HW 17

First Thoughts On The Illness/Dying Unit:

  Death is the one certainty in life, and accepting its finality is hard for anyone. Facing one's own death with equanimity is hard for people in many situations. Much harder is the acceptance that those near and dear to one will also die, when feelings of grief and anger, and of loss and often loneliness, are inevitable. Such feelings are worse when a life has ended prematurely. In view of this, it is scarcely surprising that so many people, whether religious or not, consciously shut the concept of death out of their minds and only face up to it and cope as best they can when they have to. This pattern is particularly common in countries where death is no longer an everyday event and has become virtually a taboo subject. People in many western countries often go through life never having seen a dead body.

  A social norm on death and illness would be to ignore it, the whole out of sight out of mind theory. Both death and illness have a lot of baggage to begin with. They both bring experiences, memories, and emotions making them one of the topics that people don't talk about a lot.Plus there is a whole negative vibe that most people get from it. Firstly life is short and thats an indisputable fact. Also from the moment one is born they are dying. People fear what they cannot understand and death is not understandable Since death is forever and its also inevitable its a topic which makes people feel uneasy.                       

  In my own experiences with death it has numbed my senses towards it, partly because Ive lost a lot of people in my life.Ive been taught not to shun the idea of death and since I know its inevitable that made me want to embrace its concept rather than avoid it. That wasn't true for my whole life. The first time I lost someone I never wanted to talk about death again, but after the 4th funeral I went to I realized that this is something that just happens.

  One thing that I found really interesting was how humans view death differently from animals.One of the single most important characteristics that separates humans from animals is not that we speak, or have technology or intelligence, or use forks and spoons, but the fact that humans are the only creatures that are aware/cognizant of their own mortality. 


Thoughts:
There is an African tribe that has a saying that when interpreted goes like this: "Unlike the birds, man knows that he will eventually die; thus he will never fly free"

HW# 12

Over-Arching Thesis: Sustainable and humane alternatives to nightmarish dominant social practices in our culture fail the tests of scalability, achievability, and/or desirability  

Major Supporting Argument: Due to the changes that would have to occur in the social practices of the people and the food industry, alternatives to the nightmarish practices are out of reach

Supporting Claim #1: Although some changes have been made not enough major ones have been made

Evidence #1: Political system would have to change
Evidence #2:  People don’t want to eat healthy
Evidence #3: Prices of better foods would have to drop

Supporting Claim #2 Changes that can be made are being limited

Evidence #1: Infiltration of the food industry in government
Evidence #2: Dropping Economy
Evidence #3: Dominant social practices

HW #11

  For my final experience in the food unit I decided that I would go on a fast for 2-3 days, this depended how I felt on the 2nd day. The reason I decided to do this was that after learning from our food unit course, food nowadays is taken for granted. What I mean by this is how since food is so easily accessible (there is a Mc Donald’s everywhere) it is taken for granted; also it is very cheap adding on to how accessible food is. I also learned from one of the films that 25% of the food produced by the industry is thrown out. I decided that this fast would be a good way to experience what a large percentage of the world goes through daily.

  After taking on the assignment I thought I should make some rules so that halfway through I don’t cheat myself out of the experience. At first I was just going to eat nothing and drink nothing but when my mom heard about this she thought that if I was to get sick it would be "cumbersome" if she had to go to a doctor, so she "suggested" that I at least have liquids. So I had to change the rules, I would have liquids (water only because in a third world country I don’t think they have soda). Also I intended on "stocking up" before the fast because I didn’t know how I would do during it, but after serious debate I ate before the fast but not enough for three people. Lastly I would decide if it was going to remain 2 or go to 3 days on the second day, now I was ready to fast.

 When I awoke the morning of the fast I knew I could not eat that day, and I love to eat, but surprisingly that still did not bother me (proberablly cause in the morning I’m not that hungry). So while my siblings ate cereal I got 2 cups of water and went to school. At lunch although I was kind of hungry so I got a bottle of water and went about as usual. On the way home I spoke with one of my old teachers and told him I was fasting after telling me of a time he fasted for 10 days I felt encouraged and missed my dinner without being bothered. (What also helped was the fact that I hid in my room) I thought to myself this isn’t so hard and went to bed. The next morning it hit me like a bag of bricks, ....I’m hungry. I was able to miss breakfast by leaving for school earlier, and man I never knew I would miss a bowl of Frosted Flakes like I did. At school I knew lunch was around the corner and I didn’t trust myself, so to keep me from buying something I left my money at home even though during lunch I wish I hadn’t because I wanted to drink something. When I got home throughout the day I drunk water, but I was miserable I wanted food, I was tired of watching my friends and family eat all this food. After dinner and another 3 cups of water I decided that 2 days was going to be my limit for now, and at 12:01 I had rice and happily went to bed. My fast was over.

