces, they change their natural structure. The debate isn't about these things, however; the arguments center around hypothesized advancements and current technologies that seem altogether frightening and exhilarating at the same time.
But if you ask most people, they could come up with something they'd like to change about themselves. Taller. Blonde hair. Straight teeth. The ability to shoot lasers out of your palms. Some people go and have plastic surgery and other just simply wish. There are two main ways that human enhancement is possible in today. The first is physical alteration that affects that individual, not their offspring. The second is the genetic engineering of embryos. Of the physical alteration, there are three main areas that enhancement focuses on\\
1) Therapeutic enhancement- Therapeutic enhancement focuses on curing diseases, the prevention of diseases, and the repair of the body from an accident or a disease. This is most likely the least debatable of the three types, simply because every human should have the right to lead a normal , relatively healthy life. Enhancements in this category include vaccinations and specific medical procedures that go beyond Nature but are necessary to maintain that person's quality of life.
2) Physical Performance Enhancement- Every person in America is most likely aware of the usage of steroids in athletics. Steroids increase muscle mass and help an athlete run harder, faster, and longer. Unfortunately, the side effects of such drugs can effect the sexual reproduction and health of the person who takes them, male or female. Physical performance enhancement can also be seen in the attatchment of prostetic limbs, although this specific instance is more therapeutic than it is strictly enhancing. Enhancement should probably be defined in the sense of the change of a perfectly normal or acceptable person with no reason related to medicine or health, sometimes in direct contrast to good health. Many other "futuristic" technologies can be lumped into this category. Physical performance is the broadest, and possibly the most debated of the three categories.
3) Mental Enhancement- It's common in college for students who pursue the highest grades to take a drug called Ritalin, which allows the person to be able to focus easily. Scientists rank drugs that cause hallucogins and changed perception (illegal drugs and alcohol) in this category. Although I can't see their inherent enhancement ability, my school paper ran a hallucogin story where a person (who surprisingly chose to remain unnamed) said that using these kinds of drugs allows him to relax and explore. He also seemed to imply that these drugs helped him reach some higher level of creativeness or thinking without leaving any bad effects. There is a reason why scientists around the country are unanimously against usage of these drugs, and it isn't because the Man is trying to crush the free spirit of the younger generation.
Should we be changing ourselves to this degree? Every time I get a flu shot, I change my immune system, and every time another teenager gets braces, they change their natural structure. The debate isn't about these things, however; the arguments center around hypothesized advancements and current technologies that seem altogether frightening and exhilarating at the same time.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Food and Genetics
In this day and age, when people want to argue about science, they argue mostly about ethics. Is it ethical to terminate the growth of embryos in order to use their stem cells to help others? Is it ethical to ignore embryonic stem cells and the cures they may open up to us? Is it ethical to test on animals? What age should people be allowed to have genetic testing? How much genetic testing is too much?
But food is a different story. People have to eat. There's simply no way around that issue. In order to increase efficiency in producing crops, scientists change the genes of the plants. Using disabled viruses, scientists inject a small piece of DNA with sticky ends into the plant cell. This DNA travels to the nucleus and inserts itself into the genome of the plant. This gene could be anything from Roundup resistence to drought or virus resistence.
Santa Clara University Bioethics
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court decision has allowed companies to patent this technology AND specific genes, ensuring that no other company can manufactur their product at all. This also gives the company the right to sue farmers who keep the seed instead of buying new seed the next year. The most well-known of this case would be Monsanto's Roundup resistant soybean, as seen in the documentary Food, Inc. Science is encouraging the coporate takeover in agriculture, leaving smaller farmers to bow to the companies' wishes or be put out of work. This is not a new trend; at the turn of the twentieth century, farmers were increasingly going bankrupt because of the bad economy and the new technology needed to produce as much as the corporations and trusts could. But genetic engineering has highlighted the problem again.
Because the world's population is so enormous, humans must find more creative ways to come up with resources, otherwise the entire human population will be subject to Malthus's population laws. "Miracle seeds", used in India, China, and other developing countries, were thought to have been a large part of the answer, but miracles come at an enormous cost. Nothing is free, and these miracle seeds, resistent to viruses and able to produce more, have changed agriculture to such a degree all over the world that scientists dominate the growing of food.