 A famous English novelist and critic by the name Aldous Huxley once stated that “Most human beings have an absolute and infinite capacity for taking things for granted”. Here in America food is very accessible more than we think. Here in America we don’t think about not having food because food is cheap, and food is everywhere. A thought came to mind after my fast, I couldn’t make it to 3 days but there are people who don’t eat for weeks at a time. Also during my fast water was in abundance, while in other places there is a scarcity in water. Even though America at the moment is going through an economic decline, no one is dying of starvation and our currency is holding strong. When compared with the economy of a country like Zimbabwe, which is also going through major economic issues, America couldn’t even come close in a comparison. The economic situation there is so bad and their currency is so weak that in January of this year they introduced a 50,000,000,000 note. They are now even introducing plans to issue 10, 20, 50, and 100 trillion bank notes. What made my fast have any importance at all was the fact that it helped me to get an understanding of peoples (and my own) ignorance of abundance. This is important because like Micheal Pollan tried to say in his book, it is important that people can get an understanding of what they are doing and not be ignorant of their food ways.

Food Inc. Response

  The main theme of the movie was, how much do we really know about the food we buy and eat. The film showed us the dark truth behind the food we eat how it is run by a food empire which turns our food into "food" from tortured and infested meat to the cycle of endless pesticides. The authors thought that it is important for the viewers to learn and do something about their food ways because it’s a very important issue, just as Michael Pollan said: "I think it's one of the most important battles for consumers to fight: the right to know what's in their food, and how it was grown."

  One of the differences between the movie and book was the movie was more emotional, and the book was more intellectual. What I mean by that is how the movie was made to "tug on the heart strings" due to the graphic horror displayed in the film, the book on the other hand although it said that there was all these terrible things but seeing is believing. When it comes to the intellectual side, in the book you get to form your own opinion since Omnivores Dilemma showed evidence for both sides, while movies are usually made to be one sided and makes the watcher lean towards one side of the argument. Also the book was trying to give the reader greater knowledge of the situation (to make them scholars) and not necessarily that they will change their food habits but just to be informed, unlike the movie.

  After watching the movie and reading the book I find myself actually looking at the nutrition’s fact on the covers of the things I buy. Although my diet has not changed that (We don’t buy ground beef anymore, but I still eat fast food) much I feel more aware of what’s in the food I eat.    One thing I thought that was very important was how the author described how we should eat:"For we no longer need any reminding that however we choose to feed ourselves, we eat by the grace of nature, not industry". I think it’s important not to eat ignorantly, industrially, and after reading and watching I can make decisions and be conscious of them.

 

HW 7d

Omnivores Dilemma, Michael Pollan

Chapter 17:
Precis:
"The food we're eating once had feelings?....."
The phrase above might sound stupid but people nowadays are "just" now realizing this. The foods we eat were once animals and as living things they had feelings. The fact that we slaughter (note that I didn’t say kill, that be down playing the situation, I said slaughter) animals unrelentlessly and without restraint is sad, and it should come as no surprise that people would want to become vegetarians or would'nt want to pay no mind to the situation, because when given to much thought its disgusting (guess that’s why the author was reading an animal’s rights book in a steakhouse).

Gems:
"Nowadays it seems we either look away or become vegetarians. For my own part, neither opinion seemed especially appetizing; certainly looking away was now completely off the table. Which might explain how it was that I found myself attempting to read Peter Singer in a steakhouse"(page 307
"No other country raises and slaughters its food animals as intensively or as brutal as we do."(Page 333)


Thoughts:
 In kindergarten we were thought the word "Pig" and learned that it was an animal, but now were taught the word "pig" and learned that it’s a commodity. This not only goes for "pig" but for other animals as well not to mention plants. Although there is the inevitable fact that animals will be killed, (There will always be a person with a crave for fatty proteins, just as there is a crave for sugar) there is no need for it to be so brutal in abundance.


Chapter 18:
Precis:
 Hunting at one point in time was a natural way for humans to get food. Based on genetics also it would seem that it is somewhat hereditary in the way that. Besides this is the way things were done before the "magic" of agriculture came in the picture.

Gems:
"The fact that you cannot come out of hunting feeling unambiguously good about it is perhaps what should commend the practice to us"(page 361)
"Perhaps it is the joy of a creature succeeding at something he has discovered his nature has superbly equipped him to do, an action that is less a perversion of that nature, his "creaturely character'" than a fulfillment of it."(Page 361)

Thoughts:
As stated in another post the death of animals is inevitable, but when it comes to how it is killed that’s where it varies. The differences between a hunter's kill and a slaughterhouses' slaughter is huge. I’ve went hunting three times now (for turkey and deer) and one thing we were told was that we were never to just harm the animal and to kill it as quickly as possible firstly for the fact that an injured animal is a dangerous animal and for the fact that its just wrong to see in animal in pain or tortured. I remember my first kill: I shot a bird, clipping it underneath the wing. As I ran up to it to kill it, I remember feeling a bit weird since I was up and close ending a life(of course it ended a couple of seconds later after the adrenaline and praise from the others came in). I find this interesting because a hunter kills an animal that has been "living its life" until then, while a slaughterhouses animal has been "living a life set out for it" until it’s slaughtered.