Genetic engineering in food crops is not to blame for the ethical issues raised in its wake, just as the science behind the atomic bomb was not what caused the deaths in Japan in 1945. The people who are using the science, twisting it to their own ends, are the ones that need to be monitored and regulated. In relation to politics and economics, business people sometimes take the science out of context, trying to find ways to exploit the discipline. In the case of Monsanto, the practice of the modification of the genetic makeup of the soybean would help the farmer, but the monopoly Monsanto holds on the market of that specific gene has injured agriculture as a whole.
But food is a different story. People have to eat. There's simply no way around that issue. In order to increase efficiency in producing crops, scientists change the genes of the plants. Using disabled viruses, scientists inject a small piece of DNA with sticky ends into the plant cell. This DNA travels to the nucleus and inserts itself into the genome of the plant. This gene could be anything from Roundup resistence to drought or virus resistence.
Santa Clara University Bioethics
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court decision has allowed companies to patent this technology AND specific genes, ensuring that no other company can manufactur their product at all. This also gives the company the right to sue farmers who keep the seed instead of buying new seed the next year. The most well-known of this case would be Monsanto's Roundup resistant soybean, as seen in the documentary Food, Inc. Science is encouraging the coporate takeover in agriculture, leaving smaller farmers to bow to the companies' wishes or be put out of work. This is not a new trend; at the turn of the twentieth century, farmers were increasingly going bankrupt because of the bad economy and the new technology needed to produce as much as the corporations and trusts could. But genetic engineering has highlighted the problem again.
Because the world's population is so enormous, humans must find more creative ways to come up with resources, otherwise the entire human population will be subject to Malthus's population laws. "Miracle seeds", used in India, China, and other developing countries, were thought to have been a large part of the answer, but miracles come at an enormous cost. Nothing is free, and these miracle seeds, resistent to viruses and able to produce more, have changed agriculture to such a degree all over the world that scientists dominate the growing of food.
Genetic engineering in food crops is not to blame for the ethical issues raised in its wake, just as the science behind the atomic bomb was not what caused the deaths in Japan in 1945. The people who are using the science, twisting it to their own ends, are the ones that need to be monitored and regulated. In relation to politics and economics, business people sometimes take the science out of context, trying to find ways to exploit the discipline. In the case of Monsanto, the practice of the modification of the genetic makeup of the soybean would help the farmer, but the monopoly Monsanto holds on the market of that specific gene has injured agriculture as a whole.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
The Big Mac Plague
I began to think about why Americans are becoming increasingly overweight, trying to figure out what, if anything makes us so much worse than the rest of the world. Unfortunately, I do not think that the world can blame Americans as a group for getting fat; through the expansion of the fast food industry, it can be seen that Americans' weight issues should not be labelled as Americans'. Humanity as a whole would eat until they could hold no more and do nothing, if they could.
Businesses move where there is a market. That is basic and simple economics. So why, if populations such as the Chinese are so against the American-based food industry, do they provide a market? Many times it has been said that Americans are imposing their food on the world, and their weight problems as well, but that simply isn't possible. If Americans were the only group who liked fast food, then here it would stay. But it hasn't; fast food is a global phenomenon that people can't seem to resist.
Fast food is cheap and accessible. In countries such as China, where many people are poor, fast food could give them access to food. However, if this were a valid argument, a person would have to realize that China's poor is not in an urban setting where all the McDonald's are. China's poor labor in the rice paddies, scrape by in the countryside for the most part.
If someone wanted to make a change with fast food, the only feasible way to do it would be consumer education. Let them know exactly what is - and isn't - in that Big Mac. Show them healthier options. But before American do-gooders go trapising across the globe, they should start in their own nation, where people think that if they have some salad with their Big Mac or chili, it's all good.
Businesses move where there is a market. That is basic and simple economics. So why, if populations such as the Chinese are so against the American-based food industry, do they provide a market? Many times it has been said that Americans are imposing their food on the world, and their weight problems as well, but that simply isn't possible. If Americans were the only group who liked fast food, then here it would stay. But it hasn't; fast food is a global phenomenon that people can't seem to resist.
Fast food is cheap and accessible. In countries such as China, where many people are poor, fast food could give them access to food. However, if this were a valid argument, a person would have to realize that China's poor is not in an urban setting where all the McDonald's are. China's poor labor in the rice paddies, scrape by in the countryside for the most part.
If someone wanted to make a change with fast food, the only feasible way to do it would be consumer education. Let them know exactly what is - and isn't - in that Big Mac. Show them healthier options. But before American do-gooders go trapising across the globe, they should start in their own nation, where people think that if they have some salad with their Big Mac or chili, it's all good.
I AM OMNIVORE
Americans are fat. There is no way around it. Being fat is not something that puts us lower on the scale of goodness and virtue, but it certainly is annoying to see another country (France) eat things higher in fat (whole milk, cheese, and white bread). Maybe our problem isn't that we like hamburgers and fries, but that we eat too much.
In 2007-2008, the WHO (World Health Organization) found that 68.0% of their 55,000 sample size of the American population was overweight, compared to 49% in France. French people eat things that Americans would shy away from. Baguettes, made of white flour instead of whole wheat. Cheese with no added calcium. Whole milk! What is this world coming to?
If we were to take a survey of the American diet, we might find that a semi-typical American drinks coffee for breakfast. Maybe this average American has cereal or a heat-up Jimmy Dean sandwich to go along with his coffee. Maybe he picks up something from McDonald's or Burger King or Panara. Depending on where this theoretical man goes to work or school, lunch could be anything from a burrito to pizza to an entire meal. Common lunches at my school are 2 slices of Pizza Hut original crust pizza, Powerade Zero, and an imitation of cookie dough. I can't speculate as to what the common American dinner might be because many people do not have a family meal every night. But in my family, my mother cooks every night.
We obviously want to try and get away from the road we're on, but copying the French diet (or any other kind of diet for that matter) isn't going to cut it. Americans aren't French. French aren't Americans. We have different views on everything political, social, and most importantly, nutritional. They see things like baguettes and blue cheese as a tradition, their breakfasts are bread, Nutella, jam, and coffee. A traditional American breakfast is eggs and bacon, orange juice, and toast with coffee. Not all of us eat this way every day, but it's an example of how much we differ.
Instead of trying to become French or Greek or Italian or Indian in our cuisine, what would happen if we tried to be American? Not American like McDonald's American, but the American that blends family tradition with things like scrambled eggs. A balanced American diet, veggies and all, can be established. We don't all need to be vegetarian or vegan, but we shouldn't be carnivores either. If you were to look in any biology textbook, you could find humans classified under "omnivores". Not "herbivores" or "carnivores" but omnivores. All this debate about whether it's healthy to eat meat or not could be ended in one way. Think of you legendary great-great-great-great grandmother. The one who was living in the early to mid-nineteenth century. What if she was a pioneer? Would you go tell her that she shouldn't eat that deer her husband just shot because it had too much protein and saturated fats? Of course not! Many times, meat was what sustained these people, and it can sustain us now. Obviously, some people have taken the idea with more zeal than others, but a balanced diet can include meat, just not in excess.
In 2007-2008, the WHO (World Health Organization) found that 68.0% of their 55,000 sample size of the American population was overweight, compared to 49% in France. French people eat things that Americans would shy away from. Baguettes, made of white flour instead of whole wheat. Cheese with no added calcium. Whole milk! What is this world coming to?
If we were to take a survey of the American diet, we might find that a semi-typical American drinks coffee for breakfast. Maybe this average American has cereal or a heat-up Jimmy Dean sandwich to go along with his coffee. Maybe he picks up something from McDonald's or Burger King or Panara. Depending on where this theoretical man goes to work or school, lunch could be anything from a burrito to pizza to an entire meal. Common lunches at my school are 2 slices of Pizza Hut original crust pizza, Powerade Zero, and an imitation of cookie dough. I can't speculate as to what the common American dinner might be because many people do not have a family meal every night. But in my family, my mother cooks every night.