Chapter 19:
Precis:
People naturally have urges to see if they still have the skills to provide for themselves wither it be hunting for animals or plants. Although people downplay plants when comparing them to hunting for animals, they in themselves are a challenge, mushrooms especially. Mushrooms unlike garden plants need to be hunted for. They don’t beg to be picked like an apple or orange that flashes its bright colors and is usually in the eye level area, while in the contrast fungi is not brightly colored and actually "hide" itself. Guess that’s why one hunts for mushrooms instead of harvesting them.

Gems:
 "An economy organized around a complex division of labor can usually get these jobs done for a fraction of the cost, in time or money, that it takes us to do them ourselves, yet something in us apparently seeks conformation that we still have the skills needed to provide for ourselves. You know, just in case."(Page 364)
"Oh, it can be hard work, hunting and gathering, but in the end it isn’t really the work that produces the food you’re after, this effort for that result for there’s no sure correlation between effort and result. (Page 389)

Thoughts:
When you take time to think about it hunting for mushrooms is no joke. Based on what was said in the chapter, you can get lost trying to find them. Not only that but when someone harvests food they usually don’t have to worry about dying if one eats the wrong kind. Make me wonder how it worked when humans first started eating mushrooms? (Trial and error comes to mind, but error would just be death. No pressure.)


Chapter 20
Precis:
What is a perfect meal?...
To some that might be mashed potatoes with steak, and others a BigMac with extra secret sauce. To the author, a meal in which one is totally aware to what they are eating. Although he is not trying to convince us to sharpen the spears of our ancestors he reminds us that people should eat "by the grace of nature", rather than in full ignorance, eat industrially.

Gems:
"It's impossible to prepare and eat a meal quite so physically, intellectually, and emotionally costly without thinking about the incalculably larger debts we incur when we eat industrially"(Page 410)
"For we no longer need any reminding that however we choose to feed ourselves, we eat by the grace of nature, not industry, and what were eating is never anything more or less than the body of the world."(Page 411)

Thoughts:
 Michael Pollan is one of the few people in America that in full consciousness ate a meal in which he knew what he was eating. What I mean by that is he knew where I came from, how it got on his table and what it truly cost to get it. Not a lot of people can say they caught, grew, and saw their food from start to finish! This really makes me consider what a world without fast-food would be like. A day where food is neither fast or slow but as the author puts it, food would be food, a time when people eat with a idea of what they are doing.

Freakonomics Response

 One of the tools that the economics used from their tool box would be evidence to find the truth, a more specific name; causation. This is seen in the experiment they did at the school. The author was betting on the fact that if given the incentive one will try to work over an obstacle to get it, in this case it was money for the winner’s college. They offered money to the kids for something they did not want to do, so most kids did not work for it. In the end of the experiment a low percentage of the kids actually improved their grades. Another tool used would be surveys. Throughout the whole thing surveys were heavily used like when they were trying to show if names affected ones success rate. The one in particular was the dad that named his son Winner and Loser. Although one would expect that their names would imply their destiny the outcome was on the contrary, Loser grew up to be a success and Winner wound up a convict. They also tried to read between the lines. Sumo was supposed to be a sport buried in honor and culture but if one takes the time to look at the data one can easily see how cheating was in plain sight.

The author’s acknowledge the lack of evidence behind correlation. Correlation is when things are tied together but no one knows what caused what, and causation is when one can tell what caused what. In the movie they proved the actual causation of the issue in their example. They showed the difference between correlation and causation in the example of the crime rate growing down. According to all the charts people would believe that crime went down in the 1990 because of the rise in the police force (correlation), when the actual solution was that abortion was legalized and thus reduced the birth of babies and bad neighborhoods (causation).

I would have to agree with the statement: "Freakonomics serves as an inspiration and good example to our attempt to explore the "hidden-in-plain-sight" weirdness of dominant social practices". Although I wouldn’t say it did a very good job of it, due to the fact that it did not talk about the "weirdness" of dominant social practices, but it did talk about dominant social practices. It mainly stuck to the idea that opportunities/incentives matter. People tend to make/pick opportunities that work for them. This connects back to our investigation of U.S food ways in the way most would rather plant, grow, and use corn for most things rather then grass. Farmers would rather grow corn than grass because there is a bigger incentive that they actually want to work towards; Its fast and produces more money and the consequence of not growing it would be going broke.

Growing Your Own Food

I didnt know what to eat it with at first, but finally I made a tuna sprout sandwhich with cheese:

 Although it did not have the best flavor, the fact that I grew my own food is a really cool experience. This is so because I saw the plant as a seed and then saw it turn to a plant and then (less exciting) eat it. The fact that I knew where it came from made me want to enjoy it even more, like when I grew tomatoes in my backyard. Every time I put it in a sandwich I know that its fresh and you can actually taste a difference, juicier redder. In conclusion I wouldn’t say the experience was magical, but rather satisfactory.