We obviously want to try and get away from the road we're on, but copying the French diet (or any other kind of diet for that matter) isn't going to cut it. Americans aren't French. French aren't Americans. We have different views on everything political, social, and most importantly, nutritional. They see things like baguettes and blue cheese as a tradition, their breakfasts are bread, Nutella, jam, and coffee. A traditional American breakfast is eggs and bacon, orange juice, and toast with coffee. Not all of us eat this way every day, but it's an example of how much we differ.
Instead of trying to become French or Greek or Italian or Indian in our cuisine, what would happen if we tried to be American? Not American like McDonald's American, but the American that blends family tradition with things like scrambled eggs. A balanced American diet, veggies and all, can be established. We don't all need to be vegetarian or vegan, but we shouldn't be carnivores either. If you were to look in any biology textbook, you could find humans classified under "omnivores". Not "herbivores" or "carnivores" but omnivores. All this debate about whether it's healthy to eat meat or not could be ended in one way. Think of you legendary great-great-great-great grandmother. The one who was living in the early to mid-nineteenth century. What if she was a pioneer? Would you go tell her that she shouldn't eat that deer her husband just shot because it had too much protein and saturated fats? Of course not! Many times, meat was what sustained these people, and it can sustain us now. Obviously, some people have taken the idea with more zeal than others, but a balanced diet can include meat, just not in excess.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
The McNugget Syndrome
I was raised on good, old-fashioned, all-American food. Meaning that, at seven, my favorite food was a hot dog. Even now, I would die for my mother's spaghetti and meatballs, not to mention the wonderful aroma of boiled ham and roasted potatoes that is at this very instant causing my stomach to growl unhappily. Very few of the dinners I eat have no meat. In fact, the only ones I can think of are ones of solely pasta. But considering my outrage about the ongoing cruelties done to pets, I have begun to question whether or not I believe they extend to livestock as well. Not to say that I believe the animal processing industry is being cruel to animals in any way, but these animals are dying.
To investigate the side against slaughter, I researched many different websites holding a surprisingly wide variety of views on the subject of the rightness of vegetarianism/veganism. The most credible website is by far PETA's, the large, nationwide group against animal cruelty. By browsing their front page, I was able to learn why someone might convert, so to speak, to a meat-free lifestyle.
First, animals are portrayed as living, breathing creatures, which they most certainly are. PETA has the cutest picture of a pig on this slide, making me regret the ham I have just consumed. Poor pig. But then there is a link to a video showing the realities of slaughterhouses. Do not click on that video if you have had anything, especially meat, to eat in the past hour. That film spares no drop of blood, no picture to get their message across; slaughterhouses do not use the latest technology to humanely kill, if such a thing exists, and animals are treated as if they were simply corn or sugar. How can that be real?
Where I live, it is easy to drive out, say fifteen miles, and see scores of cattle grazing on open fields. Not being an authority on cows, I can't honestly say if these cows are destined for a hamburger or not. But if they were, this image is totally inconsistent with the video. These cows wander up to small streams, stand in the shade, eat the remnants of a corn harvest. Even so, I can't say for sure what goes on inside a slaughterhouse. If the images in the video were correct, I never EVER want to eat another piece of meat again in my life.
Second, the PETA website makes the argument that eating meat is bad for our planet. It seems as though everything, from eating meat to planting a garden could be bad for the environment, simply because you might disturb the world of an earthworm. But no one really cares about the earthworm, do they? As humans, it has become inevitable that our every action will affect the environment in some way, although it isn't a prerequisite of humanity for the effect to be a negative one. The meat industry is said by scientists (although which scientists it is impossible to say, because no studies have been sighted for my pleasure) to release more greenhouse gases - the cause of our environmental demise - than all of our big bad SUVs, cars, trucks, planes, and ships COMBINED. If this is true (which we will never know for sure because PETA did not cite their resources), then the meat industry is in need of drastic change. Something I find easy to believe is the enormous 4000 gallons of water it takes per day to sustain a meat-eater's diet. If you take into account the amount of sanitation, consumed water, and steam needed to run machines, this number sounds right. But 4000 gallons a day... that would help our world get rid of some of the most widespread diseases in our population. Most of the world's sickness comes from lack of clean water, but here we are, ready to waste 4000 gallons PER DAY to satisfy our appetite. Apparently, 33% of the raw materials and fossil fuels we use in this country go to raise animals to die for us, a horrible, incriminating number. And lastly, the meat packing (including slaughter) industry pollutes the surrounding rivers and lakes more than any other industry. Which makes sense, if you think of all the organic matter that is in that water.
PETA appeals next to America's need for a smaller rear end. The entire page says that vegetarianism/veganism is the best thing a person can do for their health. A weight loss story (complete with shocking photos) and the assurance that you can receive all your vitamins without consuming meat complete the slide. Well America, your diet of hot dogs and hamburgers, coupled with inactivity, hasn't worked, so maybe it's time to try something new.
The rest of the slides reassure the now disgusted and unhappy reader that making the transition will be okay, the food isn't that bad if you're creative, and vegetarianism/veganism fits any one's lifestyle. PETA doesn't require money from the people they "convert", so the question is raised why does this organization care? After searching their website, I believe that these people care simply because they believe that eating meat is going against something intrinsic in humanity, something that raises our species above others. We can love, we can empathize, and we can be compassionate, so PETA is wondering why we forgo our humanity when the dinner bell rings.
But it's so much more complicated than that. Choosing this lifestyle is more than an individual decision because it affects every aspect and every person in your life. For instance, if I were to become a vegetarian, none of the rest of my family feels the way I would, so obviously we would clash. In addition, the vegetarian lifestyle is more expensive than the popular diet. Produce costs more than potato chips, and not as many things come already-packaged (which may be a good thing if you consider the amount of preservatives and additives you consume a day- it's frightening). If a person were to consider a meat-free or an animal product-free lifestyle, they should know that this decision is not to be made after seeing a shocking video. It is not to be made because they want to lose weight. As with any decision of beliefs, a radical diet change should be considered long and hard.
Animal cruelty is something that makes me sick to my stomach. However, before these last few weeks, I could only understand it as it related to pets and livestock outside of slaughter. I always believed slaughter was done in a humane fashion, although I still remain unconvinced that cruel practices are normal. Saying that, I have no experience inside a slaughterhouse and cannot say for sure what happens inside their walls. I feel as though I'm five years old again, sitting in the back seat of our family minivan, savoring some McNuggets while I ask my mother what McNuggets are made of. I remember seeing her hesitate and then tell me they're made of chickens. I had seen chickens in my farm books that made special farm noises, and eating a chicken, especially if there was a possibility that it had been fluffy, gave me a pang of guilt. My five-year-old mind soon suppressed the upsetting information and I moved on to eat more McNuggets. Somehow, I don't want to continue that state of nutritional agnoticism. Above all, I want to know the truth of the world, no matter how hard it is to hear, because truth, however revolting, will in any circumstance point to the right decision.
To investigate the side against slaughter, I researched many different websites holding a surprisingly wide variety of views on the subject of the rightness of vegetarianism/veganism. The most credible website is by far PETA's, the large, nationwide group against animal cruelty. By browsing their front page, I was able to learn why someone might convert, so to speak, to a meat-free lifestyle.
First, animals are portrayed as living, breathing creatures, which they most certainly are. PETA has the cutest picture of a pig on this slide, making me regret the ham I have just consumed. Poor pig. But then there is a link to a video showing the realities of slaughterhouses. Do not click on that video if you have had anything, especially meat, to eat in the past hour. That film spares no drop of blood, no picture to get their message across; slaughterhouses do not use the latest technology to humanely kill, if such a thing exists, and animals are treated as if they were simply corn or sugar. How can that be real?
Where I live, it is easy to drive out, say fifteen miles, and see scores of cattle grazing on open fields. Not being an authority on cows, I can't honestly say if these cows are destined for a hamburger or not. But if they were, this image is totally inconsistent with the video. These cows wander up to small streams, stand in the shade, eat the remnants of a corn harvest. Even so, I can't say for sure what goes on inside a slaughterhouse. If the images in the video were correct, I never EVER want to eat another piece of meat again in my life.
Second, the PETA website makes the argument that eating meat is bad for our planet. It seems as though everything, from eating meat to planting a garden could be bad for the environment, simply because you might disturb the world of an earthworm. But no one really cares about the earthworm, do they? As humans, it has become inevitable that our every action will affect the environment in some way, although it isn't a prerequisite of humanity for the effect to be a negative one. The meat industry is said by scientists (although which scientists it is impossible to say, because no studies have been sighted for my pleasure) to release more greenhouse gases - the cause of our environmental demise - than all of our big bad SUVs, cars, trucks, planes, and ships COMBINED. If this is true (which we will never know for sure because PETA did not cite their resources), then the meat industry is in need of drastic change. Something I find easy to believe is the enormous 4000 gallons of water it takes per day to sustain a meat-eater's diet. If you take into account the amount of sanitation, consumed water, and steam needed to run machines, this number sounds right. But 4000 gallons a day... that would help our world get rid of some of the most widespread diseases in our population. Most of the world's sickness comes from lack of clean water, but here we are, ready to waste 4000 gallons PER DAY to satisfy our appetite. Apparently, 33% of the raw materials and fossil fuels we use in this country go to raise animals to die for us, a horrible, incriminating number. And lastly, the meat packing (including slaughter) industry pollutes the surrounding rivers and lakes more than any other industry. Which makes sense, if you think of all the organic matter that is in that water.
PETA appeals next to America's need for a smaller rear end. The entire page says that vegetarianism/veganism is the best thing a person can do for their health. A weight loss story (complete with shocking photos) and the assurance that you can receive all your vitamins without consuming meat complete the slide. Well America, your diet of hot dogs and hamburgers, coupled with inactivity, hasn't worked, so maybe it's time to try something new.
The rest of the slides reassure the now disgusted and unhappy reader that making the transition will be okay, the food isn't that bad if you're creative, and vegetarianism/veganism fits any one's lifestyle. PETA doesn't require money from the people they "convert", so the question is raised why does this organization care? After searching their website, I believe that these people care simply because they believe that eating meat is going against something intrinsic in humanity, something that raises our species above others. We can love, we can empathize, and we can be compassionate, so PETA is wondering why we forgo our humanity when the dinner bell rings.
But it's so much more complicated than that. Choosing this lifestyle is more than an individual decision because it affects every aspect and every person in your life. For instance, if I were to become a vegetarian, none of the rest of my family feels the way I would, so obviously we would clash. In addition, the vegetarian lifestyle is more expensive than the popular diet. Produce costs more than potato chips, and not as many things come already-packaged (which may be a good thing if you consider the amount of preservatives and additives you consume a day- it's frightening). If a person were to consider a meat-free or an animal product-free lifestyle, they should know that this decision is not to be made after seeing a shocking video. It is not to be made because they want to lose weight. As with any decision of beliefs, a radical diet change should be considered long and hard.
Animal cruelty is something that makes me sick to my stomach. However, before these last few weeks, I could only understand it as it related to pets and livestock outside of slaughter. I always believed slaughter was done in a humane fashion, although I still remain unconvinced that cruel practices are normal. Saying that, I have no experience inside a slaughterhouse and cannot say for sure what happens inside their walls. I feel as though I'm five years old again, sitting in the back seat of our family minivan, savoring some McNuggets while I ask my mother what McNuggets are made of. I remember seeing her hesitate and then tell me they're made of chickens. I had seen chickens in my farm books that made special farm noises, and eating a chicken, especially if there was a possibility that it had been fluffy, gave me a pang of guilt. My five-year-old mind soon suppressed the upsetting information and I moved on to eat more McNuggets. Somehow, I don't want to continue that state of nutritional agnoticism. Above all, I want to know the truth of the world, no matter how hard it is to hear, because truth, however revolting, will in any circumstance point to the right decision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)